EVIDENCE OF CONTRACT

Transportation Case Digest: CIA Maritima V. Insurance Co. Of North America (1964)

G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964

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.
 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.
 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
 subrogation agreement between Macleod and the insurance company wherein the Macleod assigned its rights over
the insured and damaged cargo
 October 28, 1953.: failing to recover from the carrier P60,421.02 (amount supported by receipts), the insurance
company instituted the present action
 CA affirmed RTC: ordering CM to pay the insurance co.
ISSUE: W/N there was a contract of carriage bet. CM (carrier) and Macleod (shipper)
HELD: YES. Affirmed
 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
Saludo vs. CA 207 SCRA 498
Facts:
Crispina Saludo died in Illinois. Preparations were made by a funeral home for the shipment of the remains to
the Phil. The shipment was booked with TWA for the first route, and with PAL for the second. Airway bills were
issued. But somehow, the remains of Crispina were switched with another. Thus, there was delay in the
delivery of the cargo. Saludo then instituted an action for damages alleging that the carriers failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence over the cargo received by them for shipment. To support such assertion, Saludo
invoked the dictum that a bill of lading is prima facie evidence of the receipt of the goods by the carrier
Respondents, however, deny liability alleging that they did not receive the remains.
Issue:
WON TWA and PAL should be held liable.
Held:
No.
The airway bills issued was not an evidence of receipt of delivery to the airline but merely a confirmation of the
booking.
A bill of lading, when properly executed and delivered to a shipper, is evidence that the carrier has received the
goods described therein for shipment.
Alhough an airway bill estops the carrier from denying receipt of goods of the quantity and quality described in
the bill, a further reading and a more faithful quotation of this authority would reveal that (a) bill of lading may
contain constituent elements of estoppel and thus become something more than a contract between the
shipper and the carrier. . . . However, as between the shipper and the carrier, when no goods have been
delivered for shipment no recitals in the bill can estop the carrier from showing the true facts . . . Between the
consignor of goods and receiving carrier, recitals in a bill of lading as to the goods shipped raise only a
rebuttable presumption that such goods were delivered for shipment. As between the consignor and a
receiving carrier, the fact must outweigh the recital.