Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

SAMAR MINING COMPANY, INC. VS.

NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD AND CF SHARP & NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD now claims that they have discharged the goods in full and good
COMPANY, INC. condition unto the custody of AMCYL at the port of discharge from ship--Manila, and
therefore pursuant to the Bill of Lading, their responsibility for the cargo had ceased.

ISSUE: WON NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD should be liable as the carrier.


FACTS:
HELD: No.

Samar Mining Company imported one crate Optima welded wedge wire selves through
the M/S SCHWABENSTEIN a vessel owned by NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD, represented by CF RATIO:
Sharp & Co, Inc., covered by Bill of Lading No. 18. The goods however never delivered to,
nor received by, the consignee at the port of destination--Davao.
Pursuant to Art 1736 of the NCC, the carrier is relieved of the responsibility for loss or
damage to the goods upon actual or constructive delivery of the same by the carrier to the
Samar Mining filed a formal complaint. The Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.
Samar Mining.

There is actual delivery in contracts for the transport of goods when possession has been
ARGUMENT OF NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD turned over to the consignee or to his duly authorized agent and a reasonable time is
given to him to remove the goods.

Based on the Bill of Lading, the port of discharge of goods was Davao. It is contended that
in discharging goods from the ship at the port of Manila, and delivering the same into the There were two undertakings embodied in the Bill of Lading:
custody of AMCYL, the bonded warehouse, NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD were acting in full
accord with the contractual stipulations contained in the Bill of Lading. The delivery of the
goods to AMCYL was part of NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD’s duty to transship the goods from 1. For the transport of goods from Bremen, Germany to Manila
Manila to their port of destination--Davao.
2. The transshipment of the same goods from Manila to Davao with NORDEUTSCHER
LLOYD (though CF SHARP & COMPANY, INC.) acting as agent of the consignee
Section 1, paragraph 3 of Bill of Lading No. 18:

“The carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever for any delay, loss or damage The moment when the subject goods are discharged in Manila, its personality changes
occurring before the goods enter ship’s tackle to be loaded or after the goods leave ship’s from that of carrier to that of an agent of the consignee. Thus, the character of
tackle to be discharged, transshipped or forwarded. NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD’s possession also changes, from possession in its own name as
carrier, into possession in the name of the consignee as the latter’s agent. Such being the
case, there was, in effect, ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS FROM NORDEUTSCHER
LLOYD AS CARRIER TO THE SAME NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD AS AGENT OF THE CONSIGNEE
(Samar Mining). Upon such delivery, NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD as carrier ceases to be
responsible for any loss or damage that may befall the goods from that point on wards.

But even as agent of the consignee, NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD cannot be made answerable
for the value of the missing goods. The transshipment of the goods which was the object
of the agency was not fully performed, however, NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD had commenced
said performance, the completion of which was ABORTED BY CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND
ITS CONTROL. AMCYT as the substitute did not show notorious incompetence or
insolvency in storing te goods awaiting transshipment. Hence, NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD is
not liable.