Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Gabriel Pachoro
warehouse receipts law digest
warehouse receipts law digest

More info:

Published by: Gabriel Pachoro on Jul 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Estrada v. Court of Agrarian RelationsGR Nos. L-17481 and L-17537 to L-17559August 15, 1961FACTS:
The petition filed by the petitioners under dateof June 10, 1961, asking that the manager of theMoncada Bonded Warehouse and respondentFaustino F. Galvan be declared in contempt of court and punished accordingly. Court resolvedon January 6, 1961 granting in favor of the petitionersOn April 12, 1961, petitioners allege that themanager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse iscontinuing to refuse to comply with the aboveCourt resolution unless the original of thereceipts of palay deposits be presented andsurrendered to him.Petitioners could not present any receipt tosurrender due to the fact that a fire has destroyedthe receipts
WON warehouseman could release the palay without the surrender of the originalreceipt
That the manager of the Moncada BondedWarehouse and respondent Faustino F. Galvanwere duly served with notice of the aboveresolutions, and that notwithstanding suchservice of notice and in spite of repeateddemands, the manager of the Moncada BondedWarehouse and respondent Faustino F. Galvanrefused and still refuse to comply with the aboveorders of this Court, the former, for the reasonthat petitioners could not surrender to him theoriginal of the warehouse receipts issued for the palay in question, and the latter, because, as healleged in his answer to the motion for contempt, he could not locate any more saidreceipts
"as they were scattered, misplaced, destroyed or lost when the contents of the Office of said respondent-appellee, Faustino F. Galvan, in theGalvan-Cabrera Building in Ylaya Street, Manila, were being desperately evacuated therefrom during the fire which burned the Divisoria market and said Galvan-Cabrera Building in Ylaya Street, Manila, in the latter  part of May, 1961." 
The excuses respectively offered by the manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse andrespondent Faustino F. Galvan are not withoutsome merits.The former unquestionably had the right to protect the interest of the bonded warehouse of which he was manager, as the warehousereceipts issued for the palay in question mighthave been for the value in favor of innocent third parties; and the latter, or Faustino F. Galvan,might have in fact lost said warehouse receiptsin the manner above stated, for his allegation tothe effect in his answer to petitioners' motion for contempt until now has not been contradicted.Such incidents, however, do not constitute avalid excuse to evade compliance with the order of this Court that the palay in question bedelivered to the petitioners, and, considering thatthe petitioners, according to the manifestationfiled by their counsel under date of August 3,1961, are in dire need of said palay for their subsistence, our order must be carried out in themeantime that this cases have not been finallydecided in order to ameliorate the precarioussituation in which said petitioners findthemselves.
Where the court ordered the manager of the bonded warehouse to deliver the deposited palay to certain specified parties, and the person ordered to present the original warehouse receipts failed todo so because they were allegedly lost in a fire, the court may order said manager to releasethe palay to the proper parties upon their issuing a receipt therefore without necessity of producing and surrendering the original receipts
Consolidated Terminals Inc v. ArtexDevelopment Co IncGR No. L-25748March 10, 1975
CTI was the operator of a customs bondedwarehouse located at Port Area, Manila. Itreceived on deposit one hundred ninety-three(193) bales of high density compressed rawcotton valued at P99,609.76. It was understoodthat CTI would keep the cotton in behalf of Luzon Brokerage Corporation until theconsignee thereof, Paramount Textile Mills,Inc., had opened the corresponding letter of credit in favor of shipper, Adolph HansliCotton of Corpus Christi, Texas.Allegedly by virtue of a forged permit to deliver imported goods, purportedly issued by theBureau of Customs, Artex was able to obtaindelivery of the bales of cotton on November 5and 6, 1964 after paying CTI P15,000 as storageand handling charges. At the time themerchandise was released to Artex, the letter of credit had not yet been opened and the customsduties and taxes due on the shipment had not been paid.CTI, in its original complaint, sought to recover  possession of the cotton by means of a writ of replevin. The writ could not be executed.CTI then filed an amended complaint bytransforming its original complaint into anaction for the recovery from Artex oP99,609.76 as compensatory damages, P10,000as nominal and exemplary damages and P20,000as attorney's fees.It should be clarified that CTI in its affidavit for manual delivery of personal property and in paragraph 7 of its original complaint alleged thatArtex acquired the cotton from ParamountTextile Mills, Inc., the consignee.Artex filed a motion to dismiss. Artex allegedthat it was not shown in the delivery permit thatArtex was the entity that presented thatdocument to the CTI. Artex further averred thatit returned the cotton to Paramount TextileMills, Inc. when the contract of sale betweenthem was rescinded because the cotton did notconform to the stipulated specifications