Scribd
Upload
46 views3 pages

Macam vs. CA

This case involves a shipment of watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong that was delivered without surrender of the bills of lading as required. The shipment was delivered to Great Prospect Company in Hong Kong instead of the consignee, Pakistan Bank, and without presentation of the bills of lading. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were not liable because the petitioner had instructed the shipping company by telephone to deliver perishable goods like the watermelons and mangoes without requiring presentation of the bills of lading, given that payment had already been made. Taking into account the perishable nature of the goods and prepayment, it was reasonable for the shipping company to release the goods without the bills

Uploaded by

applegee liboon
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
46 views3 pages

Macam vs. CA

This case involves a shipment of watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong that was delivered without surrender of the bills of lading as required. The shipment was delivered to Great Prospect Company in Hong Kong instead of the consignee, Pakistan Bank, and without presentation of the bills of lading. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were not liable because the petitioner had instructed the shipping company by telephone to deliver perishable goods like the watermelons and mangoes without requiring presentation of the bills of lading, given that payment had already been made. Taking into account the perishable nature of the goods and prepayment, it was reasonable for the shipping company to release the goods without the bills

Uploaded by

applegee liboon
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/ 3

Topic: DELIVERY WITHOUT SURRENDER OF BILL OF LADING

Benito Macam: petitioner vs.


Court of Appeals, China Ocean Shipping Co., and/or Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc.:
respondents

GR No. 125524
August. 25, 1999

Bellosillo, J.

Facts: Petitioner Benito Macam, doing business under the name and style Ben-Mac Enterprise,
shipped on board the vessel Nen-Jiang, owend and operated by respondent China Ocean
Shipping Co., through local agent respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. 3,500 boxes of
watermelons covered by Bill of Lading and exported through letter Credit issued by National
Bank of Pakistan and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes covered also by a bill of lading.

The Bills of lading contained the pertinent provision: “One of the Bills of Lading must be
surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order.”

The shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great
Prospect Company of Kowloon, Hongkong as notify party.

Upon arrival in HongKong, the shipment was delivered by respondent WALLEM directly to
GPC, not to PAKISTAN BANK and withoit the required bill of lading having been surrendered.

GPC failed to pay PAKISTAN BANK such that the latter, still in possession of the original bills
of lading, refused to pay petitioner through SOLID-BANK.

SOLID-BANK already prepaid petitioner the value of the shipment, it demanded payment from
respondent WALLEM but to no avail.

Petitioner sought collection of the value of the shipment before the RTC.

Respondents contended that the shipment was delivered to GPC without presentation of the bills
of lading and bank guarantee per request of petitioner himself because the shipment consisted of
perishable goods. Respondents advanced next that the refusal of PAKISTAN BANK to pay the
letters of credit to SOLIDBANK was due to the lat-ter’s failure to submit a Certificate of
Quantity and Quality.

the trial court ordered respondents to pay, jointly and severally. The trial court opined that
respondents breached the provision in the bill of lading requiring that “one of the Bills of Lading
must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order,” when they
released the shipment to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and the bank guarantee
that should have been issued by PAKISTAN BANK in lieu of the bills of lading.
Respondent Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint
together with the counterclaims.

Issue: Whether respondents are liable to petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without the
bills of lading or bank guarantee.

Ruling: No. Respondent is not liable. The General rule is that the surrender of the bill of lading
is necessary upon delivery of the goods. If the carrier fails to require such surrender:

1. If non-negotiable-Action against the carrier does not lie

2. If negotiable- Action by the shipper may lie against the carrier

Exception to the rule is when the surrender of the bill of lading is not necessary:

1. If the seller instructed the shipping company to deliver the cargoes to the buyer without
requiring the presentation of the bill of lading;

The shipping company shall not be liable for releasing the cargoes to the buyer.

2. If surrender of the original bill of lading is not possible.

Acknowledgement of the delivery by signing the delivery receipt suffices to discharge the
common carrier of its contractual obligation.

In this case, respondent submitted in evidence the 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 shift freight charges already fully paid.”
Further, petitioner declared that it was his 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, Thus, taking into account that subject shipment consisted of perishable goods and
SOLIDBANK prepaid 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.

You might also like