RotP vs Lorenzo shipping lines

Facts: The Republic of the Philippines signed an agreement through the Department of Health
and the Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) wherein it would acquire from
the US government donations of Non-Fat Dried Milk and other food products. In turn, the
Philippines will transport and distribute the donated to the intended beneficiaries of the country. As
a result, it entered into a contract of carriage of goods with the herein respondent. The latter
shipped 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk from Sept-Dec 1988. The consignee named in the bills
was Abdurahman Jama, petitioner’s branch supervisor in Zamboanga City. Upon reaching the port
of Zamboanga, respondent’s agent, Efren Ruste Shipping Agency unloaded the said milks. Before
each delivery, Rogelio Rizada and Ismael Zamora both delivery checkers of Efren Ruste
requested Abdurahman to surrender the originals of the Bill of Lading. However, the petitioner
alleged that they did not receive anything and they filed a claim against the herein respondent.
The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to exercise extraordinary diligence.
Issue: Whether the respondents failed to exercise extraordinary diligence required by law?

Held: The surrender of the Bill of Lading is not a condition precedent for a common carrier to be
discharged of its contractual obligation. If the surrender is not possible, acknowledgment of the
delivery by signing the receipt suffices. The herein respondent did not even bother to prevent the
resignation of abdurhaman Jama to be utilized as a witness.

Clean Bill of Lading B/L that is free from any adverse remarks or notations (called 'clauses'),
made by the shipping company about the condition, packaging, or quantity of the goods being shipped.
Importers and their banks usually insist on a clean B/L for payment under a letter of credit. See also
foul bill of lading.

LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION V. CHUBB AND SONSG.R. NO.

147724 JUNE 8, 2004

FACTS:Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation is a domestic corporation

engaged in coast wise shipping of steel pipes. This case is on appeal in CA
which favored the respondent Chubb and Sons Corporation, a foreign
corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines. they complaint
about the rust information, thinning, and several holes at different places of
pipes on board after shipment made by Lorenzo Shipping to Davao City. The
court found the petitioner guilty to pay all the damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:Whether or not Chubb and Sons can validly claim the damages?

HELD:

No, foreign corporations transacting business in the Philippines without license

or its successor or assigns shall be permitted to maintain or intervene any
action, suit or proceedings in any court or administrative agency of the
Philippines; but such corporation maybe sued or proceed against before the
Philippine courts or administrative tribunals or any valid cause recognized
under Philippine laws. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. Cost
against petitioners.
Transportation Case Digest: Sweet Lines, Inc. V. Teves (1978)

Lessons Applicable: Contract of Adhesion (Transportation)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

 Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro bought tickets for Tagbilaran City via the port of
Cebu
 Since many passengers were bound for Surigao, M/S "Sweet Hope would not be proceeding to Bohol
 They went to the proper brancg office and was relocated to M/S "Sweet Town" where they
were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the
officers of the Philippine Coastguard." and they were exposed to the scorching
heat of the sun and the dust coming from the ship's cargo of corn grits and their
tickets were not honored so they had to purchase a new one
 They sued Sweet Lines for damages and for breach of contract of carriage before
the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental who dismissed the compalitn for
improper venue
 A motion was premised on the condition printed at the back of the tickets -
dismissed
 instant petition for prohibition for preliminary injunction
ISSUE: W/N a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping stipulate thru
condition printed at the back of passage tickets to its vessels that any and
all actions arising out of the contract of carriage should be filed only in a
particular province or city

HELD: NO.petition for prohibition is DISMISSED. Restraining order LIFTED

and SET ASIDE
 contract of adhesion
 not that kind of a contract where the parties sit down to deliberate, discuss and agree specifically on all
its terms, but rather, one which respondents took no part at all in preparing
 just imposed upon them when they paid for the fare for the freight they wanted to ship
 We find and hold that Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the
passage tickets should be held as void and unenforceable for the
following reasons
 circumstances obligation in the inter-island ship
 will prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different s of the country who, under
Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only in the City of Cebu
 subversive of public policy on transfers of venue of actions
 philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs
as well as his witnesses and to promote 21 the ends of justice
 Maersk Lines v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 94761 May 17, 1993

MAERSK LINE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND EFREN V. CASTILLO, doing business under the name and style of Ethegal
Laboratories, respondents.

FACTS:
 Maersk Lines – Carrier; petitioner
 Eli Lilly Inc. – Shipper
 Efren Castillo – consignee; proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories; private respondent
 Private respondent ordered from Eli Lilly. Inc. of Puerto Rico through its (Eli Lilly, Inc.'s) agent in the
Philippines, Elanco Products, 600,000 empty gelatin capsules for the manufacture of his
pharmaceutical products. The goods were shipped via MV Anders Maerskline with a specified date
of arrival to be April 3, 1977. For reasons unknown, said cargo of capsules were mishipped and
diverted to Richmond, Virginia, USA and then transported back Oakland, Califorilia. The goods
finally arrived in the Philippines on June 10, 1977 or after two (2) months from the date specified
in the memorandum. As a consequence, private respondent as consignee refused to take delivery
of the goods on account of its failure to arrive on time. Private respondent alleging gross
negligence and undue delay in the delivery of the goods, filed an action before the court a quo for
rescission of contract with damages against petitioner and Eli Lilly, Inc. The issues having been
joined, private respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly, Inc.on the
ground that the evidence on record shows that the delay in the delivery of the shipment was
attributable solely to petitioner. The lower court ruled in favor of private respondent which was
affirmed with some modification by the CA.

ISSUE:
W/N petitioner was negligent and should be held liable for damages.

HELD:
YES. While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver
merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless such common carriers
previously assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time, delivery of shipment or cargo should at
least be made within a reasonable time.
An examination of the subject bill of lading shows that the subject shipment was estimated to
arrive in Manila on April 3, 1977. While there was no special contract entered into by the parties indicating
the date of arrival of the subject shipment, petitioner nevertheless, was very well aware of the specific
date when the goods were expected to arrive as indicated in the bill of lading itself. In this regard, there
arises no need to execute another contract for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity.
In the case before us, we find that a delay in the delivery of the goods spanning a period of two (2)
months and seven (7) days falls was beyond the realm of reasonableness. Described as gelatin capsules for
use in pharmaceutical products, subject shipment was delivered to, and left in, the possession and custody
of petitioner-carrier for transport to Manila via Oakland, California. But through petitioner's negligence
was mishipped to Richmond, Virginia. Petitioner's insitence that it cannot be held liable for the delay finds
no merit.