Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Compania Maritime vs. Limson Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    mansikiabo
    429 views1 page
    Compania Maritima filed a complaint against Jose Limson to collect unpaid freight charges of 44,701.54 pesos for the shipment of livestock aboard Compania's vessel. Limson denied liability, claiming he did not authorize the transactions. Compania's total claims against Limson amounted to 545,394.24 pesos based on bills of lading signed by a "Perry" listing Limson as shipper and consignee. The court ruled that Limson could be held liable for the bills of lading signed by "Perry" since witnesses testified that "Perry" was known to be Limson's regular representative who took delivery of the cargoes. The court also found Limson liable for unsigned bills of

    Original Description:

    agency

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Compania Maritima filed a complaint against Jose Limson to collect unpaid freight charges of 44,701.54 pesos for the shipment of livestock aboard Compania's vessel. Limson denied liability, claiming he did not authorize the transactions. Compania's total claims against Limson amounted to 545,394.24 pesos based on bills of lading signed by a "Perry" listing Limson as shipper and consignee. The court ruled that Limson could be held liable for the bills of lading signed by "Perry" since witnesses testified that "Perry" was known to be Limson's regular representative who took delivery of the cargoes. The court also found Limson liable for unsigned bills of

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    429 views1 page

    Compania Maritime vs. Limson Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    mansikiabo
    Compania Maritima filed a complaint against Jose Limson to collect unpaid freight charges of 44,701.54 pesos for the shipment of livestock aboard Compania's vessel. Limson denied liability, claiming he did not authorize the transactions. Compania's total claims against Limson amounted to 545,394.24 pesos based on bills of lading signed by a "Perry" listing Limson as shipper and consignee. The court ruled that Limson could be held liable for the bills of lading signed by "Perry" since witnesses testified that "Perry" was known to be Limson's regular representative who took delivery of the cargoes. The court also found Limson liable for unsigned bills of

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMPANIA MARITIMA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE C. LIMSON, defendant-appellant. G.R. No.

    L-27134 February 28, 1986


    Facts: Compania filed a complaint against Limson for collection of the sum of 44, 701.54, the unpaid accounts for passage & freight on shipment of hogs, cattle, carabaos abroad with Companias vessel. Limson even denied the liability saying that he has not allowed such transaction and that he is not the shipper. The claim involved by Compania amounted to 545, 394.24, and these claims were based from the bills signed by one person named Perry and with Limson s the shipper and consignee. Issue: Whether or not the bills of lading signed by perry be accepted. Held: Yes, 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. As regards the controverted bills of lading signed by "Perry" with Limson as shipper or consignee, a witness testified that the signatures therein are those of Cipriano Magtibay alias "Perry" who took delivery of the 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.

    ERNESTINE ANN DEXIMO

    Page 1

    You might also like