Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
G.R. No. 95529; August 22, 1991
BILL OF LADING
FACTS:
Choju Co., Ltd purchased from MMMC 136,000 anahaw fans for
$23,220. MMMC contracted with F.E. Zuellig, a shipping agent of
(OOCL) specifying that he needed an on-board bill of lading and that
transhipment is not allowed under the letter of credit. MMMC paid
Zuellig the freight charges and secured a copy of the bill of lading
which was presented to Allied Bank. The bank then credited the
amount of US$23,220 covered by the letter of credit to MMMC. When
MMMC's President went back to the bank later, he was informed that
the payment was refused by the buyer for lack of on board bill of
lading and there was a transhipment of goods. The anahaw fans were
shipped back to Manila through OOCL. MMMC abandoned the whole
cargo and asked OOCL for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether the bill of lading which reflected the transhipment against the
letter of credit is consented by MMMC
RULING:
In sum, petitioner had full knowledge that the bill issued to it contained
terms and conditions clearly violative of the requirements of the letter
of credit. Nonetheless, perhaps in its eagerness to conclude the
transaction with its Japanese buyer and in a race to beat the expiry
date of the letter of credit, petitioner took the risk of accepting the bill
of lading even if it did not conform with the indicated specifications,
possibly entertaining a glimmer of hope and imbued with a touch of
daring that such violations may be overlooked, if not disregarded, so
long as the cargo is delivered on time. Unfortunately, the risk did not
pull through as hoped for. Any violation of the terms and conditions of
the letter of credit as would defeat its right to collect the proceeds
thereof was, therefore, entirely of the petitioner's making for which it
must bear the consequences. As finally averred by private
respondents, and with which we agree, "... the questions of whether
or not there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the letter of
credit, or whether or not such violation was the cause or motive for the
rejection by petitioner's Japanese buyer should not affect private
respondents therein since they were not privies to the terms and
conditions of petitioner's letter of credit and cannot therefore be held
liable for any violation thereof by any of the parties thereto." The
terms of the contract as embodied in the bill of lading are clear and
thus obviates the need for any interpretation. The intention of the
parties which is the carriage of the cargo under the terms specified
thereunder and the wordings of the bill of lading do not contradict
each other. The terms of the contract being conclusive upon the
parties and judging from the contemporaneous and subsequent
actuations of petitioner, to wit, personally receiving and signing the bill
of lading and paying the freight charges, there is no doubt that
petitioner must necessarily be charged with full knowledge and
unqualified acceptance of the terms of the bill of lading and that it
intended to be bound thereby.
Bill of Lading
FACTS:
On august 26, 1967 petitioner was a fare paying passenger of
respondent PAL, on board from Mactan Cebu, bound for Butuan City.
He was scheduled to attend the trial of in the CFI Branch II, thereat,
set for hearing on August 28-31, 1967. As a passenger, he checked in
one piece of luggage, a blue "maleta" for which he was issued a
Claim Check. Upon arrival, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could
not be found. According to petitioner, it was only after reacting
indignantly to the loss that the matter was attended to by the porter
clerk Maximo. Petitioner was worried about the missing luggage
because it contained vital documents needed for trial the next day.
Petitioner wired PAL Cebu demanding the delivery of his baggage
before noon the next day, otherwise, he would hold PAL liable for
damages. Early in the morning of August 27 the missing luggage
arrived at Bancasi airport but petitioner did not wait for it. A certain
Dagorro who also used to drive for petitioner, volunteered to take the
luggage to petitioner. As Gomez knew Dagorro to be the same driver
used by petitioner whenever the latter was in Butuan City, Gomez
took the luggage and placed it on the counter. Dagorro examined the
lock, pressed it, and it opened. After calling the attention of Gomez,
the "maleta" was opened, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did
not touch them. Dagorro then delivered the "maleta" to petitioner, with
the information that the lock was open. Upon inspection, petitioner
found that a folder containing certain exhibits, transcripts and private
documents needed for the case were missing, aside from two gift
items for his parents-in-law. Petitioner refused to accept the luggage.
