Samar Mining vs. Nordeutscher

Samar Mining Company, Inc. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd 132 SCRA 529 (1984) Facts:

Sama Samarr Mini Mining ng Comp Compan any, y, Inc. Inc. (SMC (SMCI) I) impo import rted ed one one (1) (1) crat crate e Opti Optima ma weld welded ed wedg wedge e wire wire siev sieves es from from Germ German any, y, thro throug ugh h a vess vessel el owne owned d by comm common on carr carrie ier, r, Nord Nordeu euts tsch cher er Lloy Lloyd, d, repr repres esen ente ted d in the Philippines by its agent, CF. Sharp & Co., Inc. which shipment is covered by Bill of Lading No. 18 duly issued to consignee, SMCI. Upon arrival of the vessel at the port of Manila, the goods were unloaded and delivered by the carrier to the bonded warehouse of AMCYL where the goods were stored before its tran transs sshi hipm pmen entt to Dava Davao, o, whic which h was was the the agre agreed ed poin pointt of dest destin inat atio ion. n. Howe Howeve ver, r, the the good goods s were were never transhipped to Davao hence, were not received by the consignee. Con Consequently tly, SMCI MCI file filed d an extra xtraju jud dicia iciall cla claim for the the valu value e of the goods ods against inst the the carrie rrier, r, but was not paid. Hence, SMCI filed the instant suit to enforce such payment. The The tria rial cou court ren rendered red a dec decisio ision n in favor vor of SMCI, MCI, orde rderin ring defen fendants to pay the value lue of the goods. Hence, this petition. Issue:

W/N the petitioners are liable for the loss of the shipment. Ruling:

No. The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods transported from a foreign country to the Philippines is governed primarily by the New Civil Cod Code. In all matte tters not reg regulat lated by said Cod Code, the the rig rights and oblig ligatio tions of com common mon carrie rriers rs shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. Here, Article 1736 of the New Civil Code provisions on common carriers was applied by the Supreme Court. Under said article, the carrier may be relieved of the responsibility for loss or damage to the goods upon actu ctual or con constru tructiv tive delive livery ry of the the sam same by the carr carrie ierr to the the con consign ignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.

There is actual delivery in contracts for the transport of goods when possession has been turn turne ed over to the con consig signee or to his duly autho thorize rized d agent and a rea reason sonable time ime is give iven him to remove the goods. In find findin ing g that that the the appe appell llan antt was was not not resp respon onsi sibl ble e for for the the loss loss of the the good goods s sinc since e ther there e was was actu actual al delivery to the consignee through his duly authorized agent, who turned out to be carrier-appellant herein, the Court ruled in this wise: Under the bill of lading, the appellant-carrier assumed 2 undertakings: The first is for the transport of goods from Bremen, Germany to Manila. The second, the tra transship shipm ment of the the same goods fro from Manila ila to Dav Davao, with ith appella llant acti actin ng as agent of the the consignee.  At the hiatus between these two undertakings undertakings of appellant, appellant, which is the moment when the subject goods are discharged in Manila, its personality changes from that of carrier to that of  agent of the consignee. Thus Thus,, the the char charac acte terr of appe appell llan ant’ t’s s poss posses essi sion on also also chan change ges, s, from from poss posses essi sion on in its its own own name name as carrier, into possession in the name of consignee as the latter’s agent. Such being ing the case case,, the there was, in effe ffect, ct, actua tual delive livery ry of the goods from rom appella ellan nt as carrie rrier  r  to the same appellant as agent of the consignee. Upon Upon such such deli delive very ry,, the the appe appell llan ant, t, as erst erstwh whil ile e carr carrie ier, r, ceas ceases es to be resp respon onsi sibl ble e for for any any loss loss or  damage that may befall the goods from that point onwards. This is the full import of Article 1736 as applied in this case.