You are on page 1of 11

CIA Maritima v. Insurance Co.

of North  The damaged hemp was brought to Odell


America (1964) Plantation in Madaum, Davao, for cleaning,
washing, reconditioning, and redrying.
G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964 o total loss adds up to P60,421.02
Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document  All abaca shipments of Macleod were insured
(Transportation) with the Insurance Company of North America
against all losses and damages
FACTS:  Macleod filed a claim for the loss it suffered
with the insurance company and was paid
 October, 1952: Macleod and Company of the P64,018.55
Philippines (Macleod) contracted by telephone o subrogation agreement between
the services of the Compañia Maritima (CM), Macleod and the insurance company
a shipping corporation, for: wherein the Macleod assigned its
o shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from rights over the insured and damaged
the Macleod's Sasa private pier at cargo
Davao City to Manila  October 28, 1953.: failing to recover from the
o subsequent transhipment to Boston, carrier P60,421.02 (amount supported by
Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the receipts), the insurance company instituted
S.S. Steel Navigator. the present action
 This oral contract was later on confirmed by a  CA affirmed RTC: ordering CM to pay the
formal and written booking issued by insurance co.
Macleod's branch office in Sasa and
handcarried to CM's branch office in Davao in ISSUE: W/N there was a contract of carriage bet. CM
compliance with which the CM sent to (carrier) and Macleod (shipper)
Macleod's private wharf LCT Nos. 1023 and
1025 on which the loading of the hemp was HELD: YES. Affirmed
completed on October 29, 1952.
o The 2 lighters were manned each by a  receipt of goods by the carrier has been said
patron and an assistant patron. to lie at the foundation of the contract to carry
 The patrons of both barges and deliver, and if actually no goods are
issued the corresponding received there can be no such contract
carrier's receipts and that o The liability and responsibility of the
issued by the patron of Barge carrier under a contract for the
No. 1025 reads in part: carriage of goods commence on
 Received in behalf of their actual delivery to, or receipt by,
S.S. Bowline Knot in the carrier or an authorized agent. ...
good order and and delivery to a lighter in charge of a
condition from vessel for shipment on the vessel,
MACLEOD AND where it is the custom to deliver in that
COMPANY OF way
PHILIPPINES, Sasa o Whenever the control and possession
Davao, for of goods passes to the carrier and
transhipment at Manila nothing remains to be done by the
onto S.S. Steel shipper, then it can be said with
Navigator. certainty that the relation of shipper
 FINAL DESTINATION: and carrier has been established
Boston.  As regards the form of the contract of carriage
 Early hours of October 30: LCT No. 1025 it can be said that provided that there is a
sank, resulting in the damage or loss of 1,162 meeting of the minds and from such meeting
bales of hemp loaded therein arise rights and obligations, there should be
o Macleod promptly notified the carrier's no limitations as to form
main office in Manila and its branch in o The bill of lading is not essential
Davao advising it of its liability  Even where it is provided by statute that
liability commences with the issuance of the
bill of lading, actual delivery and acceptance
are sufficient to bind the carrier
 marine surveyors, attributes the sinking of
LCT No. 1025 to the 'non-water-tight
conditions of various buoyancy compartments
LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION both by the stevedoring company hired by petitioner
vs. as well as by the arrastre operator of the port, and
BINAMIRA G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 the shipment in question, when discharged from the
ship, was found to be in good order and condition.
F: On August 10, 1951, the Delta Photo Supply But after it was delivered to respondent three days
Company of New York shipped on board the M/S later, the same was examined by a marine surveyor
"FERNSIDE" at New York, U.S.A., six cases of films who found that some films and supplies were missing
and/or photographic supplies consigned to the order valued at P324.63. Plaintiff filed an action in the Court
of respondent I. V. Binamira. For this shipment, Bill of First Instance of Cebu against defendant to recover
of Lading No. 29 was issued. The ship arrived at the the sum of P324.63 as value of certain missing
port of Cebu on September 23, 1951 and discharged shipment TC: ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
her cargo on September 23, and 24, 1951, including sum of P216.84. CA Affirmed. I: WON carrier is
the shipment in question, placing it in the possession responsible for the loss considering that the same
and custody of the arrastre operator of said port, the occurred after the shipment was discharged from the
Visayan Cebu Terminal Company, Inc. Petitioner, as ship and placed in the possession and custody of the
agent of the carrier, hired the Cebu Stevedoring customs authorities? R: No, Carrier is not responsible
Company, Inc. to unload its cargo. During the after the shipment was discharged and was place in
discharge, good order cargo was separated from the the custody of custom authorities. The
bad order cargo on board the ship, and a separate Carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever
list of bad order cargo was prepared by Pascual for any delay, nondelivery or misdelivery, or loss of
Villamor, checker of the stevedoring company. All the or damage to the goods occurring while the goods
cargo unloaded was received at the pier by the are not in the actual custody of the Carrier
Visayan Cebu Terminal Company Inc, arrastre .
operator of the port. This terminal company had also