Dagorro returned it to the porter clerk, Gomez, who sealed it and
forwarded the same to PAL Cebu. Petitioner asked for postponement
of the hearing due to loss of his documents, which was granted by the
Court. Petitioner demanded that his luggage be produced intact, and
that he be compensated in the sum of P250K for actual and moral
damages within five days from receipt of the letter, otherwise, he
would be left with no alternative but to file suit. Messrs. de Leon,
Navarsi, and Agustin, all of PAL Cebu, went to petitioner's office to
deliver the "maleta". In the presence of Mr.Yap and Atty.Maranga the
contents were listed and receipted for by petitioner. Petitioner filed a
Complaint against PAL for damages for breach of contract of
transportation with the CFI of Cebu. Lower Court found PAL to have
acted in bad faith and with malice and declared petitioner entitled to
moral damages. CA found PAL was guilty only of simple negligence,
reversed the judgment of the trial Court granting petitioner moral and
exemplary damages, but ordered PAL to pay plaintiff the sum of
P100.00, the baggage liability assumed by it under the condition of
carriage printed at the back of the ticket.
RULING:
YES. As a general proposition, the plaintiff's maleta having been
pilfered while in the custody of the defendant, it is presumed that the
defendant had been negligent. The liability, however, of PAL for the
loss, in accordance with the stipulation written on the back of the
ticket, is limited to P100.00 per baggage, plaintiff not having declared
a greater value, and not having called the attention of the defendant
on its true value and paid the tariff therefor. The validity of this
stipulation is not questioned by the plaintiff. They are printed in
reasonably and fairly big letters, and are easily readable. Moreover,
plaintiff had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan
City and back, and he, being a lawyer and businessman, must be fully
aware of these conditions.
.
There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for
his luggage, much less did he pay any additional transportation
charge. While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane
ticket he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such
provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and
valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of
knowledge or assent to the regulation". It is what is known as a
contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that
contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form
of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are
contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract
is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his
consent. Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a
higher value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in
excess of P100.00.Besides, and passengers are advised not to place
valuable items inside their baggage but to avail of our V-cargo
service. It is likewise to be noted that there is nothing in the evidence
to show the actual value of the goods allegedly lost by petitioner.
When the shipment arrived, it was found upon inspection that some
portions were in bad order or condition. Respondents co-insurers paid
the consignee Heindrich and became subrogees therein. Hence, the
respondents brought suit against several defendants, but were
dismissed by the RTC. However in CA, defendants Pakarti, Shinwa,
Kee Yeh, and Sky were held solidarily liable for 70% of the claim,
while 30% will be shouldered by Cardia and its agent, petitioner Ace
Navigation.
Among all the petitions concerning such CA decision, only the petition
of Ace Navigation remained. Petitioner argued that it cannot be held
liable since it was not a party to the bill of lading, and its principal
Cardia was not impleaded as party-defendant and thus no liability
attaches to the agent. Furthermore, Ace Navigation remarked that
there was death of evidence linking it to the supposed defective
packing of the shipment. On the other hand, respondents maintained
further that Ace Navigation was a ship agent.
Issue:
(1) Did petitioner Ace Navigation become a party to the bill of
lading?
(2) Is petitioner Ace Navigation a ship agent or a mere agent of
Cardia?
Ace Navigation Co., Inc. vs. FGU Insurance Corp.
G.R. No. 171591
June 25, 2012
Topics: Bill of Lading
Facts:
Cardia Limited shipped tons of cement aboard a vessel from
Shanghai Port, China to Manila Port to its consignee, Heindrich
Trading Corp. The subject shipment was insured with respondents,
FGU Insurance Corp. and Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. The
subject vessel is owned by Pakarti, which chartered the ship to
Shinwa, which in turn chartered it to Sky, an agent of Kee Yeh, which
further chartered it to Regency. It was Regency that directly dealt with
the consignee Heindrich, and accordingly issued Clean Bill of Lading
No. SM-1.
