G.R. No.

L-25047 March 18, 1967

DOMINGO ANG, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellee.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-25050 March 18, 1967

DOMINGO ANG, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellee.

FACTS:

Yau Yae comerical Bank LTD of Hongkong represented by Yau Yae agreed to sell 140 packsges of galvanized steel dursink
sheets to one Herminio G Teves. Said agreement was subject to the terms and arrangements.

Pursuant to said terms and arrangements, Yau Yae through Tokyo boeki LTD of Tokyo Japan, shipped the articles at Yakata,
Japan and later to Manila which was processed by American Staemship Agencies INC. in which under a shipping agreement or
bill of lading it consigned to order of the shipper with Mr Teves.

On May 9, 1961 the article arrived in manila, and under the bill of lading of the arrival of the goods and requested payments of
the demand draft representing the purchased price of the article, however, Mr Teves did not pay the demand draft to Hongkong
and Shanghai bank where it was to be processed the payments. Prompting the bank to make corresponding protest and the
bank likewise returned the bill of lading and demand draft to Yau Yae which later endorsed the bill of lading to Domingo Ang.

Meanwhile, despite his non-payments of the purchase price of the articles. Teves was able to obtain a bank guaranty in favor of
American Steamship agencies INC. as carriers agent to the effect that he would surrender the negotiable bill of lading duly
endorsed by Yau Yae on the strength of this guaranty. Teves succeded in securing a permit to deliver imported goods from the
carriers agent, which he presented to Bureau of customs which in turn release to him the articles covered by the bill of lading.

Subsequently, Domingo Ang claimed for the articles from the American steamship agencies Inc. by presenting the indorsed bill
of lading, but he was informed by the latter that the articled he claimed was already delivered to Mr. Teves.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the American Steamship Agencies Inc. punishable under carriage of goods by Sea act for misdelivery of goods?

HELD:

When the delivery of articles carried by the herein defendant-appellee (American steamship agencies Inc) on May 9, 1961 to
Herminio Teves but supposedly to Mr Domingo Ang ,plaintiff-appellant and upon knowing by the plaintiff-appellant that the
articles intended to him was misdelivered to other person, he filed in court of first instance of Manila on October 30, 1963 against
American Steamship agencies Inc for allegedly wrongful delivery of goods belonging to him.
The defendant-appellee filed motion to dismissed with the contention that the ground of the plaitiff’s caused of action is
prescribed under the carriage of goods by sea act particular section 3(6) paragraph 4, which provides that;

“In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharge from

all liability in respect to loss or damage unless suit is brought within

one year, after delivery of the goods or date when the goods should

have been delivered”

The defendant further contented that the action of the plaintiff-appellant even allowing a reasonable time from the date of delivery
on May 9, 1961, still initiated his action on October 30, 1963 which beyond the prescribed period of One (1) year under the
preceding paragraph.

The court rendered it decision dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff, appellant for the ground of prescription, however the
provision involved in this case as mentioned earlier speaks ”loss or damage” despite that the plaintiff filed motion for
reconsideration and it has been denied by the lower court, afterwards, the plaintiff directly appealed to the higher court for the
matter that; has plaintiff-appellant cause of action prescribed under section 3(6) paragraph 4 of the carriage of goods by sea act?

The court ruled that, the word” loss or damage “as speaks to the provision in this case was not transpired because only the
misdelivery of goods occurred to the defendant, and upon admitted by the defendant in motion to dismissed that the articles
belongs for Mr. Ang has been misdelivered to Mr. Teves.

Therefore it clearly shows that the defendant violates the provision of civil code of the Philppines particular in Article 1144, which
provides; the following actions must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of the action accrues, paragraph
(1) upon a written contract and Article 1146, the following action must be instituted within four(4) years, paragraph (2) quasi
delict, wherein it supplies the deficiency provided in article 18 of the same code. To read” in matters which are governed by
the code of commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provision of this code.”

Wherefore, suits predicated not upon loss or damage but misdelivery of goodsthat so, the defendant was not held liable
for carriage of goods by sea act and the court hereby reversed the dismissal order afterwards remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings.