You are on page 1of 1

COMPANIA MARITIME V LIMSON (PATAJO, J.

, 1986)1

Facts:
• Compania filed a complaint against Limson for collection of the sum of P44,701.54,
which is the unpaid accounts for passage and freight on shipment of hogs, cattle and
carabaos abroad Compania’s vessel.
• Limson denied liability claiming that he was not the shipper nor had he authorized
said shipments. He further set up a counterclaim for the refund of the rebate he was
entitled to pursuant to their agreement.
• The Court appointed a commissioner to examine the accounts involved before
proceeding with the hearing.
• The Report indicated that Limson’s claim amounted to P676,416.05, and
Compania’s claim to P545,394.24. Compania’s claim was based among others on
several bills signed by one “Perry” with Limson as the shipper and consignee, and
some for others as shippers and consignee.
• CFI: Ruled that Perry was not Limson’s authorized representative. Thus, he was
not liable for the bills of lading not signed by him or his authorized representatives.

Issue:
WON the bills of lading signed by Perry should be accepted.

Held/Ratio:
YES.

• A shipper may be held liable for freightage on bills of lading signed by another
person where the shipper appears as shipper or consignee, bills of lading where
persons other than Limson appear as shipper, and bills of lading not signed by the
shipper where the testimonial evidence shows that the goods shipped actually belong
to him as the shipper.
• As regards the controverted bills of lading signed by "Perry" with Limson as shipper
or consignee, a witness testified that the signatures therein are those of Cipriano
Magtibay alias "Perry" who took delivery of the cargoes stated therein after signing
the delivery receipts. He was known to be the regular representative of Limson.
• With respect to the unsigned bills of lading, delivery receipts were issued upon
delivery of the shipments. Witnesses testified that the ordinary procedure at
Compania's terminal office was to require the surrender of the original bill of lading,
but when the bill of lading cannot be surrendered because it had not arrived or
received by the consignee or assignee, the delivery of the cargo was authorized just
the same, and the delivery receipt was prepared based on the ship's cargo manifests
or ship's copy of the bill of lading. This accommodation was specially given Limson,
because defendant was a regular shipper and ship chandler of plaintiff, and was a
compadre of Cabling.
• Regarding the controverted bills of lading in the name of other persons as
shippers or consignees and signed by Perry, it was established that said bills of lading
were for cattle and hogs-purchased by the defendant from his "viajeros" in Manila
which were delivered to and received by Limson.

1
Jessa Alvarez