Ruling:
(1) Yes. A bill of lading is defined as "an instrument in writing, signed
by a carrier or his agent, describing the freight so as to identify it,
stating the name of the consignor, the terms of the contract for
carriage, and agreeing or directing that the freight to be delivered to
the order or assigns of a specified person at a specified place." It
operates both as a receipt and as a contract. As a receipt, it recites
the date and place of shipment, describes the goods as to quantity,
weight, dimensions, identification marks and condition, quality, and
value. As a contract, it names the contracting parties, which include
the consignee, fixes the route, destination, and freight rates or
charges, and stipulates the rights and obligations assumed by the
parties. As such, it shall only be binding upon the parties who make
them, their assigns and heirs.
In this case, the original parties to the bill of lading are: (a) the shipper
Cardia; (b) the carrier Pakarti; and (c) the consignee Heindrich.
However, by virtue of their relationship with Pakarti under separate
charter arrangements, Shinwa, Kee Yeh and its agent Sky likewise
became parties to the bill of lading. In the same vein, Ace Navigation,
as admitted agent of Cardia, also became a party to the said contract
of carriage.
(2) Ace Navigation is not a ship agent. Under Article 586, Code of
Commerce, ship agent is understood to be the person entrusted with
the provisioning of a vessel, or who represents her in the port in which
she may be found.
Records show that the obligation of Ace Navigation was limited to
informing the consignee Heindrich of the arrival of the vessel in order
for the latter to immediately take possession of the goods. No
evidence was offered to establish that Ace Navigation had a hand in
the provisioning of the vessel or that it represented the carrier, its
charterers, or the vessel at any time during the unloading of the
goods. Clearly, petitioner's participation was simply to assume
responsibility over the cargo when they were unloaded from the
vessel. Hence, Ace Navigation was not a ship agent, but a mere agent
of Cardia, the shipper.
receiver Simon, it was already short by 18.556 metric tons. For the
second shipment, Contiquincybunge made shipment, through M/V
Tern, of 3,300.000 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal in Bulk for
delivery to Simon at the Port of Manila. The carrier issued its clean
Berth Term Grain Bill of Lading. The shipment was received by ATI
again for delivery to Simon. However, the shipped cargos were found
lacking 199.863 metric tons.
Simon has filed an action for damages against the unknown owner of
the vessels M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia
Marine Transport, Inc., and petitioner ATI alleging that it suffered the
losses through the fault or negligence of the said defendants. The
case of the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Sea Dream has been
settled in release and quitclaim and therefore has been stricken out of
the case, leaving M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia Marine
Transport, Inc., and petitioner ATIs case remaining. The RTC has
ruled that the defendants be solidarily liable for the damages incurred
by Simon.
Unsatisfied with the RTC ruling, the owner of the M/V Tern, and InterAsia Marine Transport, Inc. appealed to CA on the issue whether RTC
has erred in finding that they did not exercise extraordinary diligence
in the handling of the goods. On the other hand, the petitioner ATI has
also appealed to CA on the issue that the RTC, the court-a-quo,
committed serious and reversible error in holding ATI solidarily liable
with co-defendant appellant Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. contrary
to the evidence presented. The CA ruled that the RTC ruling be
assailed with some modifications on the basis that M/V Tern and InterAsia Marine Transport, Inc. have failed to establish that they exercised
extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods or exercised due
diligence to forestall or lessen the loss as provided in Article 1742 of
the Civil Code. And on ATIs RTC ruling, it was assailed as well on the
basis that the stevedore of the M/V Tern has witnessed that during the
dischargement of the cargo, there has been spillage done by the
stevedores of ATI which is an evidence that ATI has been negligible in
handling the goods.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in affirming the
decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its
co-defendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods
to respondent.
Ruling: