Macam v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 125524, 25 August 1999, 313 SCRA 77

FACTS:

Petitioner Macam exported 3,500 boxes of watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes. The
shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great Prospect
Company of Kowloon, Hongkong (hereinafter GPC) as notify party. The bill of lading stated that one
of the bill must be presented by the Pakistan Bank as consignee and GPC as the notify party.
However, upon arrival in Hong Kong, the shipment was delivered by the carrier directly to GPC and
not to Pakistan Bank and without surrendering the bill of lading.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a valid delivery.

HELD:

The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or constructive delivery of the
cargo to the consignee or his agent. Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify
party. However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or importer. Petitioner
referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent and his complaint before the court. This
premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in
conformity with Art. 1736 of the Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.