Benito Macam, doing business under the name and style Ben-Mac Enterprises vs. Courts of Appeals, China Ocean Shipping Co., and/or Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc.
G.R. No. 125524, August 25, 1999
FACTS:
On 6 April 1989, petitioner Benito Macam shipped on board the vessel Nen Jiang, owned and operated by respondent China Ocean Shipping Co., through local agent respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. boxes of watermelons and mangoes which were covered by bill of ladings and exported through letters of credit issued by National Bank of Pakistan, Hongkong (Pakistan Bank). The Bills of Lading contained the following 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 (GPC) as notify party.
On 6 April 1989, 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.
Upon arrival in Hongkong and after receiving a telex instruction, the shipment was delivered by respondent Wallem directly to GPC, not to Pakistan Bank, 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.
ISSUE:
Is Wallem liable for the goods it delivered to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee?
RULING:
NO. Wallem is not liable for the following reasons:
1. It delivered the goods to the person who has the right to receive them. This is in accordance with Art. 1736 which states that: 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. GPC, even though designated as the notify party in the bills of lading, was clearly named as buyer/importer in the export invoices.
2. The petitioner sent instructions through telex to deliver 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.” GPC is listed as one among the several consignees in the telex.
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment