Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    American Insurance V Macondray GR No. L-23222 June 10, 1971

    Uploaded by

    Cristina Olarita
    The American Insurance Company paid an insurance claim to the consignee for a missing skid of truck parts valued at $482.96 that was imported from New York to Cebu City via Manila. American Insurance then sued Macondray & Co., the carrier's agent, to recover the amount paid. The Court held that: 1) American Insurance has a valid cause of action against Macondray as the carrier failed to deliver all cargo as required under the carriage contract; 2) Macondray is liable as the missing skid was never loaded in Manila for shipment to Cebu, violating its duty as forwarding agent; and 3) Macondray must pay American Insurance the amount claimed, with interest, as

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    American Insurance V Macondray GR No. L-23222 June 10, 1971

    Uploaded by

    Cristina Olarita
    74 views2 pages
    The American Insurance Company paid an insurance claim to the consignee for a missing skid of truck parts valued at $482.96 that was imported from New York to Cebu City via Manila. American Insurance then sued Macondray & Co., the carrier's agent, to recover the amount paid. The Court held that: 1) American Insurance has a valid cause of action against Macondray as the carrier failed to deliver all cargo as required under the carriage contract; 2) Macondray is liable as the missing skid was never loaded in Manila for shipment to Cebu, violating its duty as forwarding agent; and 3) Macondray must pay American Insurance the amount claimed, with interest, as

    Original Description:

    American Insurance v Macondray GR No. L-23222 June 10, 1971 case digest

    Original Title

    122. American Insurance v Macondray GR No. L-23222 June 10, 1971

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The American Insurance Company paid an insurance claim to the consignee for a missing skid of truck parts valued at $482.96 that was imported from New York to Cebu City via Manila. American Insurance then sued Macondray & Co., the carrier's agent, to recover the amount paid. The Court held that: 1) American Insurance has a valid cause of action against Macondray as the carrier failed to deliver all cargo as required under the carriage contract; 2) Macondray is liable as the missing skid was never loaded in Manila for shipment to Cebu, violating its duty as forwarding agent; and 3) Macondray must pay American Insurance the amount claimed, with interest, as

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    74 views2 pages

    American Insurance V Macondray GR No. L-23222 June 10, 1971

    Uploaded by

    Cristina Olarita
    The American Insurance Company paid an insurance claim to the consignee for a missing skid of truck parts valued at $482.96 that was imported from New York to Cebu City via Manila. American Insurance then sued Macondray & Co., the carrier's agent, to recover the amount paid. The Court held that: 1) American Insurance has a valid cause of action against Macondray as the carrier failed to deliver all cargo as required under the carriage contract; 2) Macondray is liable as the missing skid was never loaded in Manila for shipment to Cebu, violating its duty as forwarding agent; and 3) Macondray must pay American Insurance the amount claimed, with interest, as

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    #112 G.R. No.

    L-23222, June 10, 1971


    THE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
    MACONDRAY & CO., INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

    FACTS:

     On or about September 12, 1962, certain cargoes, certain cargoes were imported by Atlas
    Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation and were loaded by the shipper, Ansor
    Corporation of New York on board the S/S "Toledo" at the port of New York for delivery to Atlas
    at Cebu City via Manila.
     The freight up to Cebu City was paid in advance.
     The American Insurance Company insured the cargoes against damage up to Cebu City for
    $5,700.00 in favor of the consignee.
     The S/S "Toledo" discharged them at the port of Manila on October 17, 1962. For their
    transshipment to Cebu City they were loaded on board the M/S "Bohol".
     Upon the vessel's arrival in Cebu City on November 12, 1962, the cargoes were discharged and
    delivered to the consignee minus one skid of truck parts which was not loaded on the M/S
    "Bohol".
     The missing cargo was valued at $482.96 CIF Cebu, equivalent at that time to P1,889.58.
     A claim for the insured value of the missing cargo amounting to P2,087.20 plus the sum of P87.30
    as expenses of survey was filed with appellee under the covering insurance policy and the same
    was duly paid, thereby acquiring, by subrogation, the rights of the consignee.
     Thereafter the corresponding action was filed in the lower court to recover from appellant what
    appellee had paid to the consignee.

    ISSUES:

    1. W/N American Insurance Co., Inc. has a cause of action against Macondray;
    2. W/N Macondray is a real party in interest and that the action should have been brought against
    the shipper Ansor Corporation of New York
    3. W/N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO PAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE THE AMOUNT OF P1,889.58
    WITH INTEREST, AT THE LEGAL RATE, FROM OCTOBER 14, 1963, UNTIL FULLY PAID AND TO PAY
    THE COSTS OF SUIT

    HELD:

    1. YES. Under the Carriage Contract covering the cargoes in question, it was the duty of the carrying
    vessel to discharge them at the port of Cebu City, via the port of Manila. It is clear, therefore, that
    the discharge effected at the latter port did not terminate the carrying vessel's responsibility
    which included the transshipment of the cargoes from the port of Manila to the port of Cebu City.
    While it complied with its obligation with respect to most of the cargoes covered by the bill of
    lading Exhibit "A", it failed to do so in relation to the one skid of truck parts which, according to
    the stipulation of facts, was not loaded on board the M/S "Bohol". In truth and in fact, the same
    has never been found.

    2. YES. Appellant is correct in saying that actions must be prosecuted not only in the name of the
    real party-in-interest but also against the real party-in-interest. It is in error, however, in
    contending that it is not liable for the loss of the skid of truck parts mentioned heretofore. If the
    fact were that said cargo was loaded and thereafter lost on board the M/S "Bohol" or upon its
    discharge at the port of Cebu City, We would agree that appellant is not liable. It was stipulated
    in this case, however, that the said skid of truck parts was not loaded at all on board the M/S
    "Bohol." In accepting the same on board the S/S "Toledo" at the port of New York for shipment
    to Cebu City, via the port of Manila, it became precisely appellant's duty to see to it that it was
    loaded in Manila on board the M/S "Bohol" or any other vessel, for the port of Cebu City. Not
    having complied with this duty, its liability for the loss is unavoidable.

    3. YES. The shipper complied with its part of the transaction by delivering the lost cargo to the S/S
    "Toledo" at the port of New York; thereafter paragraph 11 of the bill of lading operated to make
    appellant the shipper's forwarding agent whose duty precisely was to have the cargo, upon arrival
    at the port of Manila, transshipped to the port of Cebu City.

    Moreover, appellant admits in its brief that, as a general rule, under the provisions of the Code of
    Commerce, the consignee of a cargo carried by a vessel has a cause of action against the latter's
    agent for the undelivered cargo or any portion thereof. This being the case, it is its duty to
    compensate appellee for the loss suffered.

    You might also like