Scribd
Upload
165 views1 page

Pacific Commercial Company vs. Yatco

1. The plaintiff company sold sugar manufactured by another company, delivering either from its own warehouse or directly from ships. 2. For sugar delivered from its warehouse, the plaintiff was considered a commission merchant as it took possession of the sugar in its warehouse and bore the risk until sale. 3. For sugar delivered directly from ships, the plaintiff was considered a broker as it never took possession of the sugar, simply arranging the sale and collecting payment on behalf of the manufacturer.

Uploaded by

Norie Sapanta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
165 views1 page

Pacific Commercial Company vs. Yatco

1. The plaintiff company sold sugar manufactured by another company, delivering either from its own warehouse or directly from ships. 2. For sugar delivered from its warehouse, the plaintiff was considered a commission merchant as it took possession of the sugar in its warehouse and bore the risk until sale. 3. For sugar delivered directly from ships, the plaintiff was considered a broker as it never took possession of the sugar, simply arranging the sale and collecting payment on behalf of the manufacturer.

Uploaded by

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

11. Pacific Commercial Company vs. Yatco, 68 Phil. 398, No.

45976 July 20, 1939


FACTS: Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in business as a merchant, sold refined sugar
manufactured by Victorias Milling Corporation.
The delivery of the sugar were either made, ex warehouse or ex ship. In all cases
the bill of lading is sent to the plaintiff. If the sugar was to be delivered ex-ship, all the
plaintiff did was to give the bill of lading to the buyer and collect the price. If it was for
delivery ex warehouse, the sugar is first deposited in the plaintiff’s warehouse before
delivery to the purchaser.
The Court found that the first case the plaintiff acted as a commission merchant,
and in the second case as a broker, it ordered the defendant to return to the plaintiff the
amount collected from it, by way of tax on the sale of sugar to be delivered ex-ship, and
denied the prayer in the complaint for the return of the amount paid for the sales of sugar
to be delivered ex-warehouse.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the plaintiff acted as a mere commission merchant as to sugar
delivered ex warehouse.
2. Whether the plaintiff acted as a mere commercial broker as to the sugar delivered ex-
ship.
HELD:
1. Yes. A commission merchant is engaged in the sale for another of personal
property which, for this purpose, is placed in his possession and at his disposal.
He maintains a relation not only with his principal and the purchasers or vendors,
but also with the property which is the subject matter of the transaction. In this case
the deposit of the sugar in the warehouses of the plaintiff was made upon its own
account and at its own risk until it was sold and taken by the purchaser. Thus, the
plaintiff possessed its own risk, circumstances determinative of its status as a
commission merchant in connection with the sale of sugar under these conditions.
2. Yes. The broker, unlike the commission merchant, has no relation with the thing
he sells or buys. He is merely an intermediary between the purchaser and the
vendor. He does not acquire possession nor custody of the things sold. His job is
to bring together the parties to the transaction. These circumstances are present
in connection with the plaintiff's sale of the sugar which was delivered to the
purchaser ex-ship. The sugar sold under these conditions was shipped by the
plaintiff at its expense and risk until it reached its destination, where it was later
taken ex-ship by the purchaser. The plaintiff never had possession of the sugar at
any time. The circumstance that the bill of lading was sent to the plaintiff does not
alter its character of being merely a broker, or constitute possession by it of the
sugar shipped, inasmuch as the same was sent to it for the sole purpose of turning
it over to the purchaser for the collection of the price. The sugar did not come to
its possession in any sense. Thus the appealed decision is affirmed.

You might also like