This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Cordero Facts: Private respondent opened a 1-year time deposit with petitioner bank amounting to P80,000, with interest of 6% p.a. Due to its distressed financial condition, the bank was unable to pay. Cordero instituted an action before the CFI Manila. Petitioner raised the defenses of insolvency and prejudice to other depositors. The lower court, and the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Cordero. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari. Certain supervening events rendered the issue moot and academic. Respondent’s brother and attorney-in-fact sent a letter to the Commercial Bank of Manila (petitioner’s successor-in-interest), acknowledging receipt of P10,000, and another manifestation for P73,840, with waiver of damages. Upon further examination, it was found that the respondent’s brother has no SPA. Respondent’s brother submitted the SPA, with explanatory comment that the waiver applies only to third party claims, suits and damages, not to interest and attorney’s fees. Issue: Whether respondent is entitled to interest and attorney’s fees Held: The obligation to pay interest on the deposit ceases the moment the operation of the bank is completely suspended by the Central Bank. Neither can respondent Cordero recover attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s refusal to pay was not due to a willful and dishonest refusal to comply with its obligation but to restrictions imposed by Central Bank. Bank of P.I. v. Herridge FACTS: The insolvent Umberto de Poli was for several years engaged on an extensive scale in the exportation of Manila hemp, maguey and other products of the country.
When the goods stored by the warehouse receipts were sold and shipped.chanroble De Poli was declared insolvent by the Court of First Instance of Manila with liabilities to the amount of several million pesos over and above his assets. the warehouse receipt was exchanged for shipping papers. the Bank of the Philippine Islands. An assignee was elected by the creditors and the election was confirmed by the court Among the property taken over the assignee was the merchandise stored in the various warehouses of the insolvent. maguey and tobacco. the products were stored in one of his warehouses and warehouse receipts issued therefor which were endorsed by him to the bank as security for the payment of his credit in the account current.He was also a licensed public warehouseman. that they cannot be regarded as pledges of the merchandise inasmuch as they are not . a draft was drawn in favor of the bank and against the foreign purchaser. and the entire proceeds of the export sale were received by the bank and credited to the current account of De Poli. Australia and China. among them the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation. De Poli opened a current account credit with the bank against which he drew his checks in payment of the products bought by him for exportation. the Chartered Bank of India. with bill of landing attached. whereas the other creditors of the insolvent maintain that the warehouse receipts are not negotiable. that their endorsement to the present holders conveyed no title to the property. Upon the purchase. The various banks holding warehouse receipts issued by De Poli claim ownership of this merchandise under their respective receipts. the Asia Banking Corporation. This merchandise consisted principally of hemp. and the American Foreign Banking Corporation. though most of the goods stored in his warehouses appear to have been merchandise purchased by him for exportation and deposited there by he himself.chanr In order to finance his commercial operations De Poli established credits with some of the leading banking institutions doing business in Manila at that time.
a warehouseman who deposited merchandise in his own warehouse.D and Fiber entered into a written contract. .PNB (P) is a bank in PH. Producer’s Warehouse Association (D) is a domestic corporation doing general warehouse business and Phil. but contained no statement that the goods were to be delivered to the bearer of the receipts or to a specified person. Fiber and Produce Company (Fiber) is another domestic corporation. wherein Fiber would act as the general manager of the business of D and that Fiber would exercise a general and complete supervision over the management of the business of D. It is in the form of a warehouse receipts and was not mark “nonnegotiable”. the warehouseman.Nov and Dec 1918 – D issued negotiable quedans to Fiber for 15k++ piculs of Copra. Therefore the receipts was negotiable warehouse receipts and the words “por orden” must be construed to mean “to the order”.law lib ISSSUE: Whether or not the warehouse receipts issued are negotiable? HELD: Yes. which the terms states that o D agreed to deliver that amount of copra to Fiber or its order o D will deliver the packages noted therein upon the surrender of the warrant to D . PNB v PRODUCER’S WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION FACTS: . . issued a warehouse receipts therefore and thereafter negotiated the receipts by endorsement.public documents and the possession of the merchandise was not delivered to the claimants and that the claims of the holders of the receipts have no preference over those of the ordinary unsecured creditors. The receipt recites that the goods were deposited “por orden” of the depositor.
the subject quedans were endorsed in blank and delivered by Fiber to P. Paramount Textile Mills. It was understood that CTI would keep the cotton in behalf of Luzon Brokerage Corporation until the consignee thereof. Inc.D cannot now deny the existence of the quedans .- - - o No transfer of interest/ownership will be recognized unless registered in the books of D o The words “negotiable warrant” were printed in red ink in the quedan Fiber then arranged for overdraft with P for P1M and to secure it. D stated that the quedans were invalid and wrongfully issued and that the copra was not in its warehouse LC ruled in favor of D ISSUE: WoN the quedans were validly negotiated to P SC: YES! .. had opened the corresponding letter of credit in favor of shipper.63 SCRA 46 (1975) . stating that it could not be delivered since the goods mentioned are not in the warehouse. It received on deposit of 193 bales of high density compressed raw cotton.Consolidated Terminals vs. .Facts: CTI was the operator of a customs bonded warehouse located at Port Area. however. Manila. D refused to comply despite repeated requests of P.The quedans have legal force and effect o They were duly executed by Wicks. which became the owner and holder thereof. as treasurer and Torres as warehouseman. P later on requested D the delivery of copra described in the quedans. - . for and in behalf of D. Artex Development Co. . o The said quedans were endorsed in blank and physical possession was delivered to P as collateral security for the overdraft of Fiber Company and o That the quedans were in negotiable form.