its own checker, Romeo Quijano, who also recorded Responsibility of the Carrier in any capacity shall
and noted down the good cargo from the bad one. altogether cease and the goods shall be considered
The shipment in question, was not included in the to be delivered and at their own risk and expense in
report of bad order cargo of both checkers, indicating every respect
that it was discharged from the, ship in good order when taken into the custody of customs or other
and condition. On September 26, 1951, three days authorities.
after the goods were unloaded from the ship,
respondent took delivery of his six cases of It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not
photographic supplies from the arrastre operator. He assume liability for any loss or damage to the goods
discovered that the cases showed signs of pilferage once they have been "taken into the custody of
and, consequently, he hired marine surveyors, R. J. customs or
del Pan & Company, Inc., to examine them. The
surveyors examined the cases and made a physical other authorities"
count of their contents in the presence of , or when they have been delivered at ship's tackle.
representatives of petitioner, respondent and the It is true that, as a rule, a common carrier is
stevedoring company. The surveyors examined the responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration
cases and made a physical count of their contents in of the goods it assumes to carry from one place to
the presence of representatives of petitioner, another unless the same is due to any to any of the
respondent and the stevedoring company. The causes mentioned in Article 1734 on the new Civil
finding of the surveyors showed that some films and Code, and that, if the goods are lost, destroyed or
photographic supplies were missing valued at deteriorated, for causes other that those mentioned,
P324.63. It appears from the evidence that the six the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault
cases of films and photographic supplies were or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it
discharged from the ship at the port of Cebu by the has observed extraordinary diligence in their care
stevedoring company hired by petitioner as agent of (Article 1735, Idem.), and that this extraordinary
the carrier. All the unloaded cargo, including the liability lasts from the time the goods are placed in
shipment in question, was received by the Visayan the possession of the carrier until they are delivered
Cebu Terminal Company Inc., the arrastre operator to the consignee, or "to the person who has the right
appointed by the Bureau of Customs. It also appears to receive them" (Article 1736,
that during the discharge, the cargo was checked Idem
.),
but these provisions only apply when the loss,
destruction or deterioration takes place while the
goods are in the possession of the carrier, and not
after it has lost control of them.
The reason is obvious. While the goods are in its
possession, it is but fair that it exercise extraordinary
diligence in protecting them from damage, and if loss
occurs, the law presumes that it was due to its fault
or negligence. This is necessary to protect the
interest the interest of the owner who is at its mercy.
The situation changes after the goods are delivered
to the consignee. Wherefore, the decision appealed
from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co. o Article 1174. Except in cases expressly
(1982) specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or
G.R. No. L-36481-2 October 23, 1982 when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no
Lessons Applicable: Contract of Adhesion person shall be responsible for those
(Transportation) events which could not be foreseen, or
Laws Applicable: Article 1736, Article 1174 which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
FACTS:  'caso fortuito' presents the following essential
characteristics: (1) the cause of the
 Clara Uy Bico (1,528 cavans of rice unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of
worth P40,907.50) and Amparo Servando (44 the failure of the debtor to comply with his
cartons of colored paper toys and general obligation, must be independent of the
merchandise worth P1,070.50) loaded on human will; (2) it must be impossible to
board Philippine Steam Navigation foresee the event which constitutes the 'caso
Co.'s vessel, FS-176 for carriage from Manila fortuito', or if it can be foreseen, it must be
to Pulupandan, Negros Occidental impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must
o Bill of Lading: be such as to render it impossible for the
 Clause 14. Carrier shall not be debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
responsible for loss or damage manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from
to shipments billed 'owner's any participation in the aggravation of the
risk' unless such loss or injury resulting to the creditor." In the case at
damage is due to negligence of bar, the burning of the customs warehouse
carrier. Nor shall carrier be was an extraordinary event which happened
responsible for loss or damage independently of the will of the appellant. The
caused by force majeure, latter could not have foreseen the event.
dangers or accidents of the sea  nothing in the record to show that appellant
or other waters; war; public carrier ,incurred in delay in the performance
enemies; . . . fire . ... of its obligation
 Upon arrival of the vessel at Pulupandan, in
the morning of November 18, 1963, the
cargoes were discharged, complete and in
good order, unto the warehouse of the
Bureau of Customs
o 2 pm: warehouse was razed by fire
 Before the fire, 907 cavans of rice were
delivered by Uy Bico
 Uy Bico and Servando filed a claim for the
value but was rejected by Philippine Steam
 CFI: favored UY Bico and Sercando
o delivery of the shipment in question to
the warehouse of the Bureau of
Customs is not the delivery
contemplated by Article 1736

