Chrsyler Vs CA

G.R. No.
L-55684 December 19, 1984 Brokerage and Negros Navigation, but both denied any
liability.
CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,
petitioner, In its Answer, Sambok, Bacolod, denied having received
vs. from petitioner or from any of its co-defendants, the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and automotive products referred to in the Complaint, and
SAMBOK MOTORS CO. (BACOLOD), respondents, professed no knowledge of having ordered from
petitioner said articles.
Reyes, Santayana, Tayao & Picazo Law Office for
petitioner. Upon a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner and
Allied Brokerage, the Trial Court. on October 23, 1975,
Alampay, Alvero & Alampay Law Office for private dismissed the case with prejudice against Allied
respondent. Brokerage for lack of cause of action, and also dismissed
the latter's counterclaim against petitioner.
On July 31, 1978, the Trial Court rendered its Decision

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J: dismissing the Complaint against Negros Navigation for
lack of cause of action, but finding Sambok, Bacolod,
Subject of this Petition for Review is the Decision of the liable for the claim of petitioner, thus:
then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 65328-R
reversing the judgment of the then Court of First PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court renders judgment
Instance of Rizal, Branch XX, in Civil Case No. 16624, as follows:
and dismissing petitioner Chrysler Philippines
Corporation's suit for Damages against private (1) The complaint against defendant Negros Navigation
respondent Sambok Motors Company (Bacolod) arising is dismissed for lack of cause of action.
from breach of contract.
(2) Defendant Sambok Motors Co. (Bacolod) is ordered
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the to pay plaintiff Chrysler Philippines Corporation:
assembling and sale of motor vehicles and other
automotive products. Respondent Sambok Motors Co., a (a) The sum of Thirty-One Thousand Thirty Seven
general partnership, during the period relevant to these Pesos and Fifty Six Centavos (P31,037.56) with interest
proceedings, was its dealer for automotive products with at the rate of twelve percent (12) per annum from
offices at Bacolod (Sambok, Bacolod) and Iloilo January 1, 1971 until fully paid;
(Sambok, Iloilo). The two offices were run by relatives.
Miguel Ng was Assistant Manager for Sambok, (b) The sum of Five Thousand Pesos as and for
Bacolod, while an elder brother, Pepito Ng, was the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation;
President. 1
(c) The costs of the suit.
On September 7, 1972, petitioner filed with the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Branch XX, Pasig, Rizal, a (3) The counterclaim of defendant Negros Navigation
Complaint for Damages against Allied Brokerage and Sambok Motors Co. (Bacolod) are dismissed for
Corporation, Negros Navigation Company and Sambok, lack of merit.
Bacolod, alleging that on October 2, 1970, Sambok,
Bacolod, ordered from petitioner various automotive The case against Negros Navigation was dismissed for
products worth P30,909.61, payable in 45 days; that on failure of petitioner and Sambok, Bacolod, to file the
November 25, 1970, petitioner delivered said products to necessary notices and claims as conditions precedent for
its forwarding agent, Allied Brokerage Corporation, for a judicial action. 2
shipment; that Allied Brokerage loaded the goods on
board the M/S Doa Florentina, a vessel owned and On the other hand, the Trial Court found that the act of
operated by Negros Navigation Company, for delivery to Sambok, Bacolod, "in refusing to take delivery of the
Sambok, Bacolod; that when petitioner tried to collect shipment for no justifiable reason from Negros
from the latter the amount of P31,037.56, representing Navigation despite having received the Bill of Lading
the price of the spare parts plus handling charges, constituted wrongful neglect or refusal to accept and pay
Sambok, Bacolod, refused to pay claiming that it had not for the subject shipment, by reason of which defendant
received the merchandise; that petitioner also demanded Sambok Motors may be held liable for damages."
the return of the merchandise or their value from Allied
1
Sambok, Bacolod, appealed. On November 26, 1980, spare parts that it purchased from the petitioner after
respondent Appellate Court set aside the appealed having been notified of the shipment constitutes
judgment and dismissed petitioner's Complaint, after wrongful neglect resulting in the loss of the cargo for
finding that the latter had not performed its part of the which it should be liable in damages to the petitioner.
obligation under the contract by not delivering the goods
at Sambok, Iloilo, the place designated in the Parts Order To our minds, the matter of misdelivery is not the
Form (Exhibits "A", "A-1" to "A-6"), and must, decisive factor for relieving Sambok, Bacolod, of
therefore, suffer the loss. In other words, respondent liability herein. While it may be that the Parts Order
Appellate Court found. that there was misdelivery. Form (E exhibits "A", "A-1" to "A-6") specifically
indicated Iloilo as the destination, as testified to by
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, with the Ernesto Ordonez, Parts Sales Representative of
following errors assigned to respondent Court: petitioner, 3 Sambok, Bacolod, and Sambok, Iloilo, are
actually one. In fact, admittedly, the order for spare parts
I was made by the President of Sambok, Pepito Ng,
through its marketing consultant. Notwithstanding, upon
The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that receipt of the Bill of Lading, Sambok, Bacolod, initiated,
the issue of misshipment or misdelivery of the but did not pursue, steps to take delivery as they were
automotive spare parts involved in the litigation was advised by Negros Navigation that because some parts
raised by the private respondent Sambok Motors Co. were missing. they would just be informed as soon as the
(Bacolod) in the Trial Court. missing parts were located. 4
II It was only four years later, however, or in 1974, when a

