macam vs ca

8/8/2015 G.R.No.125524

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_125524_1999.html 1/5

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.125524August25,1999

BENITOMACAMdoingbusinessunderthenameandstyleBENMACENTERPRISES,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,CHINAOCEANSHIPPINGCO.,and/orWALLEMPHILIPPINESSHIPPING,INC.,respondents.

BELLOSILLO,J.:

On 4 April 1989 petitioner Benito Macam, doing business under the name and style BenMac Enterprises,shippedonboardthevesselNenJiang,ownedandoperatedbyrespondentChinaOceanShippingCo.,throughlocal agent respondentWallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (hereinafterWALLEM), 3,500 boxes of watermelonsvaluedatUS$5,950.00coveredbyBillofLadingNo.HKG99012andexportedthroughLetterofCreditNo.HK1031/30issuedbyNationalBankofPakistan,Hongkong(hereinafterPAKISTANBANK)and1,611boxesoffreshmangoeswithavalueofUS$14,273.46coveredbyBillofLadingNo.HKG99013andexportedthroughLetterofCredit No. HK 1032/30 also issued by PAKISTANBANK. The Bills of Lading contained the following pertinentprovision:"Oneof theBillsofLadingmustbesurrendereddulyendorsedinexchangeforthegoodsordeliveryorder.1 The shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great ProspectCompanyofKowloon,Hongkong(hereinafterGPC)asnotifyparty.

On 6 April 1989, per letter of credit requirement, copies of the bills of lading and commercial invoices weresubmitted to petitioner's depository bank, Consolidated Banking Corporation (hereinafter SOLIDBANK), whichpaidpetitionerinadvancethetotalvalueoftheshipmentofUS$20,223.46.1 w p h i1 .n t

UponarrivalinHongkong,theshipmentwasdeliveredbyrespondentWALLEMdirectlytoGPC,nottoPAKISTANBANK, and without the required bill of lading having been surrendered. Subsequently, GPC failed to payPAKISTANBANKsuch that the latter, still in possessionof theoriginal bills of lading, refused to paypetitionerthrough SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK already prepaid petitioner the value of the shipment, it demandedpayment from respondent WALLEM through five (5) letters but was refused. Petitioner was thus allegedlyconstrainedtoreturntheamountinvolvedtoSOLIDBANK,thendemandedpaymentfromrespondentWALLEMinwritingbuttonoavail.

On25September1991petitionersoughtcollectionofthevalueoftheshipmentofUS$20,223.46oritsequivalentofP546,033.42fromrespondentsbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,basedondeliveryoftheshipmenttoGPCwithoutpresentationofthebillsofladingandbankguarantee.

Respondentscontended that theshipmentwasdelivered toGPCwithoutpresentationof thebillsof ladingandbankguaranteeperrequestofpetitionerhimselfbecausetheshipmentconsistedofperishablegoods.Thetelexdated5April1989conveyingsuchrequestread

AS PER SHPR'S REQUEST KINDLY ARRANGE DELIVERY OF A/M SHIPT TO RESPECTIVE CNEESWITHOUTPRESENTATIONOFOB/L2 and bank guarantee since for prepaid shipt ofrt charges alreadyfullypaidourend....3

Respondentsexplainedthatitisastandardmaritimepractice,whenimmediatedeliveryisoftheessence,fortheshippertorequestor instructthecarriertodeliverthegoodstothebuyeruponarrivalat theportofdestinationwithout requiring presentation of the bill of lading as that usually takes time. As proof thereof, respondentsapprised the trial court that for the duration of their twoyear business relationship with petitioner concerningsimilar shipments to GPC deliveries were effected without presentation of the bills of lading.4 Respondentsadvanced next that the refusal of PAKISTANBANK to pay the letters of credit toSOLIDBANKwas due to thelatter'sfailuretosubmitaCertificateofQuantityandQuality.Respondentscounterclaimedforattorney'sfeesandcostsofsuit.

