G.R. No.
4395 September 9, 1908
BEHN, MEYER & CO., LTD., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. EL BANCO
ESPAOL-FILIPINO, defendant-appellant.
Facts: On the 3d of November, 1906, at Hongkong, Sander, Wieler and
Co., as agents for the German steamship Hilary, chartered her to the
interveners, Sin Liong, and Co., of Manila. By the terms of the charter
party, she was to proceed to the port of Saigon Bay, to load there or at
Phu Yen Harbor as many head of cattle as the steamer could safely, carry,
and being loaded, then to proceed to the port of Manila and so end the
voyage.
Upon its arrival at Saigon, the ship was loaded with the rice then it
proceeded to Phu Yen Harbor. It was in the said harbor where the ship was
contracted to load 202 head of cattle. However, the captain refused to
load the carabaos. When the time the captian consented to receive the
said carabaos, the weather was so bad that cattle was never loaded when
it sailed back to Manila.
The vessel arrived in Manila on the 3rd of December. The interveners, the
charters, desiring to unload part of the rice at Iloilo, as soon as the boat
arrived made a contract by cable with Sander, Wieler and Co., in
Hongkong, for a voyage to Iloilo, agreeing to pay therefor 800 Hongkong
dollars. As soon as the boat arrived the captain applied to the plaintiffs to
act his agents and to attend to the business while here. Before that time
that plaintiffs had never acted as the agents for the steamer.
By the terms of the charter party, the freight for the voyage from Saigon
to Manila, which was 9,250 Hongkong dollars, was to be paid on or before
the delivery of the cargo and cattle at Manila. The charterers did not
desire to make that payment until the balance of the cargo had been
unloaded at Iloilo. The plaintiffs would not allow the vessels to leave for
Iloilo until the freight and all claims for demurrage had been paid or
secured. Thereupon the charterers deposited P13,000.00 with the
defendant bank. The defendant bank wrote on a letter to the plaintiffs
stating that if upon the completion of the unloading, the price stipulated in
the agreement and the demurrage is not paid by said parties, defendant
bank bound itself to make such payment.
After the vessel finished unloading, plaintiffs presented to the charterers,
the interveners, an account amounting to 12, 350 Hongkong dollars.
However, the charteres refused to pay it; application was then made by
plaintiffs to the defendant bank but the latter refused. Thus, the former
commenced an action against defendant bank.
It was alleged that the plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest in this
case, the claim of the appellants being that the action should have been
brought in the name of the owners of the vessel, and that Behn, Meyer
and Co. was not the real party in interest.
Issue: WON Behn, Meyer and Co. can maintain the action in their own
names.
Ruling: Yes.
If Behn, Meyer and Co. had brought this action upon the charter party
itself to recover the freight therein mentioned, it is very clear that it could
not be maintained. They were not parties to that contract and had no
interest to the only parties are the defendant bank and Behn, Meyer and
Co. The defendant bank contracted directly with Behn, Meyer and Co. and
no mention is made in the contract of owners of the streamer.
The evidence shows that Behn, Meyer and Co. were agents of the capital
and that the transaction to which their agency relates was a mercantile
one. Being such agents, they made a contract in their own names with the
defendant bank. It appears from the testimony of the manager of the bank
that he was not notified and never knew for whom Behn, Meyer and Co.
where acting. The document itself shows that he contracted with them in
their own names and there is no evidence to show Behn, Meyer and Co.
disclosed to the bank the names of the persons for whom they were
acting. The manager of the bank never saw the charter party and knew
nothing about its contents.
