4. CHARACTER OF GOODS, ETC.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YNCHAUSTI & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

FACTS:

Plaintiff shipped cargo of roofing tiles from Manila to Iloilo on a vessel belonging to the defendant. The tiles were delivered by the defendant to the
consignee of the plaintiff. Upon delivery it was found that some of the tiles had been damaged. Plaintiff moved to recover the sum amount equivalent to
the damages but the lower court rendered judgment against it and in favor of defendant absolving the latter from all liability.

The defendant denied that the tiles were broken by reason of its negligence. The defendant proved, and the plaintiff did not attempt to dispute, that the
roofing tiles in question were of a brittle and fragile nature; that they were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in bundles of ten each, tied with
bejuco [rattan], without any packing or protective covering.

ISSUE:
Whether or not defendant may be held liable

RULING:
NO. The Court provides that that the tiles in question were shipped at the owner’s risk, under the law in this jurisdiction, the carrier is only liable where
the evidence shows that he was guilty of some negligence and that the damages claimed were the result of such negligence. The plaintiff offered no
proof whatever to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

Under the provisions of article 361 the defendant, in order to free itself from liability, was only obliged to prove that the damages suffered by the goods
were "by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles." Under the provisions of article 362 the plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant liable, was obliged to
prove that the damages to the goods by virtue of their nature, occurred on account of its negligence or because the defendant did not take the
precaution usually adopted by careful persons.

In this jurisdiction there is no presumption of negligence on the part of the carriers in case like the present. The plaintiff, not having proved negligence on
the part of the defendant, is not entitled to recover damages.

SOUTHERN LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CITY OF ILOILO, respondents.
G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962

FACTS:

The City of Iloilo requisitioned for rice from the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC). It shipped 1,726 sacks of rice consigned to the City of Iloilo
on board of SS General Wright belong to Southern Lines.The City of Iloilo received the shipment and paid the amount stated in the bill of lading (around
PHP 63,115.50).

However, at the bottom of the bill of lading, it was noted that City of Iloilo received the merchandise in the same condition as when shipped, except that it
received only 1,685 sacks. Upon actual weighing, it was discovered that the shortage was equal to 41 sacks of rice. Thus, the City of Iloilo filed a
complaint against NARIC and Southern Lines for the recovery of the value of the shortage of the shipment of rice (Php 6,486.35). The lower court
absolved NARIC but sentenced Southern Lines to pay the amount.

CA affirmed. Hence, this petition for review.

Southern Lines claims exemption from liability by contending that the shortage in the shipment of rice was due to such factors as shrinkage, leakage or
spillage of the rice on account of the bad condition of the sacks at the time it received the same and negligence of the agents of City of Iloilo in receiving
the shipment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Southern Lines is liable for the loss or shortage of the rice shipped.
2. Whether the City of Iloilo is precluded from filing an action for damages on account of its failure to present a claim within 24 hours from receipt of the
shipment as stated in the bill of lading.

RULING:

Yes. The Court provides that the contention of Southern Lines with respect to the improper packing is untenable.Under Art. 361 of the Code of
Commerce, the carrier, in order to free itself from liability, was only obliged to prove that the damages suffered by the goods were “by virtue of the nature
or defect of the articles.” Under Art. 362, the plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove that the damages to the goods is by
virtue of their nature, occurred on account of its negligence or because the defendant did not take the precaution adopted by careful persons.It held that
if the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or his servants, or apparent upon ordinary observation, but it accepts the goods notwithstanding
such condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting therefrom.

No. The SC noted that Southern Lines failed to plead this defense in its answer to City of Iloilo’s complaint and, therefore, the same is deemed waived
and cannot be raised for the first time.The SC also cited the finding of the CA that City of Iloilo filed the action within a reasonable time; that the action is
one for the refund of the amount paid in excess, and not for damages or the recovery of shortage; the bill of lading does not at all limit the time for the
filing of action for the refund of money paid in excess.

GANZON V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. NO. L-48757, 30 MAY 1988, 161 SCRA 646

FACTS:
On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the
port of Manila on board the lighter LCT “Batman. Pursuant to that agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter “Batman” to Mariveles where it docked in
three feet of water. Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually begun
on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain’s supervision. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula
of Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument
between them, Mayor Jose Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing who sustained injuries.
After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. But on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen,
ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked. The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO.
Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron.
Tumabing sued Ganzon; the latter alleged that the goods have not been unconditionally placed under his custody and control to make him liable. The
trial court dismissed the case but on appeal, respondent Court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court and ordering Ganzon to pay
damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a contract of carriage has been perfected.

RULING:
Yes.
By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the
carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitioner-carrier’s extraordinary responsibility for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual
or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded
on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.
Before Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must
be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority. The appellee failed to establish this. Indeed, no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. Neither
has it been shown that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles. What we have in the record is the stipulation of the parties that
the cargo of scrap iron was accumulated by the appellant through separate purchases here and there from private individuals. The fact remains that the
order given by the acting mayor to dump the scrap iron into the sea was part of the pressure applied by Mayor Jose Advincula to shakedown
Tumambing for P5,000.00. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for Ganzon and his representatives to carry out.