ISSUE: W/N Philippine Steam should not be liable


because of the stipulation in the bill of lading
exempting it from fortuitous event

HELD: YES. set aside

 Agreement was in iteration of


Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd makes actual or constructive delivery of the goods to
the consignee or to the person who has a right to
(132 SCRA 529)
receive them.

Facts: Samar Mining imported 1 crate optima welded


Under the Civil Code provisions governing Agency, an
wire (amounting to around USD 424 or PhP 1,700)
agent can only be held liable in cases where his acts
from Germany, which was shipped on a vessel owned
are attended by fraud, negligence, deceit or if there
by Nordeutscher Lloyd (M/S Schwabenstein). The
is a conflict of interest between him and the principal.
shipment was unloaded in Manila into a barge for
Under the same law an agent is likewise liable if he
transshipment to Davao and temporarily stored in a
appoints a substitute when he was not given the
bonded warehouse owned by AMCYL. The goods
power to appoint one or otherwise appoints one that
never reached Davao and were never delivered to or
is notoriously incompetent or insolvent. These facts
received by the consignee, Samar Mining Co.
were not proven in the record.

CFI ruled in favor of Samar Mining holding


Nordeutscher Lloyd liable. However, defendants may
recoup whatever they may pay Samar Mining by
enforcing the judgment against third party defendant
AMCYL.

Issue: Whether Nordeustscher Lloyd is liable for the


loss of the goods as common carrier?

Held: No. At the time of the loss of the goods, the


character of possession of Nordeutscher Lloyd shifted
from common carrier to agent of Samar Mining Co.

The Bill of Lading is serves both as a receipt of goods


and is likewise the contract to transport and deliver
the same as stipulated. It is a contract and is
therefore the law between the parties. The Bill of
Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd
only undertook to transport the goods in its vessel
only up to the port of discharge from ship, which is
Manila. The Bill of Lading further stipulated that the
goods were to be transshipped by the carrier from
Manila to the port of destination – Davao. By
unloading the shipment in Manila and delivering the
goods to the warehouse of AMCYL, the appellant was
acting within the contractual stipulations contained in
the Bill of Lading.

Article 1736 of the Civil Code relives the carrier of


responsibility over the shipment as soon as the carrier
Ganzon v. CA (1988)  failed to show that the loss of the scraps was
due to any of the following causes
G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code,
Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document namely:
Laws Cited: Art. 1736,Art. 1734

