Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

5. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.

, 125 Phil 543 (1967) Loss/lost- the thing perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence
is unknown or it cannot be recovered.
1. Yau Yue Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hongkong, agreed to sell 140 packages of galvanized steel durzinc Loss contemplates a situation where NO DELIVERY AT ALL was made by the shipper of the goods. It
sheetsto one Herminio G. Teves, shipped by Tokyo Boeki Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan. with American does NOT include a situation where there was actual delivery but delivered to a wrong person /
SteamshipAgencies, Inc. as the agent in the Philippines, under a shipping agreement. misdelivery as alleged in this complaint.
2. The bill of lading was indorsed to the order of and delivered to Yau Yue by the shipper. Upon
receipt thereof, Yau Yue drew a demand draft together with the bill of lading against Herminio G. In Tan Pho v. Hassamal court made a distinction b/w NONdelivery & MISdelivery
Teves, through the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank.
3. Upon arrival of the goods, Hongkong & Shanghai Bank notified Teves, the "notify party" under the Since the bill of lading was made to order, the goods cant be delivered without any previous
bill of lading, of the arrival of the goods and requested payment of the demand draft representing payment of the value there. Since the goods were delivered to Aldeguer without paying the price, it
the purchase price of the articles. constituted MISDELIVERY and NOT nondelivery because there was IN FACT a DELIVERY of the
4. Teves, however, did not pay the demand draft, prompting the bank to make the corresponding merchandise. Since the goods were delivered, it cant be at the same time said that they were not
protest. The bank likewise returned the bill of lading and demand draft to Yau Yue who delivered.
subsequently indorsed the said bill of lading to petitioner Domingo Ang. In this case, the goods cant be deemed lost. They were delivered to Teves so that there can only
5. Despite non-payment Teves was able to secure a "Permit To Deliver Imported Articles" from be either delivery, if Teves really was entitled to receive them, or misdelivery, if he was not so
defendant American Steamship [apparently nag obtain ng bank guaranty si Teves in favor of American Steamship, entitled.
kaya he was able to get the permit despite non-payment] which he presented to the Bureau of Customs which in SC held that it is not for Us now to resolve whether or not delivery of the goods toTeves was proper,
turn released to him the articles covered by the bill of lading. that is, whether or not there was rightful delivery or misdelivery.
6. Subsequently, Domingo Ang claimed for the articles from American Steamship Agencies, Inc., by o The point that matters here is that the situation is either delivery or misdelivery, but not
presenting the indorsed bill of lading, but he was informed by the latter that it had delivered the nondelivery. Thus, the goods were either rightly delivered or misdelivered, but they were
articles to Teves. not lost
7. A complaint was filed by Ang against American Steamship for having allegedly wrongfully delivered
and/or converted the goods covered by the bill of lading. One-year period of prescription in Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply to misdelivery.
8. American Steamship filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that plaintiff's cause of action has
prescribed under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Lower court dismissed the case on the ground of There being NO LOSS the provision of the Carraige of Goods by Sea act stating that In any event,
prescription. Hence, an appeal was filed to SC. the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been
ISSUE: Did Angs cause of action prescribe under Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea delivered, DOES NOT APPLY.
Act? No besh. Prescription period under the Carriage of Goods by the Sea Act will NOT apply. The 1 year period is designed to meet the exigencies of maritime hazards. And if the goods were
neither lost nor damaged in transit but instead delivered in port to someone who claimed to be
Note: What is to be resolved in order to determine the applicability of the prescriptive period of one year entitled but were not, the SPECIAL NEED for the SHORT period of limitation in cases of loss/damage
to the case at bar is whether or not there was "loss" of the goods subject matter of the complaint. caused by maritime perils does not obtain.

HELD: Since the suit is predicated NOT ON LOSS but on ALLEGED MISDELIVERY(conversion) of goods, the applicable
rule on prescription is found in the CIVIL CODE either 10 yrs for breach of written contract of 4 yrs for quasi
Loss is NOT defined in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. delict.
Recourse to the Civil Code (CC). Art 18 NCC states that if the matter is governed by the Code of In either case, Angs cause of action has NOT yet prescribed since his right of action would have
Commerce & special law, CC will supply any deficiency therein. accrued (kung kelan pweds na soya mag demand) at earliest on May 9, 1961 when the ship arrived in Manila.
And under Art. 1189 of the CC, defines loss in cases where conditions have been imposed w/ He filed the suit on Oct. 30, 1963 (Mga 2 yrs and 5mos pa lang nakakalipas, so pasok pa sa prescription period sa Civil
intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give. Code na either 10 or 4yrs)
The contract of carriage entered between defendant American Steamship & Yau Yue (which later on
endorsed the bill of lading covering the shipment to plaintiff herein Domingo Ang), involves an Note: When a defendant files a motion to dismiss, he thereby hypothetically admits the truth of the
obligation to give/DELIVER the goods to the ORDER OF THE SHIPPER upon PRESENTATION & allegations of fact contained in the complaint.
SURRENDER of the bill of lading.