8/8/2015 G.R.No.125524


On 14 May 1993 the trial court ordered respondents to pay, jointly and severally, the following amounts: (1)P546,033.42plus legal interest from6April1989until fullpayment (2)P10,000.00asattorney's feesand, (3)thecosts.Thecounterclaimsweredismissedforlackofmerit.5Thetrialcourtopinedthatrespondentsbreachedtheprovisioninthebillof ladingrequiringthat"oneoftheBillsofLadingmustbesurrendereddulyendorsedinexchangeforthegoodsordeliveryorder,"whentheyreleasedtheshipmenttoGPCwithoutpresentationofthebills of ladingand thebankguarantee that shouldhavebeen issuedbyPAKISTANBANK in lieuof thebills oflading.ThetrialcourtaddedthattheshipmentshouldnothavebeenreleasedtoGPCatallsincetheinstructioncontainedinthetelexwastoarrangedeliverytotherespectiveconsigneesandnottoanyparty.ThetrialcourtobservedthattheonlyroleofGPCinthetransactionasnotifypartywaspreciselytobenotifiedofthearrivalofthecargoesinHongkongsoitcouldinturndulyadvisetheconsignee.

RespondentCourtofAppealsappreciatedtheevidenceinadifferentmanner.Accordingtoit,asestablishedbyprevioussimilartransactionsbetweentheparties,shippedcargoesweresometimesactuallydeliverednottotheconsigneebut tonotifypartyGPCwithoutneedof thebillsof ladingorbankguarantee.6Moreover, thebillsoflading were viewed by respondent court to have been properly superseded by the telex instruction and toimplementtheinstruction,thedeliveryoftheshipmentmustbetoGPC,therealimporter/buyerofthegoodsasshownby theexport invoices,7 andnot toPAKISTANBANKsince the latter couldverywellpresent thebillsofladinginitspossessionlikewise,ifitwerethePAKISTANBANKtowhichthecargoesweretobestrictlydelivereditwouldnolongerbepropertorequireabankguarantee.Respondentcourtnotedthatbesides,GPCwaslistedas a consignee in the telex. It observed further that the demand letter of petitioner to respondents nevercomplainedofmisdeliveryofgoods.Lastly, respondentcourt found thatpetitioner'sclaimofhaving reimbursedtheamount involved toSOLIDBANKwasunsubstantiated.Thus,on13March1996 respondentcourtsetasidethe decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint together with the counterclaims.8 On 5 July 1996reconsiderationwasdenied.9

Petitionersubmitsthatthefactthattheshipmentwasnotdeliveredtotheconsigneeasstatedinthebillofladingortoapartydesignatedornamedbytheconsigneeconstitutesamisdeliverythereof.Moreover,petitionerarguesthat fromthetextof thetelex,assumingtherewassuchan instruction, thedeliveryof theshipmentwithout therequired bill of lading or bank guarantee should be made only to the designated consignee, referring toPAKISTANBANK.

We are not persuaded. The submission of petitioner that "the fact that the shipmentwas not delivered to theconsignee as stated in the Bill of Lading or to a party designated or named by the consignee constitutes amisdeliverythereof"isadeviationfromhiscauseofactionbeforethetrialcourt.It isclearfromtheallegationinhiscomplaintthatitdoesnotdealwithmisdeliveryofthecargoesbutofdeliverytoGPCwithouttherequiredbillsofladingandbankguarantee

6.ThegoodsarrivedinHongkongandwerereleasedbythedefendantWallemdirectlytothebuyer/notifyparty, Great Prospect Company and not to the consignee, the National Bank of Pakistan, Hongkong,without the required bills of lading and bank guarantee for the release of the shipment issued by theconsigneeofthegoods....10

Even going back to an event that transpired prior to the filing of the present case or when petitioner wroterespondentWALLEMdemandingpaymentofthevalueofthecargoes,misdeliveryofthecargoesdidnotcomeintothepicture

