[186] ANG v. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP consigned “to the order of Yau Yue Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hong Kong.
ned “to the order of Yau Yue Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hong Kong.” Davao
G.R. No. L-25047 | March 18, 1967 | Bengzon, J. P., J
SUMMARY:
Yau Yue sold goods to two separate buyers, through a letter of credit arrangement,
where it would ship the goods through American Steamship (the agent in the PH), and
the bills of lading will be deposited to HSBC, the local bank of the buyer. The buyers
were not able to pay the purchase price to HSBC, so the bills of lading were returned
to Yan Yue. Yan Yue negotiated the bills of lading to Ang. Meanwhile, the two buyers
were able to have an agreement with American Steamship, and the latter released the
goods to them without the bills of lading. When Ang tried to collect the goods from
American Steamship, he was told that it had already been delivered to the two buyers.
Ang thus filed a complaint for damages against American Steamship. American
steamship alleged that the cause of action has already prescribed because the
prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is only one year from date
of delivery. The action was commenced two years after delivery. The Court held that
this prescription period under said act does not apply in this case.
DOCTRINE:
The one year prescriptive period under the said act does not apply to cases of
misdelivery or conversion. The provision of law involved in this case speaks of "loss
or damage." Nowhere is “loss” defined in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Its
definition must come from the Civil Code. Under Art. 1189 of the Civil Code, “a thing is
lost when it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its
existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered." It contemplates merely a situation
where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods.
FACTS:
1. Yau Yue agreed to sell the following:
a. a boat containing US Military Surplus to Davao Merchandizing Corp
b. 42 cases of Hiranos Automatic Cop Change for Cotton Loomfor Calieo
(wtf is this) to Herminio Teves.
2. Both agreements were subject to the following terms:
a. The purchase price shall be covered by a bank draft. The bill of lading
will be deposited to the local bank of the buyer (HSBC).
b. Upon arrival of the goods in Manila, the buyer will be notified and would
have to pay for the purchase price. After the buyer pays the bank
(HSBC), the latter will deliver the bill of lading to the buyer.
c. The buyer will then present the bill of lading to the carrier’s agent
(American Steamship Agencies), which would then issue the “Permit to
Deliver Imported Articles” to be presented to the Bureau of Custom to
collect the goods.
3. Pursuant to this agreement, Hirahira & Co. Ltd. shipped the 42 cases of Hiranos
Automatic Cop Change for Cotton Loom for Calico (see Fact no. 1.b.), to Manila,
with the Kansai Steamship Co. of Osaka, Japan, as carrier. American Steamship
Agecies is the agent in the PH, under a bill of lading, consigned “to the order of
shipper”. Herminio Teves is the buyer to be notified.
4. The US Contracting Officer, on behalf of Nippon Trading Shokai for NIshiman
Kaihatsu Co. Ltd., also shipped the boat containing US Military Surplus (Fact no.
1.a.), at Yokohama, Japan, with a Japanese carrier. Again the American
Steamship Agencies Inc was the agent in the Philippines, under a bill of lading,
Merchandizing corp is the buyer to be notified of arrival.
5. The bills of lading were indorsed to the order of Yau Yue Bank and delivered to it
by the shippers. Upon receipt, Yau Yue drew demand demand drafts with the bills
of lading against Teves and Davao Merchandising Corp thru HSBC.
6. The shipment for Teves arrived in Manila on March 2, 1961, while that of Davao
Merchandising’s arrived on June 10, 1961.
7. Accordingly, HSBC notified Teves and Davao Merch of the arrival of the goods,
and requested payment of the purchase price. The two buyers whoever did not
pay the respective drafts.
8. The bank returned the bills of lading and demand drafts to Yau Yue Bank. Yau
Yue then indorsed the bills of lading to Domingo Ang.
9. Teves and Davao Merchandising Corporation, however, were able to obtain bank
guaranties in favor of the American Steamship Agencies., Inc., as carriers' agent,
to the effect that they would surrender the original and negotiable bills of lading
duly indorsed by Yau Yue.
a. In the strength of said guaranties, Davao Merchandising Corp. and
Teves were able to secure a "Permit To Deliver Imported Articles" from
the carriers' agent, which they presented to the Bureau of Customs. In
turn the latter released to them the articles covered by the bills of
lading.
10. When Ang tried to present the bills of lading to American Steamship, he was
informed that the goods have already been released to the original buyers.
11. Thus, Ang filed complaints against American Steamship Agencies for damages.
He alleged that American Steamship Agencies wrongfully delivered the goods
covered by the bills of lading.
12. American Steamship’s defense:
a. The causes of action have prescribed under Section 3(6) par. 4 of the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (CA No. 65): “the carrier and the ship
shall be discharged from all liability in respect to 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”
b. The goods were delivered on March 2, 1961 (for Teves) and June 10,
1961 (for Davao Merch), while the actions were commenced only on
Oct. 30, 1963 and Nov. 14, 1963 respectively, beyond the period of one
year.
ISSUE: W/N the causes of action have prescribed – No.
RULING: Orders set aside. Case remanded to lower court.
RATIO:
● The one year prescriptive period under the said act does not apply to cases of
misdelivery or conversion.
o The provision of law involved in this case speaks of "loss or damage."
Nowhere is “loss” defined in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Its
definition must come from the Civil Code.
o Under Art. 1189 of the Civil Code, “a thing is lost when it perishes, or
goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is
unknown or it cannot be recovered."
 o It contemplates merely a situation where no delivery at all was made by
the shipper of the goods.
o This is different from misdelivery.
● The goods covered by the two shipments were delivered to Davao Merch and
Teves, despite their inability to present the proper bills of lading, and without
knowledge and consent of Ang, to whom the bills of lading were validly indorsed.
o There is therefore misdelivery, not nondelivery.
● Thus, the applicable prescriptive period should be that found in the Civil Code,
not the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (i.e. ten years for breach of written contract,
or four years for quasi-delict).
● Since the complaints in these cases were filed within two years and five months,
and 2 years and 8 months respectively, it is clear that the causes of action have
not yet prescribed.