MACAM vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Benito Macam, doing business under name Ben-Mac Enterprises, shipped on board vessel Nen-Jiang,
owned and operated by respondent China cean !hipping Co" through local agent #allem $hilippines
!hipping %nc", &,'(( bo)es o* watermelon covered by Bill o* +ading No" ,-. //(01, and 0,200 bo)es o*
*resh mangoes covered by Bill o* +ading No" ,-. //(0&" 3he shipment was bound *or ,ong4ong with
$5-%!35N B5N- as consignee and .reat $rospect Company o* 6owloon 7.$C8 as noti*y party"
9pon arrival in ,ong4ong, shipment was delivered by respondent #5++EM directly to .$C, not to
$5-%!35N B5N- and without the re:uired bill o* lading having been surrendered" !ubse:uently, .$C
*ailed to pay $5-%!35N B5N-, such that the latter, still in possession o* original bill o* lading, re*used to
pay petitioner thru !+%;B5N-" !ince !+%;B5N- already pre-paid the value o* shipment, it demanded
payment *rom respondent #5++EM but was re*used" M5C5M constrained to return the amount paid by
!+%;B5N- and demanded payment *rom #5++EM but to no avail"
#5++EM submitted in evidence a tele) dated ' 5pril 0/</ as basis *or delivering the cargoes to .$C
without the bills o* lading and ban4 guarantee" 3he tele) instructed delivery o* various shipments to the
respective consignees without need o* presenting the bill o* lading and ban4 guarantee per the respective
shipper=s re:uest since >*or prepaid shipt o*rt charges already *ully paid"? M5C5M, however, argued that,
assuming there was such an instruction, the consignee re*erred to was $5-%!35N B5N- and not .$C"
3he 63C ruled *or M5C5M and ordered value o* shipment" C5 reversed 63C=s decision"
%ssue: 5re the respondents liable to the petitioner *or releasing the goods to .$C without the bills o*
lading or ban4 guarantee@
,eld:
%t is a standard maritime practice when immediate delivery is o* the essence, *or shipper to re:uest or
instruct the carrier to deliver the goods to the buyer upon arrival at the port o* destination without re:uiring
presentation o* bill o* lading as that usually ta4es time" 3hus, ta4ing into account that subAect shipment
consisted o* perishable goods and !+%;B5N- pre-paid the *ull amount o* value thereo*, it is not hard to
believe the claim o* respondent #5++EM that petitioner indeed re:uested the release o* the goods to
.$C without presentation o* the bills o* lading and ban4 guarantee"
3o implement the said tele) instruction, the delivery o* the shipment must be to .$C, the noti*y party or
real importerBbuyer o* the goods and not the $5-%!35N% B5N- since the latter can very well present the
original Bills o* +ading in its possession" +i4ewise, i* it were the $5-%!35N% B5N- to whom the cargoes
were to be strictly delivered, it will no longer be proper to re:uire a ban4 guarantee as a substitute *or the
Bill o* +ading" 3o construe otherwise will render meaningless the tele) instruction" 5*ter all, the cargoes
consist o* perishable *resh *ruits and immediate delivery thereo* the buyerBimporter is essentially a *actor
to rec4on with"
#e emphasiCe that the e)traordinary responsibility o* the common carriers lasts until actual or
constructive delivery o* the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them"
$5-%!35N B5N- was indicated in the bills o* lading as consignee whereas .$C was the noti*y party"
,owever, in the e)port invoices .$C was clearly named as buyerBimporter" $etitioner also re*erred to
.$C as such in his demand letter to respondent #5++EM and in his complaint be*ore the trial court" 3his
premise draws us to conclude that the delivery o* the cargoes to .$C as buyerBimporter which,
con*ormably with 5rt" 0D&2 had, other than the consignee, the right to receive them was proper"