Compania Maritima v. Insurance Co. of North America FACTS: Macleod & Co.

, contracted, first by telephone and later confirmed by a formal written booking issued by Macleod & Co., the services of the petitioner Comapania Maritima for the shipment of bales of lamp from Davao to Manila. Two lighters of the petitioners loaded the said cargo from Macleod’s wharf at Davao awaiting the arrival of another vessel of the petitioner for reloading. One of the lighters sunk of which Macleod suffered a total of P64,018. Respondent insurers of said cargo paid Macleod, and being subrogated to Macleod’s right, filed a claim to collect from the petitioner the amount it paid to Macleod. Petitioner denied liability on the grounds that there was no bill of lading issued thereby resulting to be nonexistence of the contract; that the sinking was due to a fortuitous event and the respondent has no personality. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a contract and whether or not there was a fortuitous event. HELD: There was complete contract of carriage the consummation of which has already begun when the shipper delivered the cargo to the carrier and the latter took possession of the same by placing it on a lighter manned by its two authorized employers under which Macleod become entitled to the privilege of law. The responsibility of the carrier commenced on the actual delivery and receipt by, the carrier or its authorized agent of the goods. The barges or lighters were merely employed as the first step of the voyage. As to the issuance of the bill of lading, it is not required or essential to the contract, although it may become obligatory by reason of regulations or as a condition injured in the contract by the agreement of the parties themselves. Lu Do v. Binamara FACTS: Delta Company of New York shipped 6 cases of film and photographic supplies to respondent herein. Having arrived at the Cebu port, it discharged her cargo placing it in the custody of the arrastre operator appointed by the Bureau of Customs. The cargo was checked and found to be in good order. Later on the goods were delivered to Binamara. After inspection it was found out that some cargo were missing. Binamara demanded from the carrier

indemnity for the loss it sustained. However, the carrier denied liability relying on the stipulation in the contract of carriage. It provides that the carrier is no longer liable for the cargo after delivery of the same to the customs authorities. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of Binamara. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the common carrier is liable for the lost cargo. HELD: The Court held that the carrier is no longer liable for the loss of the goods. The general rule is that delivery must be made to the consignee or the person authorized to receive the goods, without such delivery the carrier shall be liable for the loss or destruction of goods while in their custody. However, parties may agree to limit the liability of the carrier considering that the goods have to go through the inspection of the customs authorities before they are actually turned over to the authorities. The stipulation in this case is binding upon the parties it being not contrary to law, morals, or public policy. American President Lines, Ltd. Vs. Klepper FACTS: Klepper on board SS Pre. Cleveland and Yokohama, Japan and lift van containing personal and household effects. Upon its arrival in Manila and while the lift van was being unloaded by crane, it fell on the pier and its contents were spilled and scattered, as a result of which, Klepper bought an action for damages against the carrier. While the carrier does not dispute liability, it, however, contends that the same cannot exceed $500, invoking in its favor the bill of lading and Sec. 4(5) of the carriage of goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The trial Court ordered the carrier to pay Klepper with a right to reimbursement from Delgado Brothers, the operator of the crane. The CA affirmed the said decision. The carrier appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not the carrier can be held liable beyond that stated in the bill of lading and that provided in COGSA. HELD: The carrier should only pay Klepper the sum of $500. The shipper who accepted the bil of lading impliedly id bound by its items. While regard to the contention of the carrier that COGSA should control in this case, the same is of as moment. Art. 1763 of the New Civil Code provides that “the laws of the country 1

Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to Niza. the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the carrier for the loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment by inserting therein the following stipulation: Clause 14. the loading of the scrap metal was resumed. At about 2:00 in the afternoon of the same day. that in the bills of lading issued for the cargoes in question. petitioner herein. public enemies. " It should be pointed out. “in all mater not regulated by this Code. . actually or constructively. however. Ganzon v. Article 1736 of the Civil Code imposes upon common carriers the duty to observe extraordinary diligence from the moment the goods are unconditionally placed in their possession "until the same are delivered. Philippine Steam Navigation Co. There is nothing therein that is contrary to law. FACTS: Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando loaded on board the appellant's vessel. A receipt was issued showing that the municipality had taken custody of the scraps or iron. . although Sec 4(5) of COGSA states that the carrier shall not be liable in an amount exceeding $500 per package unless the value of the goods had been declared by the shipper and asserted in the bill of lading. ISSUE: Whether or not carrier is liable for the loss of the cargo. . He was accompanied by 3 policemen and he ordered Captain Niza to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked. HELD: The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in question to the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery contemplated by Article 1736. appellee Uy Bico was able to take delivery of 907 cavans of rice Appellees' claims for the value of said goods were rejected by the appellant. the loss is chargeable against the appellant. said section is merely supplementary to the provisions of the New Civil Code. Court of Appeals FACTS: Ganzon. The crew of the Batman started to load the iron. 2 . Negros Occidental cargoes of cavans of rice and cartons of colored paper which were evidenced by bills of lading. was hired by Tumambing to haul 305 tons of scrap iron. unto the warehouse of the Bureau of which the goods are transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier in case of loss. Therefore. Mayor Advincula arrived and demanded P5. the acting Mayor this time went to the port where the Batman was docked. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of Ganzon. and since the burning of the warehouse occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees. morals or public policy. the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by Special Laws. Therefore. However.895 as actual damages. The Court sustains the validity of the above stipulation. P5. . for carriage from Manila to Pulupandan.000 from Tumambing. and when they were about halfway through. on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the decision ordering Ganzon to pay Tumambing P5. What was left or the iron was confiscated by the Acting Mayor and brought to NASSCO. by the carrier to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them. captain of the lighter LCT “Batman”.” This means that the law of the Philippines on the New Civil Code. the carrier is no longer liable for the loss of the goods. Nor shall carrier be responsible for loss or damage caused by force majeure. Tumambing filed a case in order to recover damages for the loss that he sustained. Servando v. Before the fire. Mayor Advincula drew his gun and fired at Tumambing. to board it on the same. however.. Carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage to shipments billed 'owner's risk' unless such loss or damage is due to negligence of carrier. FS-176. The latter resisted and a heated argument started. lucky for him the wound was not fatal. ISSUE: Whether or not Ganzon is liable for the loss that Tumambing sustained. He was brought to the hospital for treatment. A few days after this incident. However. said warehouse was razed by a fire of unknown origin. complete and in good order. destruction and deterioration. without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738. destroying appellees' cargoes. war. Upon arrival of the vessel at Pulupandan the cargoes were discharged.000 for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees as well. The contract was for the petitioner to transport the scrap iron to Manila from Bataan. Hence this petition by Ganzon.. dangers or accidents of the sea or other waters. fire . 1736-1738.” Art. NCC govern said rights and obligations. Under 1766 of NCC.

