Domingo Ang vs.

American Steamship
agencies inc.
September 11, 2016

By Peter Familara

Articles 17 & 18

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.