-
8/9/2019 P.O. Ailmall v. Macondray
1/3
P.
C.
A
\ '
AI
o.
t; J)J.ainti:ff and
a
Co.,
I ~
c.,
.
e f e n d a n ~
and
appellee.
1.
COMMERCIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BILL OF LADING, ISSUANCE OF, NOT
PROOF THAT
GOODS WERE PLACED
ON
BOARD.
That
the issuance
of the
bill of lading
is evidence that the goods
were placed on
board tlie
-
ship
:might
be true in the
early
days when s h i p p e ~ s
dealt with
ship
masters
directly
and the
'bms of lading
were
signed and executed by
the
master of the
vessel (as
they are
required t
be
by the
'
provisions of
section
6, Title
III,
Book
III, of our
Code
of
Commerce)
;
but
the
complex
processes of
modern trade have reduced the bill of lading t nothing mo
than
the contract between the parties and prima facie
dence
of the
receipt of
the merchandise by the carrier o
agent
(
13
C. J. S.,
235).
Receipt
of
the
goods
by
t ~
agent
can
not
be
evidence
of
their
actual
placement
vessel. In the
instant
case,
i t
is the
defendant's
own
who
proved
tl1at
the
goods
were not taken aboard,
defenda
nt
111l
l S t
be considered
conclucled by
its own
2. CONTRACT;
DA
lVlAGES; I . ) A M . : \ G t ~ S INCLUDE PROFIT LOST .
in our ju
risdiction
i11cJude
pro
fit
l ~ t c r u m
ces
ans
fa ult of a
r)arty. .
. '
Tl1
e
fac
ts
a 2 _ ~ c r t c ~ 1
in
tl1e OIJinion
of
the
court
Felix S . Falgui
fo1 ap1)ellant.
'
Ross S elph Canascoso Janda
f
or
appellee.
' -
REYES, J.
B. L., J :
The
facts
in
this
case
are
that
the
plai
-
8/9/2019 P.O. Ailmall v. Macondray
2/3
.
....
Hongkong, .
L
' . &A
was
brought
in
the
doutt
M.ailila in November, 194 for the
value in the sum of P3,440. e
d e p o s ~ t i 6 n
i
e a p ~ ~ n ~ of the
S S
T a m e ~ was takyn by. wntten in
,dt
~
es and presented by the defe:gdant,
and
from
roestNrl . d . I M .
same
it
appears
that
the
Tamesw arrive m amla Ol
November 24,
1.941,
at 12 :30 p. m., and
~ o m m e n c e d
dis
- ~ n g
cargo
in
Manila on
Pier
7,
but
that
it
did not
at
lVIanila for any
other
port, alt_9ough
the
from Manila
bound for
Hongkong on No
and az:,.f7ed al Hongkong
on
November 29. On
1st,
it
.
was
ordered by the naval authorities of
to make
ready
for lea:ving, and at
15:30 it
re-
ceived
orders
to
proceed
to
sea
and
reach
Singapore
as
soon
as
possible
in
view of the grave
war
situation. All
cargo 'vas discharged
at
Singapore.
Finding that th
ere V\
ras no competent evide
nc
e
that
the .
goods
V\
rere not received by
the
consignee at Hongkong,
the Court of First
Instance
of Manila dismissed the com
plaiilt and the plaintiff thereupon appealed.
The
judgment must be reversed. The evidence for the
defendant is verv clear that the vessel S S Tamesis did not
'
load a11y cargo fro1n the lVIanila
port
for Hongkong, and,
uently, that
tl
1e goods \Vere 11ot tal
-
8/9/2019 P.O. Ailmall v. Macondray
3/3
I
es and pn fna facie
eri en
goods were not
taken
_aboard,
and the defendant must
ba
considered
conclude4 by its own evidence. - .
were
unloaded
in
Singapore
because
of
a deviation due
to the prevailing war
conditions, aS authorized .by
the
bill
of lading and lost
at-
that port
on account
of the war
is
nullified
by
the defendant
itself.
Failure
to
place
the
goods
shipped
on
.
the carrying e s s e can not c o n s t i t u t e
a devia-
tion
or change
of route;
and
since the goods were not
taken
to
Hong
l\:ong
n o ~
l eturned
to the
shipper,
the
carrier
must
be held liable
in damages.
It having been p1
oved
by the
uncontradicted testimony
of
;P. C.
Ailmal
s.upported
by the
duplicate originals of
the invoice and export entry
,
that the
value of
the
goods
shipped
was P3,440,
the
lower
court
committed
error i n
not
sent
encing
the
appe
llee
to
pay this
amount.
That.
It
fault of the defendant-appellee. .
.
rom
Novem
er
' ' So or er
-
Judgment reversed
I