FACTS: Gelacio > Ganzon (via Capt. Niza) > Lighter (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other
“Batman” (common carrier) (loaded half) natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
 November 28, 1956: Gelacio Tumambing international or civil;
(Gelacio) contracted the services of of Mauro (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the
B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron goods;
from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila (4) The character of the goods or defects in the
on board the light LCT “Batman” packing or in the containers;
 December 1, 1956: Gelacio delivered the (5) Order or act of competent public authority.
scrap iron to Filomeno Niza, captain of the Hence, the petitioner is presumed to have been at
lighter, for loading which was actually begun fault or to have acted negligently.
on the same date by the crew of the lighter
under the captain’s supervisor.  By reason of this presumption, the court is
 When about half of the scrap iron was not even required to make an express
already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula of finding of fault or negligence before it could
Mariveles, Bataan arrived and demanded hold the petitioner answerable for the breach
P5000 from Gelacio of the contract of carriage.
o Upon resisting, the Mayor fired at o exempted from any liability had he
Gelacio so he had to be taken to the been able to prove that he observed
hospital extraordinary diligence in the
o Loading of the scrap iron was vigilance over the goods in his
resumed custody, according to all the
 December 4, 1956: Acting Mayor Basilio Rub circumstances of the case, or that the
(Rub), accompanied by 3 policemen, ordered loss was due to an unforeseen event
captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump or to force majeure. As it was, there
the scrap iron where the lighter was docked was hardly any attempt on the part
o Later on Rub had taken custody of of the petitioner to prove that he
the scrap iron exercised such extraordinary
 RTC: in favor of Gelacio and against Ganzon diligence.
 We cannot sustain the theory of caso fortuito
ISSUE: W/N Ganzon should be held liable under the - "order or act of competent public
contract of carriage authority"(Art. 1174 of the Civil Code)
o no authority or power of the acting
HELD: YES. Petition is DENIED. mayor to issue such an order was
given in evidence. Neither has it been
 Ganzon thru his employees, actually received shown that the cargo of scrap iron
the scraps is freely admitted. belonged to the Municipality of
 Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary Mariveles.
responsibility would cease only upon the  Ganzon was not duty bound
delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to obey the illegal order to
to the consignee, or to the person who has a dump into the sea the scrap
right to receive them. iron.
 The fact that part of the shipment had not  Moreover, there is absence of
been loaded on board the lighter did not sufficient proof that the
impair the said contract of transportation as issuance of the same order
the goods remained in the custody and was attended with such force
control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded. or intimidation as to
completely overpower the will
of the petitioner's employees.
The mere difficulty in the
fullfilment of the obligation is
not considered force
majeure.
MACAM vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 125524; request or instruct the carrier to deliver the goods to
August 25, 1999 the buyer upon arrival at the port of destination
without requiring presentation of bill of lading as that
Facts: Benito Macam, doing business under name usually takes time. Thus, taking into account that
Ben-Mac Enterprises, shipped on board vessel Nen- subject shipment consisted of perishable goods and
Jiang, owned and operated by respondent China SOLIDBANK pre-paid the full amount of value
Ocean Shipping Co. through local agent Wallem thereof, it is not hard to believe the claim of
Philippines Shipping Inc., 3,500 boxes of watermelon respondent WALLEM that petitioner indeed requested
covered by Bill of Lading No. HKG 99012, and 1,611 the release of the goods to GPC without presentation
boxes of fresh mangoes covered by Bill of Lading No. of the bills of lading and bank guarantee.
HKG 99013. The shipment was bound for Hongkong
with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great To implement the said telex instruction, the delivery
Prospect Company of Rowloon (GPC) as notify party. of the shipment must be to GPC, the notify party or
real importer/buyer of the goods and not the
Upon arrival in Hongkong, shipment was delivered by PAKISTANI BANK since the latter can very well
respondent WALLEM directly to GPC, not to present the original Bills of Lading in its possession.
PAKISTAN BANK and without the required bill of Likewise, if it were the PAKISTANI BANK to whom the
lading having been surrendered. Subsequently, GPC cargoes were to be strictly delivered, it will no longer
failed to pay PAKISTAN BANK, such that the latter, be proper to require a bank guarantee as a substitute
still in possession of original bill of lading, refused to for the Bill of Lading. To construe otherwise will
pay petitioner thru SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK render meaningless the telex instruction. After all, the
already pre-paid the value of shipment, it demanded cargoes consist of perishable fresh fruits and
payment from respondent WALLEM but was refused. immediate delivery thereof the buyer/importer is
MACAM constrained to return the amount paid by essentially a factor to reckon with.
SOLIDBANK and demanded payment from WALLEM
but to no avail.
We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of
the common carriers lasts until actual or constructive
WALLEM submitted in evidence a telex dated 5 April delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the
1989 as basis for delivering the cargoes to GPC person who has a right to receive them. PAKISTAN
without the bills of lading and bank guarantee. The BANK was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee
telex instructed delivery of various shipments to the whereas GPC was the notify party. However, in the
respective consignees without need of presenting the export invoices GPC was clearly named as
bill of lading and bank guarantee per the respective buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as
shipper’s request since “for prepaid shipt ofrt charges such in his demand letter to respondent WALLEM and
already fully paid.” MACAM, however, argued that, in his complaint before the trial court. This premise
assuming there was such an instruction, the draws us to conclude that the delivery of the cargoes
consignee referred to was PAKISTAN BANK and not to GPC as buyer/importer which, conformably with
GPC. Art. 1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to
receive them was proper.
The RTC ruled for MACAM and ordered value of
shipment. CA reversed RTC’s decision.