warehouseman of Negros Navigation, Severino Aguarte,
The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in refusing to found in their off-shore bodega, parts of the shipment.-
apply the provisions of Section 18, Rule 46 of the in question, but already deteriorated and valueless. 5
Revised Rules of Court quoted below, that since the
question of misshipment or misdelivery was not raised Under the circumstances, Sambok, Bacolod, cannot be
by the private respondent in the Trial Court, this issue faulted for not accepting or refusing to accept the
cannot for the first time be raised on appeal. shipment from Negros Navigation four years after
shipment. The evidence is clear that Negros Navigation
Section 18. Questions that may be raised on appeal. could not produce the merchandise nor ascertain its
Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new whereabouts at the time Sambok, Bacolod, was ready to
trial in the court below, he may include in his take delivery. Where the seller delivers to the buyer a
assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the
been raised in the court below and which is within the buyer may reject them. 6
issues framed by the parties.
From the evidentiary record, Negros Navigation was the
III party negligent in failing to deliver the complete
shipment either to Sambok, Bacolod, or to Sambok,
The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that Iloilo, but as the Trial Court found, petitioner failed to
the private respondent gave the alleged instruction to the comply with the conditions precedent to the filing of a
petitioner to ship the automotive spare parts to Iloilo judicial action. Thus, in the last analysis, it is petitioner
City and not to Bacolod City. that must shoulder the resulting loss. The general rule
that before, delivery, the risk of loss is home by the
IV seller who is still the owner, under the principle of "res
petit domino", 7 is applicable in petitioner's case.
The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the defendant Negros Navigation notified the private In sum, the judgment of respondent Appellate Court,
respondent of the arrival of the shipment at Bacolod will have to be sustained not on the basis of misdelivery
City. but on non-delivery since the merchandise was never
placed in the control and possession of Sambok,
V Bacolod, the vendee. 8
The Respondent Court of Appeals erred in reversing the WHEREFORE, we hereby affirm the Decision of the
decision of the Trial Court that the act of the private then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 65328-R, without
respondent in refusing to take delivery of the automotive pronouncement as to costs.
2
SO ORDERED.

Chrsyler Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chrsyler Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chrsyler Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

On July 31, 1978, the Trial Court rendered its Decision

II It was only four years later, however, or in 1974, when a

You might also like