Wearewritingyouonbehalfofourclient,BenMacEnterpriseswho informedus thatBillsofLadingNo.99012and99013withatotalvalueofUS$20,223.46werereleasedtoGreatProspect,Hongkongwithoutthenecessarybankguarantee.Wewerefurtherinformedthattheconsigneeofthegoods,NationalBankofPakistan,Hongkong,didnotreleaseorendorsetheoriginalbillsof lading.Asaresultthereof,neithertheconsignee,NationalBankofPakistan,Hongkong,nor the importer,GreatProspectCompany,Hongkong,paidourclientforthegoods....11

Atanyrate,weshalldwellonpetitioner'ssubmissiononlyasapreludetoourdiscussionontheimputedliabilityofrespondentsconcerningtheshippedgoods.Article1736oftheCivilCodeprovides

Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time the goods areunconditionallyplacedinthepossessionof,andreceivedbythecarrierfortransportationuntilthesamearedelivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee,or to thepersonwhohasa right toreceivethem,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofarticle1738.12

We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until actual or constructivedeliveryofthecargoestotheconsigneeortothepersonwhohasarighttoreceivethem.PAKISTANBANKwasindicated in thebillsof ladingasconsigneewhereasGPCwas thenotifyparty.However, in theexport invoicesGPC was clearly named as buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to

8/8/2015 G.R.No.125524


respondentWALLEM and in his complaint before the trial court. This premise draws us to conclude that thedelivery of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which, conformably with Art. 1736 had, other than theconsignee,therighttoreceivethem14wasproper.

Thereal issueiswhetherrespondentsareliabletopetitionerforreleasingthegoodstoGPCwithoutthebillsofladingorbankguarantee.

Respondentssubmittedinevidenceatelexdated5April1989asbasisfordeliveringthecargoestoGPCwithoutthe bills of lading and bank guarantee. The telex instructed delivery of various shipments to the respectiveconsigneeswithoutneedofpresentingthebillofladingandbankguaranteepertherespectiveshipper'srequestsince "for prepaid shipt ofrt charges already fully paid." Petitionerwas named therein as shipper andGPC asconsigneewith respect toBill ofLadingNos.HKG99012andHKG99013.Petitionerdisputes theexistenceofsuchinstructionandclaimsthatthisevidenceisselfserving.

Fromthetestimonyofpetitioner,wegatherthathehasbeentransactingwithGPCasbuyer/importerforaroundtwo(2)or three(3)yearsalready.Whenmangoesandwatermelonsare inseason,hisshipment toGPCusingthefacilitiesofrespondentsistwiceorthriceaweek.ThegoodsarereleasedtoGPC.Ithasbeenthepracticeofpetitionertorequesttheshippinglinestoimmediatelyreleaseperishablecargoessuchaswatermelonsandfreshmangoes through telephonecallsbyhimselforhis "people." In transactionscoveredbya letterof credit,bankguaranteeisnormallyrequiredbytheshippinglinespriortoreleasingthegoods.Butforbuyersusingtelegraphictransfers,petitionerdispenseswiththebankguaranteebecausethegoodsarealreadyfullypaid. InhisseveralyearsofbusinessrelationshipwithGPCandrespondents,therewasnotasingleinstancewhenthebillofladingwas first presented before the release of the cargoes. He admitted the existence of the telex of 3 July 1989containinghisrequesttodelivertheshipmenttotheconsigneewithoutpresentationofthebilloflading15butnotthetelexof5April1989becausehecouldnotrememberhavingmadesuchrequest.

Considerpertinentportionsofpetitioner'stestimony

Q:AreyouawareofanydocumentwhichwouldindicateorshowthatyourrequesttothedefendantWallemfortheimmediatereleaseofyourfreshfruits,perishablegoods,toGreatProspectwithoutthepresentationoftheoriginalBillofLading?

A:Yes,bytelegraphictransfer,whichmeansthatitisfullypaid.AndIrequestedimmediatereleaseofthecargobecausetherewasimmediatepayment.

