American Express Co. v. Natividad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the latter part of 1920 and the first part of 1921, merchandise shipments from Japan were discharged at Cebu. Joaquin Natividad, the collector of customs, delivered this merchandise to Chua Cho Pack & Co. without the presentation of bills of lading, after requiring the execution of bonds in favor of the Government of the Philippine Islands. Subsequently, the American Express Co., Inc. presented the bills of lading and demanded the merchandise or its value, but Mr. Natividad, having already delivered the goods, could not comply. Procedural History: The American Express Co., Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to recover P55,102.18 (later reduced to P43,131.78) from Joaquin Natividad. The defendant's demurrer, arguing he was not a proper party defendant as a private individual, was overruled. He then defended on the ground that the merchandise was delivered upon the execution of bonds to produce the bills of lading. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the "administrator de Aduanas de Cebu" for P43,131.78. The Petition: Both parties appealed. The plaintiff-appellant argued that the judgment should have been against Joaquin Natividad personally, not just as collector of customs. The defendant-appellant contended that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, American Express Co., Inc., is the real party in interest. Whether Joaquin Natividad, as collector of customs, is personally liable for the wrongful delivery of merchandise without the surrender of the proper bill of lading, despite the execution of indemnity bonds.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with the sole modification that it shall run against Joaquin Natividad personally and not against the collector of customs of Cebu.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the real party in interest: The Court held that the American Express Company, Inc. was the real party in interest. The bills of lading were issued to the order of the shipper, indorsed in blank, and delivered to the American Express Company with drafts attached for collection. The company also held a power of attorney. This established its legal title to the demand, and payment to or recovery by it would protect the defendant. Furthermore, the objection that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest was not raised in the lower court, either in the demurrer or the answer, and therefore could not be raised for the first time on appeal. A party cannot adopt one theory at trial and another on appeal. On the personal liability of the collector of customs: The Court ruled that a collector of customs is personally liable for the wrongful delivery of merchandise without the surrender of the proper bill of lading, as provided by Section 1316 of the Administrative Code. The collector has a duty to hold merchandise until the bills of lading are duly surrendered. If the collector releases the merchandise without the production of the bills of lading, he does so at his peril and is personally liable if he delivers it to the wrong person. While Section 1316 allows the collector to protect himself by requiring a sufficient bond, this bond is for his protection and does not diminish his personal liability to the rightful holder of the bill of lading. The bond allows the collector to seek reimbursement from the bondsmen, but his primary responsibility remains. The action against him personally is based on his legal responsibility, not on his solvency.
Main Doctrine
A collector of customs is personally liable for the wrongful delivery of merchandise without the surrender of the proper bill of lading, even if an indemnity bond has been executed to protect himself from liability. The execution of such a bond does not diminish his personal responsibility under the law.