Scribd
Upload
57 views2 pages

Macam V CA

This case involves a shipment of watermelons and mangoes by Macam that was delivered in Hong Kong by respondent WALLEM directly to the buyer GPC without the required bills of lading. [1] The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals set aside this decision and dismissed the complaint. [2] The Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that delivery to GPC was proper since they had a right to receive the goods as the buyer/importer. [3] The Court also found that Macam's practice was to request immediate release of perishable goods like these without bills of lading or bank guarantees, so respondents were not liable for releasing the

Uploaded by

001noone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views2 pages

Macam V CA

This case involves a shipment of watermelons and mangoes by Macam that was delivered in Hong Kong by respondent WALLEM directly to the buyer GPC without the required bills of lading. [1] The trial court ruled in favor of Macam, but the Court of Appeals set aside this decision and dismissed the complaint. [2] The Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that delivery to GPC was proper since they had a right to receive the goods as the buyer/importer. [3] The Court also found that Macam's practice was to request immediate release of perishable goods like these without bills of lading or bank guarantees, so respondents were not liable for releasing the

Uploaded by

001noone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MACAM v.

CA

FACTS:

On 4 April 1989 petitioner Macam shipped on board the vessel Nen Jiang, owned and operated by
respondent China Ocean Shipping Co., through local agent respondent WALLEM, 3,500 boxes of
watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes; the two sets of fruits were covered by two bills of lading and
were exported through their respective Letters of Credit both issued by Pakistan Bank. The shipment was
bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great Prospect Company of Kowloon,
Hongkong (GPC) as notify party. On 6 April 1989, per letter of credit requirement, copies of the bills of lading
and commercial invoices were submitted to petitioner's depository bank, Consolidated Banking Corporation
(SOLIDBANK), which paid petitioner in advance the total value of the shipment of US$20,223.46.

Upon arrival in Hongkong, the shipment was (1) delivered by respondent WALLEM directly to GPC (the buyer-
importer), not to PAKISTAN BANK, (2) and without the required bill of lading having been surrendered.
Subsequently, GPC failed to pay PAKISTAN BANK such that the latter, still in possession of the original bills of
lading, refused to pay petitioner through SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK already pre-paid petitioner the value
of the shipment, it demanded payment from respondent WALLEM through five (5) letters but was refused.
Petitioner was thus allegedly constrained to return the amount involved to SOLIDBANK; petitioner then
demanded payment from respondent WALLEM in writing but to no avail.

On 25 September 1991 petitioner sought collection of the value of the shipment of US$20,223.46 or its
equivalent of P546,033.42 from respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, based on delivery of
the shipment to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee. On 14 May 1993, the
trial court favored Pet, ordering China Ocean Shipping and Wallem to pay, jointly and severally. The Court
of Appeals appreciated the evidence in a different manner; it set aside the decision of the trial court and
dismissed the complaint together with the counterclaims. Hence, the petition for review

ISSUES:

(1) Duration and extent of a common carrier’s extraordinary responsibility. WON delivery to GPC was
proper.
(2) WON respondents are liable to petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without the bills of lading
or bank guarantee.

RULING:

1.) YES.
Art. 1736 of the NCC. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time the
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the
same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a
right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.

We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until actual or constructive
delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them. PAKISTAN BANK
was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee whereas GPC was the notify party. However, in the export
invoices GPC was clearly named as buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as such in his demand
letter to respondent WALLEM and in his complaint before the trial court.
This premise draws us to conclude that the delivery of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which,
conformably with Art. 1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to receive them was proper.

2.) NO.
Contrary to petitioner’s claims, the Court agrees with respondents that it was his (Macam’s) practice
to ask the shipping lines to immediately release shipment of perishable goods through telephone calls by
himself or his “people.” He no longer required presentation of a bill of lading nor of a bank guarantee as a
condition to releasing the goods in case he was already fully paid. Thus, taking into account that subject
shipment consisted of perishable goods and SOLIDBANK pre-paid the full amount of the value thereof, it is
not hard to believe the claim of respondent WALLEM that petitioner indeed requested the release of the
goods to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee.

Respondents submitted in evidence a telex dated 5 April 1989 as basis for delivering the cargoes to GPC
without the bills of lading and bank guarantee. The telex instructed delivery of various shipments to the
respective consignees without need of presenting the bill of lading and bank guarantee per the respective
shipper’s request since “for prepaid shipt ofrt charges already fully paid” (sic).

It has been the practice of petitioner to request the shipping lines to immediately release perishable cargoes
such as watermelons and fresh mangoes through telephone calls by himself or his “people.” In transactions
covered by a letter of credit, bank guarantee is normally required by the shipping lines prior to releasing the
goods. But for buyers using telegraphic transfers, petitioner dispenses with the bank guarantee because the
goods are already fully paid. In his several years of business relationship with GPC and respondents, there
was not a single instance when the bill of lading was first presented before the release of the cargoes.

In view of petitioner’s utter failure to establish the liability of respondents over the cargoes, no reversible error
was committed by respondent court in ruling against him.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like