Doctrine: A consignee, although not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper

and the carrier, becomes a party to the contract by reason of either a) the relationship of agency
between the consignee and the shipper/ consignor; b) the unequivocal acceptance of the bill of
lading delivered to the consignee, with full knowledge of its contents or c) availment of the
stipulation pour autrui, i.e., when the consignee, a third person, demands before the carrier the
fulfillment of the stipulation made by the consignor/shipper in the consignee’s favor, specifically
the delivery of the goods/cargoes shipped.

Facts:
Shin  Yang  is  named  the  consignee  of  secondhand  cars  to  be  shipped  in  Manila  through 
Hanjin Busan’s Vessel. The goods then arrived in Manila. MOF Company, being Hanjin’s
exclusive general agent in Manila, demanded from Shin Yang the payment of ocean freight,
documentation fee, and terminal handling charges. Shin Yang refused payment saying that it was
not privy to the contract of affreightment. It argued being merely a consolidator and not the
ultimate consignee. Also forwarded by Shin Yang is that the bill of lading named under it was
prepared without its consent. If any, the freight charges are born by the shipper and not the
consignee. Thus, a complaint for a collection of sum of money. MeTC favored MOF. RTC
affirmed. CA reversed and dismissed MOF’s case because no other evidence were presented but
the Bill of Lading. Only when the bill of lading is accepted can the contract between parties be
perfected. In this case, Shin Yang did not accept the Bill of Lading and disowned the shipment.
Issue: Whether or not a consignee who is not a signatory to the bill of lading is bound by the
stipulations 
thereof

Held:
No, because MOF was unable to prove the instances where Shin Yang may be bound.
Bill  of  lading  is  drawn  up  by  the  shipper/consignor  and  the  carrier  without 
intervention  of consignee. However, it does not necessarily mean that the consignee
could not be bound thereof.
In  this  case,  Shin  Yang  denied  in  all  its  pleadings  that  it  is  the  consignee  of 
the  goods  and  the instances mentioned were not present. Therefore, the burden to
prove that Shin Yang is bound by the Bill of Lading is upon MOF. However, MOF failed
to prove the same. Hence, Shin Yang could not be ordered to pay the obligation of a
consignee as required in the Bill.