132 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NATIONAL
TRUCKING AND FORWARDING CORPORATION (NTFC), and COOPERATIVE FOR
AMERICAN RELIEF EVERYWHERE, INC. (CARE Philippines) vs. LORENZO SHIPPING
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 153563, [February 7, 2005], 491 PHIL 151-160)
Facts: On June 5, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Health
(DOH), and the Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) signed an
agreement wherein CARE would acquire from the United States government donations
of non-fat dried milk and other food products. In turn, the Philippines would transport and
distribute the donated commodities to the intended beneficiaries in the country.
The government entered into a contract of carriage of goods with National Trucking and
Forwarding Corporation (NTFC). Thus, the latter shipped 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk
through herein Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC). The consignee named in the bills of
lading issued by the LSC was Abdurahman (NTFCs branch supervisor in Zamboanga
City).
On reaching the port of Zamboanga City, LSC's agent, Efren Ruste Shipping Agency,
unloaded the goods to NTFCs warehouse. Before each delivery, Rogelio Rizada and
Ismael Zamora, both delivery checkers of Efren Ruste Shipping Agency, requested
Abdurahman to surrender the original bills of lading, but the latter merely presented
certified true copies thereof. Upon completion of each delivery, Rogelio and Ismael
asked Abdurahman to sign the delivery receipts. However, at times when Abdurahman
had to attend to other business before a delivery was completed, he instructed his
subordinates to sign the delivery receipts for him.
Notwithstanding the precautions taken, the NTFC allegedly did not receive the goods.
Thus, NTFC filed a formal claim for non-delivery of the goods shipped to LSC.
LSC explained that the cargo had already been delivered to NTFCs supervisor. NTFC
then decided to investigate the loss of the goods. But before the investigation was over,
Abdurahman Jama resigned as branch supervisor of NTC.
NTFC filed an action for breach of contract of carriage LSC. The RTC and CA dismissed
the complaint of NTFC.
Issue: WON LSC is presumed at fault or negligent as common carrier for the loss or
deterioration of the goods?
Ruling: No. LSC exercised extra ordinary diligence. Although the original bills of lading
remained with NTFC, LSC's agents demanded from Abdurahman the certified true copies
of the bills of lading. They also asked the latter and in his absence, his designated
subordinates, to sign the cargo delivery receipts.
According to LSC, this practice is its standard operating procedure. This SOP finds support
in Article 353 of the Code of Commerce which states that
After the contract has been complied with, the bill of lading which the carrier has issued
shall be returned to him, and by virtue of the exchange of this title with the thing
transported, the respective obligations and actions shall be considered cancelled, . . .
In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot return the bill of lading
subscribed by the carrier, because of its loss or of any other cause, he must give the latter
a receipt for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects as the return
of the bill of lading.
Conformably with the aforecited provision, the surrender of the original bill of lading is not
a condition precedent for a common carrier to be discharged of its contractual
obligation. If surrender of the original bill of lading is not possible, acknowledgment of the
delivery by signing the delivery receipt suffices. This is what LSC did.
We also note that some delivery receipts were signed by Abdurahman's subordinates
and not by Abdurahman himself as consignee. Further, delivery checkers Rogelio and
Ismael testified that Abdurahman was always present at the initial phase of each
delivery, although on the few occasions when Abdurahman could not stay to witness the
complete delivery of the shipment, he authorized his subordinates to sign the delivery
receipts for him. This, to our mind, is sufficient and substantial compliance with the
requirements.
We further note that, strangely, NFTC made no effort to disapprove Abdurahman's
resignation until after the investigation and after he was cleared of any responsibility for
the loss of the goods. With Abdurahman outside of its reach, NFTC cannot now pass to
LSC what could be Abdurahman's negligence, if indeed he were responsible.
