Benito Macam vs. Court of Appeals

BENITO MACAM doing business under the name and style BEN-MAC ENTERPRISES, vs.
COURT OF
APPEALS, CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING CO., and/or WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC.
ONE LINER: The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers terminates when it is delivered,
actually or constructively, by the carrier to (1) the consignee, or (2) to the person who has a right to
receive them.
FACTS: On 4 April 1989 petitioner Benito Macam, doing business under the name and style Ben-Mac
Enterprises, shipped on board the vessel Nen Jiang, owned and operated by respondent China Ocean
Shipping Co., through local agent respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (hereinafter WALLEM),
3,500 boxes of watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes. Both shipments were covered by their
respective Bills of Lading and were exported through Letters of Credit issued by the National Bank of
Pakistan (Pakistan Bank). The Bills of Lading contained the following pertinent provision: "One of the
Bills of Lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order." The
shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great Prospect Company of
Kowloon, Hongkong (hereinafter 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 pay PAKISTAN BANK, such that the latter, still in possession of original bill of lading (So hantod
sa hantod ha, si Pakistan Bank jud ang nagdala sa 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 shipper’s 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.
ISSUE: WoN China Ocea Shipping Co and WALLEM are liable to Ben Macam for releasing the goods to
GPC without the bills of lading or bank guarantee?
HELD: No.
Article 1736 of the Civil Code provides -
Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same
are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right
to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.
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. Macam 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.
Based on the testimony of the petitioners, it has been the practice of petitioner to request the shipping
lines to immediately release perishable cargoes such as watermelons and fresh mangoes through
telephone calls by himself or his people. In his several years of business relationship with GPC and
respondents, there was not a single instance when the bill of lading was first presented before the
release of the cargoes.
Moreover, he admitted that it was his practice to ask the shipping lines to immediately release shipment
of perishable goods through telephone calls by himself or his people, upon its arrival at the port of
destination without requiring presentation of the bill of lading as that usually takes time. He also no
longer required presentation of a bill of lading nor of a bank guarantee as a condition to releasing the
goods in case he was already fully paid. Thus, taking into account that subject shipment consisted of
perishable goods and SOLIDBANK pre-paid the full amount of the 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.
Basta ang point is (based sa ako pagsabot) ingon si Macam, ang consignee daw na gibutang sa Bill of
Lading kay ang Bank, dli ang GPC (notify party lang daw ang GPC) nya wa sad daw nagpresent ug Bill of
Lading before gikuha ang goods. However, based sa export invoice, demand letter ug complaint ni
Macam, GPC was clearly named as buyer/importer. Therefore, according to Art. 1736 there was proper
delivery na kay ang GPC mahulog na, person other than the consignee who has a right to receive the
goods. Moreover, practice na daw na nila in case of perishable goods na i-effect ang delivery without
presenting the bill of lading.

Benito Macam vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benito Macam vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Benito Macam vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENITO MACAM doing business under the name and style BEN-MAC ENTERPRISES, vs.

Article 1736 of the Civil Code provides -

You might also like