1) Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co., with Pakistan Bank listed as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party.
2) Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading or bank guarantee, as the shipping company claimed Macam had instructed via telex.
3) The court ruled the delivery was proper, as GPC was clearly the buyer/importer according to the export invoices and communications, so they had the right to receive the goods along with the consignee according to maritime law.
1) Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co., with Pakistan Bank listed as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party.
2) Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading or bank guarantee, as the shipping company claimed Macam had instructed via telex.
3) The court ruled the delivery was proper, as GPC was clearly the buyer/importer according to the export invoices and communications, so they had the right to receive the goods along with the consignee according to maritime law.
1) Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co., with Pakistan Bank listed as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party.
2) Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading or bank guarantee, as the shipping company claimed Macam had instructed via telex.
3) The court ruled the delivery was proper, as GPC was clearly the buyer/importer according to the export invoices and communications, so they had the right to receive the goods along with the consignee according to maritime law.
1) Benito Macam shipped watermelons and mangoes from the Philippines to Hong Kong via vessel owned by China Ocean Shipping Co., with Pakistan Bank listed as consignee and Great Prospect Company (GPC) as notify party.
2) Upon arrival, the cargo was delivered to GPC without bills of lading or bank guarantee, as the shipping company claimed Macam had instructed via telex.
3) The court ruled the delivery was proper, as GPC was clearly the buyer/importer according to the export invoices and communications, so they had the right to receive the goods along with the consignee according to maritime law.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
MACAM vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR No.
125524; August 25,
1999 Held: It is a standard maritime practice when immediate delivery is of the Facts: Benito Macam, doing business under name Ben-Mac Enterprises, essence, for shipper to request or instruct the carrier to deliver the goods shipped on board vessel Nen-Jiang, owned and operated by respondent to the buyer upon arrival at the port of destination without requiring China Ocean Shipping Co. through local agent Wallem Philippines Shipping presentation of bill of lading as that usually takes time. Thus, taking into Inc., 3,500 boxes of watermelon covered by Bill of Lading No. HKG 99012, account that subject shipment consisted of perishable goods and and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes covered by Bill of Lading No. HKG SOLIDBANK pre-paid the full amount of value thereof, it is not hard to 99013. The shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as believe the claim of respondent WALLEM that petitioner indeed requested consignee and Great Prospect Company of Rowloon (GPC) as notify party. the release of the goods to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee. Upon arrival in Hongkong, shipment was delivered by respondent WALLEM directly to GPC, not to PAKISTAN BANK and without the required bill of To implement the said telex instruction, the delivery of the shipment must lading having been surrendered. Subsequently, GPC failed to pay PAKISTAN be to GPC, the notify party or real importer/buyer of the goods and not the BANK, such that the latter, still in possession of original bill of lading, PAKISTANI BANK since the latter can very well present the original Bills of refused to pay petitioner thru SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK already pre- Lading in its possession. Likewise, if it were the PAKISTANI BANK to whom paid the value of shipment, it demanded payment from respondent the cargoes were to be strictly delivered, it will no longer be proper to WALLEM but was refused. MACAM constrained to return the amount paid require a bank guarantee as a substitute for the Bill of Lading. To construe by SOLIDBANK and demanded payment from WALLEM but to no avail. otherwise will render meaningless the telex instruction. After all, the cargoes consist of perishable fresh fruits and immediate delivery thereof WALLEM submitted in evidence a telex dated 5 April 1989 as basis for the buyer/importer is essentially a factor to reckon with. delivering the cargoes to GPC without the bills of lading and bank guarantee. The telex instructed delivery of various shipments to the We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of the common respective consignees without need of presenting the bill of lading and carriers lasts until actual or constructive delivery of the cargoes to the bank guarantee per the respective shipper’s request since “for prepaid consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them. PAKISTAN shipt ofrt charges already fully paid.” MACAM, however, argued that, BANK was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee whereas GPC was assuming there was such an instruction, the consignee referred to was the notify party. However, in the export invoices GPC was clearly named as PAKISTAN BANK and not GPC. buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent WALLEM and in his complaint before the trial court. The RTC ruled for MACAM and ordered value of shipment. CA reversed This premise draws us to conclude that the delivery of the cargoes to GPC RTC’s decision. as buyer/importer which, conformably with Art. 1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to receive them was proper.
Issue: Are the respondents liable to the petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without the bills of lading or bank guarantee?