COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. INSURANCE CO.

OF NORTH AMERICA
12 SCRA 213 / OCT 13, 1964 / BAUTISTA, J. / PERFECTION OF CONTRACT-CARRIAGE OF GOODS / KO The claim that there can be no contract of affreightment because the hemp was not
NATURE Petition for Review actually loaded on the ship that would take it to Manila is of no moment for the delivery of
PETITIONERS Compañia Maritima the hemp to the carrier’s lighter is in line with the contract. The delivery is evidenced by
RESPONDENTS Insurance Company of North America the receipt signed by the patron which stated that he was receiving the cargo in behalf of
the vessel taking it to Manila in good order and condition.
SUMMARY. Macleod contracted Compañia Maritima for the shipment of hemp. The hemp
was loaded on two barges to be loaded on the vessel taking it to Manila. While waiting, one On the other hand, a bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation of a contract of
of the barges sank causing loss to Macleod. The insurance company failed to recover from carriage as the code does not demand as a necessary requisite in the contract of
Compañia Maritima and instituted the action. transportation the delivery of the bill of lading to the shipper but it gives the right to both
DOCTRINE. Where the shipper delivered the cargo to the carrier and the latter took the carrier and the shipper to mutually demand of each other the delivert of said bill.
possession thereof by placing it on a lighter or barge manned by its authorized employees, it
is held that there existed a complete contract of carriage the consummation of which had DECISION.
already begun. Petition denied.

FACTS.
 Macleod and Co of the Philippines contracted by telephone the services of Compañia
Maritima (CM) for the shipment of hemp from Macleod’s Sasa private pier at Davao to
Manila and for their subsequent transshipment to Boston, MA, USA.
 The oral contract was later confirmed and 2 landing craft tanks (LCT) were sent to
Macleod’s pier to load the hemp.
 The LCTs were manned by a patron and an assistant patron each who issued the
corresponding carrier’s receipts.
 While waiting for the arrival of the vessel on which the hemp wa to be loaded for
transport, one of the LCTs sank resulting in the loss or damage of the hemp loaded
therein.
 The Abaca shipments of Macleod, including the lost/damaged hemp were insured with
the Insurance Company of North America against all losses and damages. Macleod filed a
claim for the loss it suffered with the insurance company.
 The insurance company failed to recover from the carrier and instituted the present action
 If citing actions in lower courts or CA, follow this format:
 RTC: Rendered judgement ordering CM to pay the insurance company

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON there was a contract of carriage between the carrier (CM) and the shipper
(Macleod) even if the loss occured when the hemp was loaded on a barge owned by
the carrier free of charge and not in the vessel that would transport it to Manila and no
bill of lading was issued. – YES.
A contract of carriage is consummated on the actual delivery to, or receipt by the
carrier or an authorized agent.

The fact that the carrier sent its lighters free of charge to take the hemp from Macleod's
wharf at Sasa preparatory to its loading unto the ship does not in any way impair the
contract of carriage already entered into between the carrier and the shipper, for that
preparatory steps is but a part of the contract of carriage. The lighters were merely
employed as the first step of the voyage, but once that step was taken and the hemp
delivered to the carrier's employees, the rights and obligations of the parties attached
thereby subjecting them to the principles and usages of the maritime law.