(1) Macondary Co.

v Commissioner of Customs, 62 SCRA 427

FACTS:

On November 2, 1962, the vessel S/S TAI PING, of which petitioner is the local agent, arrived at the port of Manila from
San Francisco, California, U.S.A., conveying various shipments of merchandise, among which was a shipment of one (1)
coil carbon steel, one (1 bundle carbon steel flat and one (1) carbon containing carbon tool holders carbide cutters,
ground, all of which appeared in the Bill of Lading No. 22, consigned to Bogo Medellin Millings Co., Inc. The shipment,
except the one (1) coil carbon steel was not reflected in the Inward Cargo Manifest as required by Section 1005 in relation
to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Custom Code of the Philippines. Allied Brokerage Corporation, acting for and in behalf of
Bogo Medellin Milling Co. requested petitioner Macondray & Co., agent of the vessel S/S TAI PING, to correct the
manifest of the steamer so that it may take delivery of the goods at Customs House. Collector of Custom required
petitioner to explain and show cause why no administrative fine should be imposed upon said vessel. The fine of
1,000.00 was paid by petitioner under protest. Hearing of the protest proceeded thereafter.
Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila ordered the dismissal of said protest for lack of merit. On appeal to the
Commissioner of Customs the latter sustained the Collector of Customs. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court
of Tax Appeals. The CTA affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs as affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Collector of Customs erred in imposing a fine on vessel, S/S TAI PING, for alleged violation of Section
1005 in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code for landing unmanifested cargo at the port of Manila.
HELD:

sThe inclusion of the unmanifested cargoes in the Bill of Lading does not satisfy the requirement of the aforequoted
sections of the Tariff and Customs Code. It is to be noted that nowhere in the said sections is the presentation of a Bill of
Lading required required, but only the presentation of a Manifest containing a true and accurate description of the
cargoes. This is for the simple reason that while a manifest is a declaration of the entire cargo, a bill of lading is but a
declaration of a specific part of the cargo and is a matter of business convenience based exclusively on a contract. The
Court cannot accept or place an implied imprimatur on the contention of petitioner that the entries in the bill of lading
adequately supplied the deficiency of the manifest and cured its infirmity. The mandate of the law is clear and Court
cannot settle for less. The law imposes the absolute obligation, under penalty for failure, upon every vessel from a foreign
port to have on board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her cargo, signed by the master. Where the law
requires a manifest to be kept or delivered, it is not complied with unless the manifest is true and accurate. Amendment of
cargo manifest even if later approved by customs authorities does not relieve carrying vessel of liability of fine incurred
prior to its correction. The philosophy and purpose behind the law authorizing amendment, under paragraph 3 of Section
1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code, is to protect innocent importers or consignees from the mistake or unlawful acts of
the master.

BILL OF LADING VS CARGO MANIFEST

Manifest

It is a declaration of the entire cargo.

OBJECTS:
1.) Furnish the customs officers with a list to check against;
2.) Inform our revenue officers what goods are being brought into the country; and
3.) Provide a safeguard against goods being brought into this country on a vessel and then smuggled ashore.
Bill of Lading is but a declaration of a specific part of the cargo and is a matter of business convenience based exclusively on a
contract.

It is ordinarily merely a convenient commercial instrument designed to protect the importer or consignee, a manifest of the
cargo is absolutely essential to the exportation or importation of property in all vessels, the evident intent and object of
which is to impose upon the owners and officers of such vessel an imperative obligation to submit lists of the entire
loading of the ship in the prescribed form, to facilitate the labors of the customs and immigration officers and to defeat any
attempt to make use of such vessels to secure the unlawful entry of persons or things into the country.

(2) Phil. American Gen. Insurance v Sweet Lines, 212 SCRA 194

Facts:
The vessel SS VISHVA YASH belonging to or operated by SCI Line (Shipping
Corp. of India) took on board 2 consignment of cargoes for shipment from LA to
Manila and Davao covered by bills of lading issued by SCI Line. The cargoes were
insured by Tagum Plastics and PHILAMGEN.

For the purpose of transhipment from Manila to Davao, SCI Line made use of
M/V Sweet Love owned and operated by Sweet Lines. The cargoes were comingled
with similar cargoes belonging to Evergreen Plantation and Standfilco. After the
shipments were discharged, it was discovered that there were damages, losses and
shortages on the cargo covered by the bills of lading. From the total of 7,000 bags
only 5,820 were delivered to the consignee, leaving a balance of 1,080 to which
Sweet Lines and F.E. Zueelig is answerable to. Philamgen and Tagum Plastics
commenced a suit against Sweet Lines Inc. (SLI), Davao Arastre, SCI Line and FE
Zuellig to recover the cost of damaged shipment.
Philamgen: SLI failed to adduce any evidence in support of the ground of
prescription and that the bills of lading said to contain the shortened periods for
filing and for instituting a court action against the carrier were never offered in
evidence
SLI: it is standard practice in its operations to issue bills of lading for shipments
entrusted to it for carriage and that it issued bills of lading
Issue: WON the bills of lading may be considered as evidence though not formally
offered?
Held: Yes.
Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously
revolves on such bills of lading w/c are practically the documents or contracts sued
upon, hence they are inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded
in the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto.
The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents w/c under the Rules
must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the
genuineness and due execution of w/c are deemed admitted unless specifically
denied under oath by the adverse party.
Philamgens failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness
and due execution, of the instruments in question amounts to an admission. Judicial
admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course
of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being
required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Moreover,
when the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted
because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the
instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an
admitted fact.

