G.R. No. L-45598; April 26, 1939
TAN PHO, petitioner, vs. HASSAMAL DALAMAL, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Hassamal Dalamal sold merchandise on credit to Enrique Aldeguer and shipped the goods via petitioner Tan Pho’s vessel. The bill of lading was made to order and endorsed to banks, ultimately held by the Philippine National Bank. Upon arrival, Tan Pho’s agent delivered the merchandise to Aldeguer, who presented only the invoice and signed a receipt, but did not present the bill of lading. Dalamal later had Aldeguer sign a draft for payment, which was not honored. Dalamal sued Tan Pho for the value of the goods. Tan Pho defended by invoking a clause in the bill of lading requiring claims for “nondelivery” to be presented within 30 days and suits filed within 60 days, arguing the action was barred. The trial court ruled for Tan Pho, classifying the delivery as “nondelivery.” The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling it was “misdelivery.”

ISSUE

Whether the carrier’s delivery of the merchandise to Aldeguer without surrender of the bill of lading constitutes “misdelivery” or “nondelivery,” thereby determining if the shorter prescriptive periods in the bill of lading apply.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The delivery constituted misdelivery, not nondelivery. Since the bill of lading was “to order,” the carrier’s duty was to deliver the goods only to the holder of the properly endorsed bill of lading. Delivery to Aldeguer without presentation of the bill was a misdelivery, a breach of the carrier’s obligation. The contractual periods for claims and suits for “nondelivery” do not apply to an action based on misdelivery. The Court also rejected the argument that Dalamal ratified the misdelivery by seeking payment from Aldeguer, as he had first demanded the return of the goods.

AI Generated by Armztrong.