D 2015 | Evidence | Lopez | Digest by PS Magno

Compania Maritama v. Limson

Original Document
Patajo
Feb. 28, 1986

Short Version:
Hello! This is a case with accounting, as well as
detailed testimonies, so please have your SCRA
copy ready, because there are a lot of details
that we may need :)

This is a case of setting off ones debt with
anothers debt.

Basically, Compania is a shipper. Limson leases
Companias ships to transport hogs, cattle,
carabaos, among others. Now Compania wants
Limsons unpaid accounts to it. Limson defends
by saying that:
Compania had unpaid dues to Limson
because Limson was (at times)
Companias ship handler, as and as
such, he bought foodstuffs for the ships
crew.
that Limson was entitled to a rebate as
per the agreement between Limson and
Compania
that Limsons supposed unpaid
accounts are not all supposed to be
credited to Limson, because a number
of them were either not his shipments,
or werent authorized by him.

The pertinent issue re. our topic is that in the
accounting, some of the bills of lading that were
used in setting off the two debts, were not
considered because they were only carbon
copies, or duplicate copies, or ship manifests,
and not the originals. The Court notes that
these, even though they are not the original
documents, can and should be admitted in the
accounting.

Facts:
Compania filed a complaint against
Limson for collection of the sum of
P44,701.54, which is the unpaid
accounts for passage and freight on
shipment of hogs, cattle and carabaos
abroad Companias vessel.
Limson denied liability claiming that he
was not the shipper nor had he
authorized said shipments. He further
set up a counterclaim for the refund of
the rebate he was entitled to pursuant to
their agreement.
The Court appointed a commissioner
(an accountant) to examine the
accounts involved before proceeding
with the hearing.
The Report indicated that Limsons
claim amounted to P676,416.05, and
Companias claim to P545,394.24.

Please see SCRA copy, where the bills
of lading (which are the basis of these
numbers) are put into detail.

(Most of) Companias claim was based
among others on several bills of lading
which was signed by one Perry with
Limson as the shipper and consignee,
or just signed by Perry without any
indication as to Limsons relation to the
transaction
CFI: It was not proven that Perry was
not Limsons authorized representative.
Thus, Limson was not liable for the bills
of lading not signed by him or his
authorized representatives.

Issue and Dispositive:
Should the bills of lading signed by Perry be
accepted into the accounting? Yes.

Ratio:

Re. the Limson-Perry (Principal-Agent)
Relationship
A shipper may be held liable for freightage on
bills of lading signed by another person where
the shipper appears as shipper or consignee,
bills of lading where persons other than Limson
appear as shipper, and bills of lading not signed
by the shipper where the testimonial evidence
shows that the goods shipped actually belong to
him as the shipper.

At this point, please see the SCRA copy for the
detailed testimonies of the men who are part of
the transactions in loading and unloading
Limsons cargo from Companias ships. They
are all to the effect that Limson has given
authority to one Perry take Limsons cargo on
his behalf.

As regards the controverted bills of
lading signed by "Perry" with Limson as
shipper or consignee, (several
witnesses) testify that the signatures
therein are those of Cipriano Magtibay
alias "Perry" who took delivery of the
D 2015 | Evidence | Lopez | Digest by PS Magno
cargoes stated therein after signing the
delivery receipts. He was known to be
the regular representative of Limson.
With respect to the unsigned bills of
lading, delivery receipts were issued
upon delivery of the shipments.
Witnesses testified that the ordinary
procedure at Compania's terminal office
was to require the surrender of the
original bill of lading, but when the bill of
lading cannot be surrendered because it
had not arrived or received by the
consignee or assignee, the delivery of
the cargo was authorized just the same,
and the delivery receipt was prepared
based on the ship's cargo manifests or
ship's copy of the bill of lading. This
accommodation was specially given
Limson, because defendant was a
regular shipper and ship chandler of
plaintiff, and was a compadre of
Cabling.
Regarding the controverted bills of
lading in the name of other persons as
shippers or consignees and signed by
Perry, it was established that said bills
of lading were for cattle and hogs-
purchased by the defendant from his
"viajeros" in Manila which were
delivered to and received by Limson.

II. Original copy v. Carbon copy, duplicate
copy, ship manifests and other records
(The CFI) admitted in evidence xxx copies of the
bills of lading which were not considered by the
Commissioner because they are not actually the
original copy of the bill of lading. The
Commissioner accepted only the originals of the
bills of lading because he did not consider even
duplicate originals duly signed as originals.

xxx (However) the ship's copies of the bills of
lading and the cargo manifests were
substantiated by other supporting documents
which were found after the report of the
Commissioner from among the records salvaged
from the San Nicolas bodega fire (well,
apparently there was a fire which destroyed
several documents) or which were found among
the records kept on plaintiff's terminal office.
Said documents were presented in lieu of
corresponding original of the consignee's copy
of bill of lading which could not be submitted to
the Commissioner nor presented as plaintiff's
evidence to the Court because they were lost or
destroyed during the remodelling of plaintiff's
office building or during the fire at plaintiff's
bodega at San Nicolas where they were brought
for safekeeping.

All said documents were presented as evidence
to prove that all the freight charges for the
shipments evidence thereby were duly earned
by (Compania) and were properly debited (from
Limsons) charge account.

Apparently, the Commissioner rejected plaintiff's
claims which were not actually supported by the
original of the bills of lading notwithstanding the
fact that duplicate original of the said documents
and other secondary evidence such as the ship
cargo manifests have been presented as
evidence.

As stated above, witnesses (named Cabling and
Ilagan) testified that the practice was that when
the originals of the bills of lading could not be
surrendered because they have not yet been
received by the consignee, the delivery of the
cargo was nevertheless authorized and a
delivery receipt was prepared on the basis of the
ship's cargo manifests or the ship's copy of the
bills of lading. This only shows that the ship's
cargo manifests or the ship's copy of the bills of
lading can be accepted as evidence of
shipments made by defendant since he was
allowed to accept delivery of said shipments
even without presented his copy of the bill of
lading.

Dispositive, the final accounting:
By way of recapitulation, the total of freight
charges due Compania based on the freight
charges appearing on the face of the bills of
lading supporting the statement of account
attached to the complaint is P698,159.14.

BUT deduct from said amount the following:

(1) Rebate P111,291.18
(2) Cash payments made by
defendant
235,007.85
(3) Freight adjustment 1,138.45
(4) Cost of foodstuffs
purchased from defendant
411,982.35
Total P759,419.83

D 2015 | Evidence | Lopez | Digest by PS Magno
would show a balance in favor of Limson of
P61,260.69.