Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
b. The instruction in the telex of 5 April 1989 was "to deliver the shipment to PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. CA
respective consignees." And so petitioner argues that, assuming there G.R. No. 101426, May 17, 1993
was such an instruction, the consignee referred to was PAKISTAN Common Carriers; Liability
BANK.
CASE:
The consignee referred to was not PAKISTAN BANK but GPC. The delivery Davao Union shipped on board a vessel operated by Transpacific
of the shipment must be to GPC, the notify party or real importer/buyer of the Towage cargo consisting of GI sheet and bags of cement bound to Pasacao,
goods and not the Pakistani Bank since the latter can very well present the Camarines Sur. The vessel arrived at the destination on time but due to
original Bills of Lading in its possession. several factors like the buoy, discharge permit, intermittent rains and
absence of stevedores, the discharging of the cargoes could not be effected
Besides, GPC is listed as one among the several consignees in the telex immediately. More than a month later, typhoon Saling entered the PAR and
(Exhibit 5-B) and the instruction in the telex was to arrange delivery of A/M caused damage to the vessel. The shipmaster ordered that the ship be
shipment (not any party) to respective consignees without presentation of abandoned and ordered the crew to secure the vessel while he went to the
OB/L and bank guarantee. police to see assistance to prevent pilferage. However, the vessel was
continuously pounded by strong sea waves and they were not able to stop
2. NO. pilferage and looting from the people. Because the cargo was insured,
PhilAmGen paid the shipper and now claims from Transpacific Towage
Respondents submitted in evidence a telex. The telex instructed delivery of saying that the loss was due to the delay in discharging the cargo. The issue
various shipments to the respective consignees without need of presenting is WoN Transpacific Towage is liable. NO. Art. 1739 provides that a common
the bill of lading and bank guarantee per the respective shipper's request. carrier may be exempted from liability if it can show that it exercised diligence
However, petitioner disputes the existence of such instruction and claims that to prevent or minimize the loss due to the happening of the fortuitous event.
this evidence is self-serving. In this case, the discharging of the cargo could not be effected immediately
because of several factors, which are not attributable to the carrier (Facts,