Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Benito Macam v. CA, China Ocean Shipping Co. And/or Wallem Phils., Shipping Inc

    Uploaded by

    JOHAYNIE
    Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co. The bills of lading listed Pakistan Bank as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party. Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading, and GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank. The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the delivery to GPC, finding that a telex instruction permitted releasing the perishable goods to the notify party/buyer GPC without bills of lading given prepayment of charges. The Court concluded the carriers were not liable given the telex instruction and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Benito Macam v. CA, China Ocean Shipping Co. And/or Wallem Phils., Shipping Inc

    Uploaded by

    JOHAYNIE
    86 views1 page
    Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co. The bills of lading listed Pakistan Bank as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party. Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading, and GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank. The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the delivery to GPC, finding that a telex instruction permitted releasing the perishable goods to the notify party/buyer GPC without bills of lading given prepayment of charges. The Court concluded the carriers were not liable given the telex instruction and

    Original Description:

    Macam Case

    Original Title

    Benito Macam

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co. The bills of lading listed Pakistan Bank as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party. Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading, and GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank. The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the delivery to GPC, finding that a telex instruction permitted releasing the perishable goods to the notify party/buyer GPC without bills of lading given prepayment of charges. The Court concluded the carriers were not liable given the telex instruction and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    Benito Macam v. CA, China Ocean Shipping Co. And/or Wallem Phils., Shipping Inc

    Uploaded by

    JOHAYNIE
    Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co. The bills of lading listed Pakistan Bank as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party. Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading, and GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank. The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the delivery to GPC, finding that a telex instruction permitted releasing the perishable goods to the notify party/buyer GPC without bills of lading given prepayment of charges. The Court concluded the carriers were not liable given the telex instruction and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Benito Macam v. CA, China Ocean Shipping Co. and/or Wallem Phils.

    ,
    Shipping Inc.
    Facts: Benito Macam, doing business under name Ben-Mac Enterprises, shipped on board
    vessel Nen-Jiang, owned and operated by respondent China Ocean Shipping Co. through
    local agent Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc., 3,500 boxes of watermelon covered by Bill of
    Lading No. HKG 99012, and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes covered by Bill of Lading No. HKG
    99013. The shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and
    Great Prospect Company of Rowloon (GPC) as notify party.
    Upon arrival in Hongkong, shipment was delivered by respondent WALLEM directly to GPC,
    not to PAKISTAN BANK and without the required bill of lading having been surrendered.
    Subsequently, GPC failed to payPAKISTAN BANK, such that the latter, still in possession of
    original bill of lading, refused to pay petitioner thru SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK
    already pre-paid the value of shipment, it demanded payment from respondent WALLEM but
    was refused. MACAM constrained to return the amount paid by SOLIDBANK and demanded
    payment from WALLEM but to no avail.
    WALLEM submitted in evidence a telex dated 5 April 1989 as basis for delivering the
    cargoes to GPC without the bills of lading and bank guarantee. The telex instructed delivery
    of various shipments to the respective consignees without need of presenting the bill of
    lading and bank guarantee per the respective shippers request since for prepaid shipt
    ofrt charges already fully paid. MACAM, however, argued that, assuming there was such
    an instruction, the consignee referred to was PAKISTAN BANK and not GPC.
    The RTC ruled for MACAM and ordered value of shipment. CA reversedRTCs decision.

    the bills of lading or bank guarantee?


    Held: It is a standard maritime practice when immediate delivery is of the essence, for
    shipper to request or instruct the carrier to deliver the goods to the buyer upon arrival at the
    port of destination without requiring presentation of bill of lading as that usually takes
    time. Thus, taking into account that subject shipment consisted of perishable goods and
    SOLIDBANK pre-paid the full amount of value thereof, it is not hard to believe the claim of
    respondent WALLEM that petitioner indeed requested the release of the goods to GPC
    without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee.
    To implement the said telex instruction, the delivery of the shipment must be to GPC, the
    notify party or real importer/buyer of the goods and not the PAKISTANI BANK since the latter
    can very well present the original Bills of Lading in its possession. Likewise, if it were the
    PAKISTANI BANK to whom the cargoes were to be strictly delivered, it will no longer be
    proper torequire a bank guarantee as a substitute for the Bill of Lading. To construe
    otherwise will render meaningless the telex instruction. After all, the cargoes consist of
    perishable fresh fruits and immediate delivery thereof the buyer/importer is essentially a
    factor to reckon with.
    We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until
    actual or constructive delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a
    right to receive them. PAKISTAN BANK was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee
    whereas GPC was the notify party. However, in the export invoices GPC was clearly named
    as buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to
    respondent WALLEM and in his complaint before the trial court. This premise draws us to
    conclude that the delivery of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which, conformably
    with Art. 1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to receive them was proper.

    Issue: Are the respondents liable to the petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without

    You might also like