Compania Maritima v.

Insurance Company of North America 054

GR No. L-18965, 30 Oct 1964, Bautista Angelo J.
Digested by Fonzy Law 138 Transportation Law
Topic: Duration of Extraordinary Responsibility

The goods was not yet actually loaded on the vessel which would carry the hemp to its
destination and that no bill of lading was issued when the vessel sank. SC held that
this fact is irrelevant, and that the contract of carriage already commenced when the
shipping company went to shippers private pier to get the goods.

FACTS
Macleod contracted by telephone the services of the Compaia Maritima (CM), a
shipping corporation, for: shipment of hemp from the Macleod's Sasa private pier
at Davao City to Manila to be subsequently transhipped to Boston.
This oral contract was later on confirmed and the loading of the hemp was
completed when CM sent 2 private wharfs to Macelods pier.
The 2 vessels were manned each by a patron and an assistant patron.
One of the vessels sank, resulting in the damage or loss of 1,162 bales of hemp
loaded therein.
All abaca shipments of Macleod were insured with the Insurance Company of
North America
o Macleod filed a claim for the loss it suffered with the insurance company
and was paid P64,018.55
The insurance company failing to recover from the carrier, the insurance
company instituted the present action
CA and RTC both ordered CM to pay the insurance co.

ISSUES & HOLDING

W/N there was a contract of carriage bet. CM (carrier) and Macleod (shipper)
existed YES. The liability of the common carrier ccommences on
their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier or an authorized agent.

RATIO
The main contention is the fact that the loss occurred when the hemp was loaded
on a barge owned by the carrier which was loaded free of charge and was not
actually loaded on the vessel which would carry the hemp to Manila and that no
bill of lading was issued.
SC: This preparatory fact does not in any way impair the contract of carriage
already entered into between the carrier and the shipper, for that preparatory
step is but part and parcel of said contract of carriage.
o There was a complete contract of carriage the consummation of which has
already begun: the shipper delivering the cargo to the carrier, and the
 latter taking possession thereof by placing it on a lighter manned by its
authorized employees
The liability and responsibility of the carrier under a contract for the carriage of
goods commence on their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier or an
authorized agent. ... and delivery to a lighter in charge of a vessel for shipment
on the vessel, where it is the custom to deliver in that way, binds the vessel
receiving the freight
The test as to whether the relation of shipper and carrier had been established
is, Had the control and possession of the cotton been completely
surrendered by the shipper to the common carrier?
o Whenever the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier and
nothing remains to be done by the shipper, then it can be said with
certainty that the relation of shipper and carrier has been established.
The fact that the hemp was not actually loaded on the ship that was to take it
from Davao City to Manila is of no moment. In fact, the receipt signed by the
patron of the lighter that carried the hemp stated that he was receiving the cargo
"in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition.
A bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation of a contract of
carriage.
The bill of lading is not essential to the contract, although it may become
obligatory by reason of the regulations.
The Code does not demand, as necessary requisite in the contract of
transportation, the delivery of the bill of lading to the shipper, but gives
right to both the carrier and the shipper to mutually demand of each other
the delivery of said bill.
Side issue: No force majeure, it was lack of precautions that caused the damage
(the ill-fated barge had cracks on its bottom).

DISPOSITIVE
Decision appealed from is affirmed.