5. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 125 Phil 543 (1967) Recourse to the Civil Code (CC).
Recourse to the Civil Code (CC). Art 18 NCC states that if the matter is
1. Yau Yue Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hongkong, agreed to sell 140 packages of
galvanized steel durzinc sheetsto one Herminio G. Teves, shipped by Tokyo
Boeki Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan. with American SteamshipAgencies, Inc. as the agent in
the Philippines, under a shipping agreement.
2. The bill of lading was indorsed to the order of and delivered to Yau Yue
by the shipper. Upon receipt thereof, Yau Yue drew a demand draft together
with the bill of lading against Herminio G. Teves, through the Hongkong &
Shanghai Bank.
3. Upon arrival of the goods, Hongkong & Shanghai Bank notified Teves, the
"notify party" under the bill of lading, of the arrival of the goods and requested
payment of the demand draft representing the purchase price of the articles.
4. Teves, however, did not pay the demand draft, prompting the bank to make
the corresponding protest. The bank likewise returned the bill of lading and
demand draft to Yau Yue who subsequently indorsed the said bill of
lading to petitioner Domingo Ang.
5. Despite non-payment Teves was able to secure a "Permit To Deliver
Imported Articles" from defendant American Steamship [apparently nag obtain
ng bank guaranty si Teves in favor of American Steamship, kaya he was able to get the permit despite
non-payment] which he presented to the Bureau of Customs which in turn released
to him the articles covered by the bill of lading.
6. Subsequently, Domingo Ang claimed for the articles from American
Steamship Agencies, Inc., by presenting the indorsed bill of lading, but he
was informed by the latter that it had delivered the articles to Teves.
7. A complaint was filed by Ang against American Steamship for having
allegedly wrongfully delivered and/or converted the goods covered by
the bill of lading.
8. American Steamship filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that
plaintiff's cause of action has prescribed under the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act. Lower court dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. Hence, an
appeal was filed to SC.
ISSUE: Did Angs cause of action prescribe under Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act? No besh. Prescription period under the Carriage of
Goods by the Sea Act will NOT apply.
Note: What is to be resolved in order to determine the applicability of the
prescriptive period of one year to the case at bar is whether or not there was
"loss" of the goods subject matter of the complaint.
HELD:
Loss is NOT defined in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
governed by the Code of Commerce & special law, CC will supply any
deficiency therein.
And under Art. 1189 of the CC, defines loss in cases where conditions have been
imposed w/ intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give.
The contract of carriage entered between defendant American Steamship &
Yau Yue (which later on endorsed the bill of lading covering the shipment to
plaintiff herein Domingo Ang), involves an obligation to give/DELIVER the
goods to the ORDER OF THE SHIPPER upon PRESENTATION &
SURRENDER of the bill of lading.
Loss/lost- the thing perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a
way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered.
Loss contemplates a situation where NO DELIVERY AT ALL was made by
the shipper of the goods. It does NOT include a situation where there was
actual delivery but delivered to a wrong person / misdelivery as alleged
in this complaint.
In Tan Pho v. Hassamal court made a distinction b/w NONdelivery &
MISdelivery
Since the bill of lading was made to order, the goods cant be delivered without
any previous payment of the value there. Since the goods were delivered to
Aldeguer without paying the price, it constituted MISDELIVERY and NOT
nondelivery because there was IN FACT a DELIVERY of the merchandise.
Since the goods were delivered, it cant be at the same time said that they were
not delivered.
In this case, the goods cant be deemed lost. They were delivered to
Teves so that there can only be either delivery, if Teves really was entitled to
receive them, or misdelivery, if he was not so entitled.
SC held that it is not for Us now to resolve whether or not delivery of the goods
toTeves was proper, that is, whether or not there was rightful delivery or
misdelivery.
o The point that matters here is that the situation is either delivery or
misdelivery, but not nondelivery. Thus, the goods were either rightly
delivered or misdelivered, but they were not lost
One-year period of prescription in Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply
to misdelivery.
There being NO LOSS the provision of the Carraige of Goods by Sea act
stating that In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all
liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after
delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered,
DOES NOT APPLY.
 The 1 year period is designed to meet the exigencies of maritime
hazards. And if the goods were neither lost nor damaged in transit but instead
delivered in port to someone who claimed to be entitled but were not, the
SPECIAL NEED for the SHORT period of limitation in cases of loss/damage caused
by maritime perils does not obtain.
Since the suit is predicated NOT ON LOSS but on ALLEGED MISDELIVERY(conversion) of
goods, the applicable rule on prescription is found in the CIVIL CODE either 10
yrs for breach of written contract of 4 yrs for quasi delict.
In either case, Angs cause of action has NOT yet prescribed since his right of
action would have accrued (kung kelan pweds na soya mag demand) at earliest on May 9,
1961 when the ship arrived in Manila. He filed the suit on Oct. 30, 1963 (Mga 2 yrs
and 5mos pa lang nakakalipas, so pasok pa sa prescription period sa Civil Code na either 10 or 4yrs)
Note: When a defendant files a motion to dismiss, he thereby hypothetically admits the
truth of the allegations of fact contained in the complaint.