Q:Andyouarereferring,therefore,tothiscopyTelexreleasethatyoumentionedwhereyourCompany'snameappearsBenMac?

Atty.Hernandez:Justfortherecord,YourHonor,thewitnessisshowingaBillofLadingreferringtoSKG(sic)93023and93026withGreatProspectCompany.

Atty.Ventura:

Q:Isthatthetelegraphictransfer?

A:Yes, actually, all the shipperspartially request for the immediate releaseof thegoodswhen theyareperishable. I thoughtWallemShippingLines isnotneophyte in thebusiness.As farasLC isconcerned,Bankguaranteeisneededfortheimmediatereleaseofthegoods....15

Q:Mr.Witness,youtestifiedthatifisthepracticeoftheshipperoftheperishablegoodstoasktheshippinglinestoreleaseimmediatelytheshipment.Isthatcorrect?

A:Yes,sir.

Q:Now,it isalsothepracticeoftheshippertoallowtheshippinglinestoreleasetheperishablegoodstotheimporterofgoodswithoutaBillofLadingorBankguarantee?

A:No,itcannotbewithouttheBankGuarantee.

Atty.Hernandez:

Q:CanyoutellusaninstancewhenyouwillallowthereleaseoftheperishablegoodsbytheshippinglinestotheimporterwithouttheBankguaranteeandwithouttheBillofLading?

A:Asfarastelegraphictransferisconcerned.

Q:Canyouexplain(to)thisHonorableCourtwhattelegraphictransferis?

8/8/2015 G.R.No.125524


A:Telegraphictransfer,itmeansadvancepaymentthatIamalreadyfullypaid....

Q:Mr.Macam,withregardtoWallemandtoGreatProspect,wouldyouknowandcanyourecallthatanyofyourshipmentwasreleasedtoGreatProspectbyWallemthroughtelegraphictransfer?

A:Icouldnotrecallbutthereweresomanyinstancessir.

Q:Mr.Witness,doyouconfirmbeforethisCourtthatinpreviousshipmentsofyourgoodsthroughWallem,yourequestedWallemtoreleaseimmediatelyyourperishablegoodstothebuyer?

A:Yes,thatistherequestoftheshippersoftheperishablegoods....16

Q:Now,Mr.Macam, if you request the Shipping Lines for the release of your goods immediately evenwithoutthepresentationofOBL,howdoyoucourseit?

A:Usually,IcalluptheShippingLines,sir....17

Q:Youalso testifiedyoumade this request throughphonecalls.Whoofyou talkedwheneveryoumadesuchphonecall?

A:MostlyIletmypeopletocall,sir.(sic)

Q:Soeverytimeyoumadeashipmentonperishablegoodsyouletyourpeopletocall?(sic)

A:Noteverytime,sir.

Q:Youdidnotmakethisrequestinwriting?

A:No,sir.IthinkIhavenowrittenrequestwithWallem....18

Against petitioner's claimof "not remembering" havingmadea request for delivery of subject cargoes toGPCwithout presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee as reflected in the telex of 5 April 1989 aredamaging disclosures in his testimony. He declared that it was his practice to ask the shipping lines toimmediately release shipment of perishable goods through telephone calls by himself or his "people." He nolongerrequiredpresentationofabillof ladingnorofabankguaranteeasaconditiontoreleasingthegoods incasehewasalreadyfullypaid.Thus,takingintoaccountthatsubjectshipmentconsistedofperishablegoodsandSOLIDBANK prepaid the full amount of the value thereof, it is not hard to believe the claim of respondentWALLEM that petitioner indeed requested the releaseof thegoods toGPCwithout presentationof thebills ofladingandbankguarantee.