Plaintiff filed a claim for damages in court. This responsibility remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit. 1976 and it was from that date that private respondents became responsible for the agreed cargo under their undertakings in PAL Airway Bill No. destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier. Upon perfection of the contract. The defense that the scraps of iron were not unconditionally placed in his custody and control is untenable. Court of Appeals FACTS: Plaintiff herein together with Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of Chicago brought the remains of plaintiff’s mother to Continental Mortuary Air Services which booked the shipment of the remains from Chicago to San Francisco by Trans World Airways (TWA) and from San Francisco to Mania with Philippine Airlines (PAL). therefore the carrier should have exercised extraordinary diligence in taking care of the scraps of iron. the contract of carriage was perfected. It is irrelevant that the scraps of iron were only partially loaded on the lighter. Article 1738 of the NCC provides that the exercise of extraordinary diligence shall cease only upon delivery to the consignee or to the person who has the right to receive the same. Somehow the 2 bodies were switched. Macam v. HELD: Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. Consequently. Jr. for such duty to commence there must in fact have been delivery of the cargo subject of the contract of carriage. The scraps of iron were already under the custody and control of the carrier. as earlier explained. The employees of Ganzon received the scraps of iron on his behalf. absent the excepting causes under Article 1734. ISSUE: Whether or not the 2 airlines should be held liable for damages. The bill of lading stated that one of the bill must be presented by the Pakistan Bank as consignee and GPC as the notify party. Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally established can the liability for loss. of the goods by the consignee or such other person entitled to receive them. for the switching of caskets prior thereto which was not caused by them. As already demonstrated. The shipment was immediately loaded on another PAL flight and it arrived the day after the expected arrival.HELD: The Court held that Ganzon is liable for the loss of Tumambing. Where such a delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier. the facts in the case at bar belie the averment that there was delivery of the cargo to the carrier on October 26. Hence. In this case. Rather. private respondents cannot be held liable. and subsequent events caused thereby. Saludo. the body intended to be shipped as agreed upon was really placed in the possession and control of PAL on October 28. and terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable time for the acceptance. 079-01180454. custody and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them. therefore the scraps of metal were placed in his custody and control. Upon arrival in Hong Kong. Petitioner herein admits that the scraps of iron were delivered to Captain Niza by Tumambing in order to load the same on the lighter Batman. the liability of the common carrier commences eo instanti. there was no delivery made to the consignee. HELD: The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or constructive delivery of the 3 . the exercise of extraordinary diligence in caring for the goods shall also commence to begin. there is delivery to the carrier when the goods are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive possession. while we agree with petitioners that the extraordinary diligence statutorily required to be observed by the carrier instantaneously commences upon delivery of the goods thereto. Upon the receipt of the scraps by the carrier in order transport the same. v. The remains were taken to the Chicago Airport. therefore he shall be liable for its loss. unless the shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage in transitu. The lower court absolved both airlines and upon appeal it was affirmed by the court. And. Court of Appeals FACTS: Petitioner Macam exported watermelons and mangoes to Hong Kong. but it turned out that there were 2 bodies in the said airport. the shipment was delivered by the carrier directly to GPC and not to Pakistan Bank and without surrendering the bill of lading. Great Prospect Company is the consignee. attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be invoked. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid delivery. 1976. and the remains of plaintiff’s mother was shipped to Mexico instead.

4 . 1736 of the Civil Code. in the export invoice. However. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. Therefore. there was a valid delivery. GPC was clearly named as buyer or importer. Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party. Petitioner referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent and his complaint before the court.cargo to the consignee or his agent.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.