P. C.' A . .

~4'
"AI
o. t; J)J.ainti:ff and a
& Co., I~c., .defendan.~ 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 shippe~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 to 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 to 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 th~
agent can not be evidence of their actual placement
vessel. In the instant case, it is the defendant's own
who proved tl1at the goods were not taken aboard,
defendant 111llSt be considered conclucled by its own

2.

CONTRACT;

DA lVlAGES;

I.)AM.:\Gt~S INCLUDE PROFIT LOST.-

in our jurisdiction i11cJude profit

fault of a r)arty.

(l~tcrum

cesans)
.

Tl1e facts

a.2_~c f:_,t:.rtc~1

'

in tl1e OIJinion of the court

F elix 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

29616:--13
I

'

L"'.&A

,...... Hongkong, .. . . . .
was brought in the doutt

M.ailila in November, 194

for the
value in the sum of P3,440.
e depos~ti6n
eap~,~n~ of the SIS Ta'me~ was takyn by. wntten in
,dt ~ es and presented by the defe:gdant, and from
roestNrl
.
. d . M .
same it appears that the Tamesw arrive m amla Ol
November 24, 1.941, at 12 :30 p. m., and ~ommenced dis-~ng 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 Noand az:,.f7ed al Hongkong on November 29. On
1st, it. was ordered by the naval authorities of
to make ready for lea:ving, a nd at 15:30 it received 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 there V\ras no competent evidence that the .
goods V\rere not r eceived by the consignee at Hongkong,
the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaiilt and the plaintiff thereupon appealed.
The judgment must be reversed. The evidence for the
clear
that
the
vessel
S
I
S
Tamesis
did
not
defendant is verv
"'
load a11y cargo fro1n the lVIanila port for H ongkong, and,
uently, that tl1e goods \Vere 11ot tal<:en aboard; hence,
as impossible that the same shot1lcl l1ave been delivered
the ;Hongkong consignee. ~ The c1efe11(lant argues that
captain's n1emor y ca~1 be faulty j11 th1s rgard; but
mch a . claim is belied b~y the C011Sicleral)le detail given \
ab<'lut the movements of the shi1) a11d tl1e loading and un
loading of cargo, to all of 'vhich the ca1)tai11 duly t estified.
The captain having been prese11ted by t l1e defendant, his
testimony is binding upon t he latter, a11d the defendantJeut~ can not impeach his testin1ony ; there being no
.
to contradict the same, it mt1st be taken as conclliBive &f the fact that contrary to the provisions of the
bill alia 'ng and the engagen1ents undertaken thereunder,
the defen a-!1-t fai led to IJrocure the transportat ion of the
merchandise shipped to the port of destination. It must,
, be held responsible for t he loss thereof.
LW.UCi nt a1so urges that the issuance of the bill

ce 'hl\at the goods were placed on board

of 1
t ~e tru-e in the early days when
he
ahi{J. masters directly and the bills
sh~
of
_,.
aad "executed by the master of the
(as
to be by the provisions ~
,. .~n 6, Title
our Code of Commerce)
V&i '

'

- complex
~....

of lading

ern trade have red~

the contract

'

~ es and pn.fna facie eriden

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 v~essel can not co~nstitute a devia-
tion or change of route; and since the goods were not
taken to Hongl\:ong no1~ 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.u pported 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 sentencing the appellee to pay this amount. That. It

fault of the defendant-appellee.

rom N ovem er
So or er

.
'

'

Judgment reversed.