Issue: Are the respondents liable to the petitioner


for releasing the goods to GPC without the bills of
lading or bank guarantee?

Held: It is a standard maritime practice when


immediate delivery is of the essence, for shipper to
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE Giant, hence, the transportation contract was by and
CORPORATION v. TRANSPORT VENTURE, between Little Giant and TVI. The Court rendered a
INC., INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, decision holding Schmitz and TVI liable.
LTD., et al.
ISSUES:
456 SCRA 557 (2005)
Whether or not the liability for the loss may attach to
A common carrier shall exercise extraordinary Black Sea, Schmitz and TVI
diligence to prevent and/or minize the loss or
destruction of goods. HELD:

SYTCO Pte Ltd. Singapore shipped from the port of TVI‘s failure to promptly provide a tugboat did not
Ilyichevsk, Russia on board M/V ―Alexander only increase the risk that might have been reasonably
Saveliev‖ (a vessel of Russian registry and owned by anticipated during the shipside operation, but was the
respondent Black Sea) 545 hot rolled steel sheets. The proximate cause of the loss. A man of ordinary
vessel arrived at the port of Manila and the Philippine prudence would not leave a heavily loaded barge
Ports Authority (PPA) assigned it a place of berth at floating for a considerable number of hours, at such a
the outside breakwater at the Manila South Harbor. precarious time, and in the open sea, knowing that the
Petitioner Schmitz Transport, engaged to secure the barge does not have any power of its own and is
requisite clearances, to receive the cargoes from the totally defenseless from the ravages of the sea. That it
shipside, and to deliver them to Little Giant Steelpipe was nighttime and, therefore, the members of the crew
Corporation‘s warehouse at Cainta, Rizal. It likewise of a tugboat would be charging overtime pay did not
engaged the services of respondent Transport Venture excuse TVI from calling for one such tugboat.
Inc. (TVI) to send a barge and tugboat at shipside.
As for Schmitz, for it to be relieved of liability, it
The tugboat, after positioning the barge alongside the should, following Article 1739 of the Civil Code,
vessel, left and returned to the port terminal. Later on, prove that it exercised due diligence to prevent or
arrastre operator commenced to unload 37 of the 545 minimize the loss, before, during and after the
coils from the vessel unto the barge. By noon the next occurrence of the storm in order that it may be
day, during which the weather condition had become exempted from liability for the loss of the goods.
inclement due to an approaching storm, the unloading
unto the barge of the 37 coils was accomplished. While Schmitz sent checkers and a supervisor on
However, there was no tugboat that pulled the barge board the vessel to counter-check the operations of
back to the pier. Eventually, because of the strong TVI, it failed to take all available and reasonable
waves, the crew of the barge abandoned it and precautions to avoid the loss. After noting that TVI
transferred to the vessel. The barge capsized, washing failed to arrange for the prompt towage of the barge
the 37 coils into the sea. Earnest efforts on the part of despite the deteriorating sea conditions, it should have
both the consignee Little Giant and Industrial summoned the same or another tugboat to extend
Insurance to recover the lost cargoes proved futile. help, but it did not.

Industrial Insurance later filed a complaint against The Court holds then that Schmitz and TVI are
Schmitz Transport, TVI and Black Sea through its solidarily liable for the loss of the cargoes. As for
representative Inchcape (the defendants) before the Black Sea, its duty as a common carrier extended only
RTC of Manila, for the recovery of the amount it paid from the time the goods were surrendered or
to Little Giant plus adjustment fees, attorney‘s fees, unconditionally placed in its possession and received
and litigation expenses. Industrial Insurance won and for transportation until they were delivered actually or
the Schmitz et al.’s motion for reconsideration is constructively to consignee Little Giant
denied.
Parties to a contract of carriage may, however, agree
In effect, Schmitz now filed charges against TVI et al. upon a definition of delivery that extends the services
It asserts that in chartering the barge and tugboat of rendered by the carrier. In the case at bar, Bill of
TVI, it was acting for its principal, consignee Little Lading No. 2 covering the shipment provides that
delivery be made ―to the port of discharge or so near
thereto as she may safely get, always afloat.‖ The
delivery of the goods to the consignee was not from
―pier to pier‖ but from the shipside of ―M/V
Alexander Saveliev‖ and into barges, for which reason
the consignee contracted the services of petitioner.
Since Black Sea had constructively delivered the
cargoes to Little Giant, through Schmitz, it had
discharged its duty.

In fine, no liability may thus attach to Black Sea.