Case Digest: Tan Pho vs. Hassamal, G.R. No. 45598

 

Tan Pho vs. Hassamal, 67 Phil. 555, G.R. No. 45598, April 26, 1939

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Enrique Aldeguer purchased on credit from Hassamal Dalamal certain merchandise valued at P583.60. Hassamal Dalamal, the plaintiff and herein respondent, shipped said merchandise on the ship of Tan Pho, defendant and herein petitioner, and endorsed the bill of lading to the Chartered Bank of China, India & Australia, which, in turn, endorsed it to the Philippine National Bank. The said bill of lading was made to order and contains the initials of Enrique Aldeguer, "E. A."

Upon arrival of the goods in Sorsogon, the agent of the defendant-petitioner delivered the merchandise to Enrique Aldeguer who presented the invoice and signed a receipt. The plaintiff-respondent; upon learning that Aldeguer had received the merchandise, made him sign a forty-day draft for the value of said merchandise.

The Philippine National Bank, with the consent of the plaintiff-respondent, gave Aldeguer an extension of ten days to pay the amount of the merchandise in question, and upon the expiration of the period, the plaintiff-respondent required Aldeguer to pay the merchandise. Unable to get such payment, the plaintiff-respondent brought suit on November 28, 1934, that is, after the expiration of 174 days from the delivery of the merchandise to Aldeguer.

The court decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff upon the theory that the delivery of the goods to Aldeguer constitutes nondelivery, wherefore, the claim not having been filed within thirty days nor the action instituted within sixty days, the plaintiff-respondent waived his claim or right of action against the defendant.

On appeal the Court of Appeals upheld the contrary view and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Hence the defendant has taken this appeal on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the delivery of certain merchandise by the carrier to an agent without presenting the bill of lading, constitutes misdelivery or nondelivery.

RULING

Yes, it constitutes misdelivery, not a case of nondelivery.

Under the Article 368 of the Code of Commerce, the carrier must deliver to the consignee without any delay or difficulty the merchandise received by him, by reason of the mere fact of being designated in the bill of lading to receive it; and should said carrier not do so he shall be liable for the damages which may arise therefrom.

In this case, the bill of lading was issued to the order of the shipper, the carrier was under a duty not to deliver the merchandise mentioned in the bill of lading except upon presentation of the bill of lading duly endorsed by the shipper. Defendant Tan Pho having delivered the goods to Enrique Aldeguer without the presentation by the latter of the bill of lading duly endorsed to him by the shipper, the said defendant made a misdelivery and violated the bill of lading, because his duty was not only to transport the goods entrusted to him safely, but to deliver them to the person indicated in the bill of lading. In addition, SC held that when the owner of the goods transported attempts to secure the value thereof from the person to whom they have been delivered by mistake, he cannot be deemed to have ratified the misdelivery or to have waived his right against the carrier.