Gonzales v. Go Tiong

Gonzales v.
Go Tiong
104 Phil 492
FACTS: Go Tiong owned a rice mill and warehouse in Pangasinan. He obtained a license to engage in
the business of a bonded warehouseman. To secure the performance of his obligations, the Luzon
Surety Co. executed guaranty bond in the sum of P18,334 conditioned on the fulfillment by Go Tiong
of his duty or obligation to deliver to the depositors in his warehouse, the palay received by him for
storage, when demand is made, or to pay the market value thereof, in case he was unable to return. Go
Tiong insured the warehouse and the palay deposited with the Alliance Surety and Insurance Company.
But prior to the issuance of the license to Go Tiong to operate as bonded warehouseman, he had on
several occasions received palay for deposit from Gonzales, totaling 368 sacks, for which he issued
receipts. After he was licensed as bonded warehouseman, Go Tiong again received various deliveries of
palay from Gonzales, totaling 492 sacks, for which he issued the corresponding receipts, all the grand
total of 860 sacks, valued at P8,600 at the rate of P10 per sack.
Gonzales demanded from Go Tiong the value of his deposits in the amount of P8,600, but he was told
to return after 2 days, which he did, but Go Tiong again told him to come back. A few days later, the
warehouse burned to the ground. Before the fire, Go Tiong had been accepting deliveries of palay from
other depositors and at the time of the fire, there were 5,847 sacks of palay in the warehouse, in excess
of the 5,000 sacks authorized under his license. The receipts issued by Go Tiong to the plaintiff were
ordinary receipts, not the "warehouse receipts" defined by the Warehouse Receipts Act.
After the burning of the warehouse, the depositors of palay, including Gonzales, filed their claims with
the Bureau of Commerce. With the proceeds of the insurance policy, the Bureau of Commerce paid off
some of the claim. Gonzales counsel later withdrew his claim with the Bureau, according to Go Tiong,
because his claim was denied by the Bureau, but according to the decision of the trial court, because
nothing came from plaintiff's efforts to have his claim paid. Thereafter, Gonzales filed the present action
against Go Tiong and the Luzon Surety for the sum of P8,600, the value of his palay, and other sums.
While the case was pending, Gonzales and Go Tiong entered into a contract of amicable settlement to the
effect that all accounts due to him by Go Tiong, he, Gonzales, would have all actions pending against Go
Tiong dismissed. Because Go Tiong failed to fulfill his part in the settlement, Gonzales filed a case.
ISSUE: W/N receipts for the palay received by Go Tiong, though not in the form of "quedans" or
warehouse receipts are chargeable against the surety bond filed. YES.
HELD: The General Bonded Warehouse Act is a special law regulating the business of receiving
commodities for storage and defining the rights and obligations of a bonded warehouseman and those
transacting business with him. Consequently, any deposit made with him as a bonded warehouseman
must necessarily be governed by this law. The kind or nature of the receipts issued by him for the deposits
is not very material much less decisive. Though it is desirable that receipts issued by a bonded
warehouseman should conform to the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law, said provisions are
not mandatory and indispensable in the sense that if they fell short of the requirements of the
Warehouse Receipts Act, then the commodities delivered for storage become ordinary deposits and
will not be governed by the provisions of the Bonded Warehouse Act. Under Sec 1 of the Warehouse
Receipts Act, one would gather the impression that the issuance of a warehouse receipt in the form
provided by it is merely permissive and directory and not obligatory.
As far as Go Tiong was concerned, the fact that the receipts issued by him were not "quedans" is
no valid ground for defense because he was the principal obligor. Furthermore, Go Tiong had
repeatedly promised plaintiff to issue to him "quedans" and had assured him that he should not worry; and
that Go Tiong was in the habit of issuing ordinary receipts (not "quedans") to his depositors.
As to the contention that the deposits made by the plaintiff were free because he paid no fees therefor, it
would appear that Go Tiong induced plaintiff to deposit his palay in the warehouse free of charge in order
to promote his business and to attract other depositors, it being understood that because of this
accommodation, plaintiff would convince other palay owners to deposit with Go Tiong.
Sec 2 of the General Bonded Warehouse Act defines receipt as any receipt issued by a warehouseman for
commodity delivered to him, showing that the law does not require as indispensable that a warehouse
receipt be issued. Furthermore, Sec 7 of said law provides that as long as the depositor is injured by a
breach of any obligation of the warehouseman, which obligation is secured by a bond, said depositor may
sue on said bond. In other words, the surety cannot avoid liability from the mere failure of the
warehouseman to issue the prescribed receipt.
Where the warehouseman receives grain for storage and refuses to return or pay it, the fact that he
failed to issue the receipt, when the statute required him to issue on receiving it, is not available to
the surety as a defense against an action on the bond. The obligation of the surety covers the duty of
the warehouseman to issue the prescribed receipt, as well as the other duties imposed upon him by the
statute.
ISSUE: W/N the burning of the warehouse was a fortuitous event absolving Go Tiong from liability. NO
HELD: The exemption from the responsibility for the damages must be conditioned in his proof that
the loss was by force majeure, and without his fault. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that it
was a fortuitous event. On the contrary, the fact that he exceeded the limit of the authorized deposit
must have increased the risk and would militate against his defense of non-liability. The defendant
violated the terms of his license by accepting for deposit palay in excess of the limit authorized by his
license, which fact must have increased the risk. Considering also the fact that prior to the burning of the
warehouse, plaintiff demanded the payment of the value of his palay from Go Tiong on two occasions but
was put off without any valid reason.
ISSUE: W/N the amicable settlement between Gonzales and Go Tiong constituted a material alteration of
the surety bond of Luzon Surety, which extinguished and discharged its liability. NO.
HELD: It is evident, however, that while there was an attempt to settle the case amicably, the settlement
was never consummated because Go Tiong failed to settle the accounts of Gonzales to the latter's
satisfaction. Consequently, said non-consummated compromise settlement does not discharge the
surety.
A compromise or settlement between the creditor or obligee and the principal, by which the latter is
discharged from liability, discharges the surety, But an unconsummated agreement to compromise, falling
short of an effective settlement, will not discharge the surety.

Gonzales v. Go Tiong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. Go Tiong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. Go Tiong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v.

You might also like