as toquality. No copy of the rescissory agreementwas attached to Artex's motion to dismiss.CFI Manila dismissed the amended complaintfor lack of cause of action. Since plaintiff CTI isonly a warehouseman and according to theamended complaint, CTI was already paid thewarehousing and handling charges of the 193 bales of high density compressed raw cottonmentioned in the complaint, the plaintiff can nolonger recover for its services as warehouseman.The alleged presentation of a forged permit todeliver imported goods by the defendant did notgive rise to a cause of action in favor of CTI butin favor of the Bureau of Customs and of theconsignee.Also, the fact that the delivery of the goods wasobtained by the defendant without opening thecorresponding letter of credit cannot be the basisof a cause of action of CTI because such failureof the defendant to open the letter of credit givesrise to a cause of action in favor of the shipper of the goods and not in favor of CTI.On appeal, CTI contends that, as warehouseman,it was entitled to the possession (should berepossession) of the bales of cotton and thatArtex acted wrongfully in depriving CTI of the possession of the merchandise because Artex presented a falsified delivery permit and shouldtherefore pay damages to CTI.
WON CTI has a cause of action againstArtex in its action to repossess the goods
DENIAL of the CFI ManilaAFFIRMEDThe only statutory rule cited by CTI is section10 of the Warehouse Receipts Law which provides that "where a warehouseman deliversthe goods to one who is not in fact lawfullyentitled to the possession of them, thewarehouseman shall be liable as for conversionto all having a right of property or possession inthe goods ..."We hold that CTI's appeal has not merit. Itsamended complaint does not clearly show that,as warehouseman, it has a cause of action for damages against Artex. The real partiesinterested in the bales of cotton were LuzonBrokerage Corporation as depositor, Paramount
Textile Mills, Inc. as consignee, Adolph Hanslik Cotton as shipper and the Commissioners of Customs and Internal Revenue with respect tothe duties and taxes.These parties have not sued CTI for damages or for recovery of the bales of cotton or thecorresponding taxes and duties. The case mighthave been different if it was alleged in theamended complaint that the depositor, consigneeand shipper had required CTI to pay damages, or that the Commissioners of Customs and InternalRevenue had held CTI liable for the duties andtaxes. In such a case, CTI might logically andsensibly go after Artex for having wrongfullyobtained custody of the merchandise.But that eventuality has not arisen in this case.So, CTI's basic action to recover the value of themerchandise seems to be untenable.
 It was not the owner of the cotton
. How could it be entitledto claim the value of the shipment?In other words, on the basis of the allegations of the amended complaint, the lower court couldnot render a valid judgment in accordance withthe prayer thereof. It could not render such valid judgment because the amended complaint didnot unequivocally allege what right of CTI wasviolated by Artex against CTI which would justify the latter in recovering the value of balesof cotton even if it was not the owner thereof.
 A warehouseman has no cause of 
action for repossession and damages against a person towhom it delivered deposited articles on the basis of analleged falsified delivery permit where the real partiesinterested in the questioned articles have not yet sued thewarehouseman for damages on account of 
 said wrongful delivery
Philippine National Bank v. Noah’s ArSugar RefineryGR No. 107243September 1, 1993FACTS:
 Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery issued on severaldates warehouse receipts (
) as follows:
March 1, 1989, receipt No. 18062covering sugar deposited by Rosa Sy
March 7, 1989, receipt No. 18080covering sugar deposited by RNSMerchandising (Rosa Ng Sy)
March 21, 1989, receipt No. 18081covering sugar deposited by RNSMerchandising
March 31, 1989, receipt No. 18086covering sugar deposited by St. ThereseMerchandising
April 1, 1989, receipt No. 18087covering sugar deposited by RNSMerchandisingThe receipts are substantially in the form, andcontain the terms, prescribed for negotiablewarehouse receipts by Section 2 of the law.Subsequently, warehouse receipts Numbered18080 and 18081 (covering sugar deposited byRNS Merchandising) were negotiated andindorsed to Luis T. Ramos; and receipts Numbered 18086 (sugar of St. ThereseMerchandising), 18087 (sugar of RNSMerchandising) and 18062 (sugar of Rosa Sy)were negotiated and indorsed to Cresencia K.Zoleta.Zoleta and Ramos then used the
assecurity for loans obtained by them from thePhilippine National Bank (PNB) in the amountsof P23.5 million and P15.6 million, respectively.These
they indorsed to the bank.Both Zoleta and Ramos failed to pay their loansupon maturity. Consequently, PNB wrote to Noah's Ark demanding delivery of the sugar covered by the
indorsed to it by Zoletaand Ramos. When Noah's Ark refused to complywith the demand, PNB filed with RTC of Manilaa verified complaint for "Specific Performancewith Damages and Application for Writ of Attachment" against Noah's Ark, Alberto T.Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go, and Wilson T. Go, thelast three being identified as "the SoleProprietor, Managing Partner and ExecutiveVice President of Noah's Ark, respectively."

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->