The instruction in the telex of 5 April 1989 was "to deliver the shipment to respective consignees." And sopetitionerarguesthat,assumingtherewassuchaninstruction,theconsigneereferredtowasPAKISTANBANK.Wefindtheargumenttoosimplistic.RespondentcourtanalyzedthetelexinitsentiretyandcorrectlyarrivedattheconclusionthattheconsigneereferredtowasnotPAKISTANBANKbutGPC

Thereisnomistakethattheoriginalsofthetwo(2)subjectBillsofLadingarestillinthepossessionofthePakistani Bank. The appealed decision affirms this fact. Conformably, to implement the said telexinstruction,thedeliveryoftheshipmentmustbetoGPC,thenotifypartyorrealimporter/buyerofthegoodsand not the Pakistani Bank since the latter can very well present the original Bills of Lading in itspossession.Likewise,ifitwerethePakistaniBanktowhomthecargoesweretobestrictlydelivered,itwillno longer be proper to require a bank guarantee as a substitute for the Bill of Lading. To construeotherwisewill rendermeaningless the telex instruction. After all, the cargoes consist of perishable freshfruitsand immediatedelivery thereof to thebuyer/importer isessentiallya factor to reckonwith.Besides,GPCislistedasoneamongtheseveralconsigneesinthetelex(Exhibit5B)andtheinstructioninthetelexwastoarrangedeliveryofA/Mshipment(notanyparty) torespectiveconsigneeswithoutpresentationofOB/Landbankguarantee....20

Apartfromtheforegoingobstaclestothesuccessofpetitioner'scause,petitionerfailedtosubstantiatehisclaimthathereturnedtoSOLIDBANKthefullamountofthevalueofthecargoes.It isnotfarfetchedtoentertainthenotion,asdid respondentcourt, thathemerelyaccommodatedSOLIDBANK inorder to recover thecostof theshipped cargoes from respondents. We note that it was SOLIDBANK which initially demanded payment fromrespondentsthroughfive(5) letters.SOLIDBANKmusthaverealizedtheabsenceofprivityofcontractbetweenitselfandrespondents.Thatiswhypetitionerconvenientlytookthecudgelsforthebank.

Inviewofpetitioner'sutterfailuretoestablishtheliabilityofrespondentsoverthecargoes,noreversibleerrorwascommittedbyrespondentcourtinrulingagainsthim.

8/8/2015 G.R.No.125524


WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.ThedecisionofrespondentCourtofAppealsof13March1996dismissingthecomplaintofpetitionerBenitoMacamandthecounterclaimsofrespondentsChinaOceanShippingCo.and/orWallemPhilippinesShipping,Inc.,aswellasitsresolutionof5July1996denyingreconsideration,isAFFIRMED.1 w p h i1 .n t

SOORDERED.

Mendoza,QuisumbingandBuena,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Exhs."A"and"B"Records,pp.8485.

2OriginalBillofLading.

3Exh."5A"Records,p.146.

4Exh."6"id.,p.147.

5DecisionpennedbyJudgeNapoleonR.Flojo,RTCBr.2,ManilaRollo,p.61.

6SeeNote3.

7Exhs."N2"and"O2"Records,pp.108and711.

8DecisionpennedbyJusticeConradoM.VasquezJr.withtheconcurrenceofJusticesGloriaC.ParasandAngelinaSandovalGutierrezRollo,p.45.

9Rollo,p.48.

10Records,p.3.

11Exh."K"Records,p.100.

12Art.1738.Theextraordinary liabilityof thecommoncarriercontinues tobeoperativeevenduring thetimethegoodsarestored inwarehouseof thecarrierat theplaceofdestination,until theconsigneehasbeenadvisedofthearrivalofthegoodsandhashadreasonableopportunitythereaftertoremovethemorotherwisedisposeofthem.

14 EasternShippingLines, Inc. v.Court ofAppeals,G.R.No. 80936, 17October 1990, 190SCRA512SamarMiningCompany,Inc.v.NordeutscherLloyd,No.L28673,23October1984,132SCRA529.

15SeeNote3.

15TSN,6November1992,pp.2425.

16Id.,pp.2728.

17Id.,p.31.

18TSN,18November1992,pp.89.

19FootnotenotavailablepercopyofSCdecision.

20Rollo,pp.4243.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

macam vs ca

Documents