COMPANIA MARITIMA V. INSURANCE COMPANY OF
Was the damage caused to the cargo or the
NORTH AMERICA
FACTS:
1. Macleod and Company of the PH contracted
Compañia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for
the shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from the
former’s private pier at Davao City to Manila and
for their subsequent transfer to Boston.
2. The hemp was loaded in 2 barges, and the patron
who manned these barges issued a carrier receipt
which states that it is received in behalf of the SS
Bowline Knot (ship of Compania) for
transshipment at Manila
3. Thereafter, the 2 loaded barges left Macleod’s
wharf and proceeded to and moored at the
government’s marginal wharf. During that night,
the barges sank resulting in the damage or loss of
1, 162 bales of hemp.
4. Macleod notified the carrier’s main office of its
liability.
5. Since Macleod insured the hemp from the
Petitioner, the former filed a claim for the
damaged hemp with the latter which was granted.
6. Petitioner being subrogated of the right of
Macleod, filed a collection of sum of money
against Compania since the latter refused to pay
the damage.
7. TC: ordered to pay petitioner.
8. CA: affirmed.
ISSUE:
1. Was there a contract of carriage between the
carrier and the shipper even if the loss occurred
when the hemp was loaded on a barge and was
not actually loaded in the SS Bowline Knot (ship)
which would carry the hemp to Manila?
2.
sinking of the barge where it was loaded due to a
fortuitous event, storm or natural disaster that
would exempt the carrier from liability
HELD:
First Issue: YES
1. The patrons of the barges were employees of the
carrier with due authority to undertake the
transportation and to sign the documents that
may be necessary therefor so much so that the
patron of the barge signed the receipt (see fact
#2).
2. The fact that the carrier sent its lighters free of
charge to take the hemp from Macleod’s wharf
does not in any way impair the contract of
carriage already entered into between the carrier
and the shipper, for that preparatory step is but
part and parcel of said contract of carriage.
3. Once the hemp was delivered to the carrier’s
employees, the rights and obligations of the
parties attached thereby subjecting them to the
principles and usages of maritime law.
4. Therefore, here we have a complete contract of
carriage the consummation of which has already
begun: the shipper delivering the cargo to the
carrier, and the latter taking possession thereof by
placing it on a barge manned by its authorized
employees.
5. The liability and responsibility of the carrier under
a contract for carriage of goods commence on
their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier
or an authorized agent.
6. Delivery to a lighter (barge) in charge of a vessel
for shipment on the vessel, where it is a custom to
deliver that way, is a good delivery and binds the
vessel, the liability commencing at the time.
 7. Test on whether the relation of shipper and carrier
had been established: Had the control and
possession of the goods had been
completely surrender by the shipper to the
company?
8. Bill of Lading is not indispensable to the contract
of carriage.
Second Issue: NO
1. The evidence fails to bear this out. Rather, it
shows that the mishap that caused the damage or
loss was due, not to force majeure, but to lack of
adequate precautions or measures taken by the
carrier to prevent the loss.
a. The ill-fated barge had cracks on its bottom
which admitted sea water in the same
manner as rain entered "thru tank man-
holes"
b. It should be noted that on the night of the
nautical accident there was no storm, flood,
or other natural disaster or calamity.