(3) Chua Yek Hong v IAC,166 SCRA 183

Chua Yek Hong is a duly licensed copra dealer based at Puerta Galera, Oriental Mindoro, while
Mariano Guno and Dominador Olit are the owners of the vessel, M/V Luzviminda I, a common carrier
engaged in coastwise trade from the different ports of Oriental Mindoro to the Port of Manila. In October
1977, Chua Yek Hong loaded 1,000 sacks of copra, valued at P101,227.40, on board the vessel M/V
Luzviminda I for shipment from Puerta Galera, Oriental Mindoro, to Manila. Said cargo, however, did
not reach Manila because somewhere between Cape Santiago and Calatagan, Batangas, the vessel
capsized and sank with all its cargo.
On 30 March 1979, Chua Yek Hong instituted before the then CFI of Oriental Mindoro, a Complaint for
damages based on breach of contract of carriage against Guno and Olit. In their Answer, Guno and Olit
averred that even assuming that the alleged cargo was truly loaded aboard their vessel, their liability had
been extinguished by reason of the total loss of said vessel. On 17 May 1983, the Trial Court rendered its
Decision, holding that the preponderance of evidence militates in favor of Chua Yek Hong and against
Guno and Olit by ordering the latter, jointly and severally, to pay Chua Yek Hong the sum of P101,227.40
representing the value of the cargo belonging to Chua Yek Hong which was lost while in the custody of
Guno and Olit; P65,550.00 representing miscellaneous expenses of Chua Yek Hong on said lost cargo;
attorneys fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and to pay the costs of suit.
On appeal, the Appellate Court ruled to the contrary when it applied Article 587 of the Code of
Commerce and the doctrine in Yangco vs. Laserna (73 Phil. 330 [1941]) and held that Gunos and Olits
liability, as shipowners, for the loss of the cargo is merely co-extensive with their interest in the vessel
such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. Unsuccessful in his Motion for Reconsideration of
the Decision, Chua Yek Hong filed a petition for review on certiorari.
Issue : WON limited liability principle be applied in the case.

Held: No.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment sought to be reviewed; without costs.
Herein, since the shipagents or shipowners liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel
such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction, and none of the exceptions to the rule on limited
liability being present, the liability of Guno and Olit for the loss of the cargo of copra must be deemed to
have been extinguished. There is no showing that the vessel was insured.
(4) Smith Bell v CA, 197 SCRA 201

(5) Home Insurance Company v American Steamships Agencies, 23 SCRA 24

(6) Litonjua Shipping v National Seamen Board, 176 SCRA 189
(7) Planters Products v CA, 226 SCRA 476
(8) Yangco v Lasera, 73 Phil 330
(9) Vda. De Lat v Public Service Commission, 158 ACRS 180
(10) San Pablo v Pantranco South Express, 153 SCRA 199
(11) Qualitrans v Royal Class, 179 SCRA 569

(12) Cogeo-Cubao v CA, 201 SCRA 343

(13) Ang v Compania Maritima, 133 SCRA 600
(14) Filipino Merchants Insurance v Alejandro, 145 SCRA 42
(15) Puromines vs. CA,et.al., G.R. No. 91228, March 22, 1993
(16) Cathay Pacific v. Reyes, G.R.No.185891, June 26,2013
(17) Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. vs. Phoenix Assurance; G.R. No. 162467;
5.08.09
(18) Benjamin Cua v. Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc.; G.R. No. 171337; July 11, 2012
(19) MITSUI O.S.K. LINES LTD vs. COURT OF APPEALS; G.R. No. 119571; March 11, 1998
(20) Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Neptune Orient Lines/Overseas Agency
Services, Inc.; G.R. No. 145044; June 12, 2008

(21) China Airlines vs. Chiok; 407 SCRA 432

(22) KLM vs. CA

65 SCRA 237

(23) Lhuillier vs. British Airways 615 SCRA 380

(24) Lufthansa vs. CA

238 SCRA 290

(25) Luna vs. CA

216 SCRA 107

(26) Mapa vs. CA

275 SCRA 286

(27) Sabena vs. CA

253 SCRA 38

(28) Santos, III vs. North West

210 SCRA 256