COMPANIA MARITIMA VS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

FACTS:

October, 1952: Macleod and Company of the Philippines (Macleod) contracted by telephone the services of the Compañia Maritima (CM), a shipping
corporation, for shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from the Macleod's Sasa private pier at Davao City to Manila subsequent transhipment to Boston,
Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the S.S. Steel Navigator. This oral contract was later on confirmed by a formal and written booking issued by Macleod's
branch office in Sasa and handcarried to CM's branch office in Davao in compliance with which the CM sent to Macleod's private wharf LCT Nos. 1023
and 1025 on which the loading of the hemp was completed on October 29, 1952. The 2 lighters were manned each by a patron and an assistant
patron. The patrons of both barges issued the corresponding carrier's receipts and that issued by the patron of Barge No. 1025 reads in part:

Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition from MACLEOD AND COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transhipment
at Manila onto S.S. Steel Navigator.
FINAL DESTINATION: Boston.

In the early hours of October 30: LCT No. 1025 sank, resulting in the damage or loss of 1,162 bales of hemp loaded therein. Macleod promptly notified
the carrier's main office in Manila and its branch in Davao advising it of its liability. The damaged hemp was brought to Odell Plantation in Madaum,
Davao, for cleaning, washing, reconditioning, and redrying, and the total loss adds up to P60,421.02. All abaca shipments of Macleod were insured with
the Insurance Company of North America against all losses and damages. Macleod filed a claim for the loss it suffered with the insurance company and
was paid P64,018.55. Thereafter, subrogation agreement between Macleod and the insurance company wherein the Macleod assigned its rights over
the insured and damaged cargo. On October 28, 1953, respondent failed to recover from the carrier P60,421.02 (amount supported by receipts), the
insurance company instituted the present action.

CA affirmed RTC, ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a contract of carriage between CM (carrier) and Macleod (shipper)

RULING:

YES. The Court held that the receipt of goods by the carrier has been said to lie at the foundation of the contract to carry and deliver, and if actually no
goods are received there can be no such contract. 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. 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

As regards the form of the contract of carriage it can be said that provided that there is a meeting of the minds and from such meeting arise rights and
obligations, there should be no limitations as to form. The bill of lading is not essential even where it is provided by statute that liability commences with
the issuance of the bill of lading, actual delivery and acceptance are sufficient to bind the carrier, marine surveyors, attributes the sinking of LCT No.
1025 to the 'non-water-tight conditions of various buoyancy compartments.

G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957

LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant,
vs.
V. BINAMIRA, respondent-plaintiff.

FACTS:

On August 10, 1951, the Delta Photo Supply Company of New York shipped on board the M/S "FERNSIDE" at New York, U.S.A., six cases of films
and/or photographic supplies consigned to the order of respondent I. V. Binamira. For this shipment, Bill of Lading was issued. During the discharge,
good order cargo was separated from the bad order cargo on board the ship, and a separate list of bad order cargo was prepared by Pascual Villamor,
checker of the stevedoring company. All the cargo unloaded was received at the pier by the Visayan Cebu Terminal Company Inc, arrastre operator of
the port.

On September 26, 1951, three days after the goods were unloaded from the ship, respondent took delivery of his six cases of photographic supplies
from the arrastre operator. He discovered that the cases showed signs of pilferage and, consequently, he hired marine surveyors, R. J. del Pan &
Company, Inc., to examine them. The surveyors examined the cases and made a physical count of their contents in the presence of representatives of
petitioner, respondent and the stevedoring company. It appears from the evidence that the six cases of films and photographic supplies were discharged
from the ship at the port of Cebu by the stevedoring company hired by petitioner as agent of the carrier. All the unloaded cargo, including the shipment in
question, was received by the Visayan Cebu Terminal Company Inc., the arrastre operator appointed by the Bureau of Customs

ISSUE:

Whether or not the carrier responsible for the loss considering that the same occurred after the shipment was discharged from the ship and placed in the
possession and custody of the customs authorities?

RULING:

No. It is true that, as a rule, a common carrier is responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods it assumes to carry from one place to
another unless the same is due to any to any of the causes mentioned in Article 1734 on the new Civil Code, and that, if the goods are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated, for causes other that those mentioned, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves
that it has observed extraordinary diligence in their care (Article 1735, Idem.), and that this extraordinary liability lasts from the time the goods are placed
in the possession of the carrier until they are delivered to the consignee, or "to the person who has the right to receive them" (Article 1736, Idem.), but
these provisions only apply when the loss, destruction or deterioration takes place while the goods are in the possession of the carrier, and not after it
has lost control of them.

It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not assume liability for any loss or damage to the goods once they have been "taken into the custody of
customs or other authorities", or when they have been delivered at ship's tackle. These stipulations are clear. They have been adopted precisely to
mitigate the responsibility of the carrier considering the present law on the matter, and we find nothing therein that is contrary to morals or public policy
that may justify their nullification.