G.R. No. 30019 , March 2, 1929
KUI PAI & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Kui Pai & Co. (plaintiff) sued Dollar Steamship Line (defendant) for failing to deliver two cases of silk goods shipped from Hongkong to Manila. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received six cases in good order under a bill of lading but only delivered four in Manila, causing a loss of P11,734.15. The defendant contended that it had tendered all six original cases received in Hongkong, but the plaintiff refused to accept two of them because their markings had been altered from “K.P. 3” and “K.P. 4” to “R.B. 13” and “R.B. 14,” and their contents were Chinese cigarette papers of little value, not silk. The defendant presented evidence that the physical dimensions of the six cases delivered matched those received in Hongkong, and the ship’s cargo tally showed no shortage. The trial court found for the defendant, holding that the six cases tendered were the same ones shipped.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-carrier is liable for the loss of the two cases of silk, based on the discrepancy between the goods described in the bill of lading and the goods actually tendered for delivery.

RULING

No, the defendant is not liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the defendant had delivered the six identical cases it received in Hongkong. The core issue was one of fact: what the defendant received and what it tendered for delivery. The evidence showed that the two disputed cases (Exhibits 1 and 2) had crudely altered markings, their cubic measurements matched those recorded upon receipt in Hongkong, and the ship’s cargo count was complete with no missing pieces. The Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the original “K.P.” cases had been tampered with and their contents switched, likely in Hongkong before loading, and that the defendant had fulfilled its duty by tendering the same physical cases it received. The defendant’s liability as a common carrier under Articles 355 and 363 of the Code of Commerce and Article 1602 of the Civil Code did not attach because it proved it delivered the identical goods received. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.