and that Artex should pay damages to CTI. in its original complaint. The writ could not be executed. . when the contract of sale between them was rescinded because the cotton did not conform to the stipulated specifications as to quality. Artex further averred that it returned the cotton to Paramount Textile Mills.609.Ruling: CTI in this appeal contends that. sought to recover possession of the cotton by means of a writ of replevin.. . CTI then filed an amended complaint by transforming its original complaint into an action for the recovery from Artex of P99. it has a cause of action for damages . . the warehouseman shall be liable as for conversion to all having a right of property or possession in the goods .000 as nominal and exemplary damages and P20.000 as storage and handling charges. P10...We hold that CTI's appeal has not merit.". . as warehouseman. Artex alleged in its motion to dismiss that it was not shown in the delivery permit that Artex was the entity that presented that document to the CTI. the consignee. Inc. Its amended complaint does not clearly show that. purportedly issued by the Bureau of Customs. At the time the merchandise was released to Artex. that Artex acted wrongfully in depriving CTI of the possession of the merchandise because Artex presented a falsified delivery permit.It should be clarified that CTI alleged that Artex acquired the cotton from Paramount Textile Mills.. it was entitled to the repossession of the bales of cotton. as warehouseman.CTI. Artex was able to obtain delivery of the bales of cotton on after paying CTI P15. Inc.000 as attorney's fees .76 as compensatory damages. the letter of credit had not yet been opened and the customs duties and taxes due on the shipment had not been paid.Allegedly by virtue of a forged permit to deliver imported goods.Issue/s: Whether CTI has a cause of action against Artex .The only statutory rule cited by CTI is section 10 of the Warehouse Receipts Law which provides that "where a warehouseman delivers the goods to one who is not in fact lawfully entitled to the possession of them.
171 cases of Carnation Milk were on the other hand discharged to the Manila Port Service for the account of Cebu United Enterprise despite the fact that the bill of lading provides for only 3. mistake or conversion. CTI might logically and sensibly go after Artex for having wrongfully obtained custody of the merchandise. . .The negotiation of the warehouse receipt by the buyer of goods purchased from and deposited to the warehouse is valid even if the warehouseman who issued a negotiable warehouse receipt was not the buyer. or that the Commissioners of Customs and Internal Revenue had held CTI liable for the duties and taxes. CTI's basic action to recover the value of the merchandise seems to be untenable. How could it be entitled to claim the value of the shipment? .-o. 829 were received by the Manila Port Service.000 cases. 19 SCRA 5 (1967) o FACTS: Lua Kian imported 2. However. In such a case.against Artex. as consignee. about 3. Inc. only 1. consignee and shipper had required CTI to pay damages. Manila Railroad. . These parties have not sued CTI for damages or for recovery of the bales of cotton or the corresponding taxes and duties. So. The said goods were shipped and subsequently discharged to Manila Port Services. The validity of the negotiation cannot be impaired by the fact that the owner/warehouseman was deprived of the possession of the same by fraud. Paramount Textile Mills.The case might have been different if it was alleged in the amended complaint that the depositor. The Manila Port Service on the other hand contends that it actually . The real parties interested in the bales of cotton were Luzon Brokerage Corporation as depositor.Lua Kian v. It was not the owner of the cotton.But that eventuality has not arisen in this case. Lua Kian filed a suit against the Manila Port Service for the undelivered articles. From the same vessel.000 cases of Carnation Milk from San Francisco. Adolph Hanslik Cotton as shipper and the Commissioners of Customs and Internal Revenue with respect to the duties and taxes.
o ISSUE: Whether or not the Manila Port Service as an Arrastre Operator is liable to Lua Kian o HELD: Although it is true. With the given circumstances.000 to Cebu United.913 cases to Lua Kian when it was only bound to deliver 1. It should have been sufficient reason for the Manila Port Service to withhold the delivery of the said anomalous goods.000 cases has to be delivered to Lua Kian and 3. that arrastre operators are exempted from responsibility for mis-delivery or non-delivery due to improper or insufficient marking. it has even over-delivered. The legal relationship between an arrastre operator and the consignee is akin to that of a depositor and a warehouseman. the defendants cannot invoke such since it is clear from the bills of lading that 2.delivered 1. Thus.829. the Warehouse Receipts Law provides that the former should have withheld delivery because of the discrepancy between the bill of lading and the markings and called the parties to interplead so as to determine the rightful owner of the goods .