Credtrans: Warehouse Receipts

GONZALES V. GO TIONG
47 Law
GR No. L-11776 August 30,1958 J. Montemayor Carl Santos
Petitioners: Respondents:
Ramon Gonzales Go Tiong
Recit Ready Summary

Gonzales deposited with Go Tiong, a bonded warehouseman, 860 sacks of palay. In return, Tiong
issued ordinary receipts. Eventually, the warehouse were the palays were stored was burned down.
Gonzales demanded for payment of P8,600 (the value of the palay) plus damages, which Tiong did not
pay, hence, the present action. Tiong was contending that he shouldn’t be held liable under the Bonded
Warehouse Law but under the Civil Code because what he issued were ordinary receipts. The Court
ruled that that the kind or nature of the receipts issued by Tiong for the deposits is not very material.
Under Section 1 of the Warehouse Receipts Act, the issuance of a warehouse receipt in the form
provided by it is merely permissive and directory and not obligatory.

Facts

1. Go Tiong owned a rice mill and warehouse in Pangasinan. He had a license as a bonded
warehouseman. Luzon Surety Co. was Tiong’s guarantor, securing Tiong’s performance of his
obligations as a boned warehouseman: receiving palay for storage, and delivering such upon
demand, or paying the market value thereof in case he was unable to return the same.

2. Go Tiong received a total of 860 sacks of palay, valued at P8,600 (P10/ sack), from Ramon
Gonzales, for which Tiong issued receipts. The receipts he issued were ordinary receipts, not the
“warehouse receipts” defined by the Warehouse Receipts Act (Act No. 2137). He also accepted
deliveries of palay from other depositors.

3. Gonzales demanded from Tiong the value of his deposits amounting to P8,600, but Tiong was not
able to return it. Eventually, the warehouse where the palays were stored was burned down. At the
time of fire, there were about 5,847 sacks of palay in the warehouse.

4. Eventually, Gonzales filed the present action against Go Tiong and Luzon Surety for the sum of
P8,600, the value of his palay, with legal interest, and damages. The RTC ruled in favor of Gonzales,
but found that the claim was covered by the Bonded Warehouse Law, Act 3893, and not by the Civil
Code.

Point/s of Contention

Go Tiong was claiming that the claim should be covered by the Civil Code and not by the Bonded
Warehouse Act because the receipts he issued were ordinary receipts not contemplated by the
Warehouse Receipts Law. This is important because he was praying for exemptions from liability using
the provisions of the Civil Code - Tiong was claiming that the deposit was gratuitous and as such, based
on the provisions of the Civil Code, he should be exempt from liability because the transaction was a
gratuitous deposit, which was extinguished upon the loss and destruction of the subject-matter.
Issues Ruling
1. Whether the claim is covered by the Civil Code and not by the Bonded 1. No
Warehouse Act for the reason that Go Tiong issued ordinary receipts and not
warehouse receipts contemplated by the Warehouse Receipts Law
Rationale
1. Whether Tiong is liable under the Civil Code and not under the Bonded Warehouse Act –
No

1
 Any deposit made with a bonded warehouseman must necessarily be governed by the provisions
of Act No. 3893 (Bonded Warehouse Act). The kind or nature of the receipts issued by Tiong for
the deposits is not very material. Though it is desirable that receipts issued by a bonded
warehouseman should conform to the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law, said provisions
are not mandatory, and indispensable. If they fell short of the requirement of the Warehouse
Receipts Act, the commodities delivered for storage will not become ordinary deposits and will still
be governed by the provisions of the Bonded Warehouse Act. Under Section 1 of the Warehouse
Receipts Act, the issuance of a warehouse receipt in the form provided by it is merely permissive
and directory and not obligatory.

Disposition

Petition affirmed. Go Tiong is still liable under the Bonded Warehouse Act.