Scribd
Upload
125 views1 page

de Reny Fabrics vs. BPI

De Reny Fabric Industries applied for and was granted four irrevocable commercial letters of credit from the Bank of the Philippine Islands to purchase goods from an American supplier. However, when the shipments arrived it was discovered the goods were colored chalks instead of dyestuffs. De Reny refused to accept the goods. The bank sued De Reny to recover payment. The court ruled that De Reny was not liable because under the terms of the letter of credit, the bank does not guarantee the quality, quantity or condition of the goods, only the documents. The bank deals solely with the documents, not the actual goods. Therefore, De Reny had no recourse but to comply with the terms they agreed to.

Uploaded by

Alexis Von Te
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views1 page

de Reny Fabrics vs. BPI

De Reny Fabric Industries applied for and was granted four irrevocable commercial letters of credit from the Bank of the Philippine Islands to purchase goods from an American supplier. However, when the shipments arrived it was discovered the goods were colored chalks instead of dyestuffs. De Reny refused to accept the goods. The bank sued De Reny to recover payment. The court ruled that De Reny was not liable because under the terms of the letter of credit, the bank does not guarantee the quality, quantity or condition of the goods, only the documents. The bank deals solely with the documents, not the actual goods. Therefore, De Reny had no recourse but to comply with the terms they agreed to.

Uploaded by

Alexis Von Te
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

12.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs De Reny Fabrics 35 SCRA 256

Facts: De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc. (De Reny) applied for, and was granted, four (4) irrevocable commercial
letters of credit with the Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI). The letter of credits was used to cover the purchase
of goods by De Reny from its American supplier, the J.B. Distributing Company. As each shipment arrived in
the Philippines, the De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc. made partial payments to the Bank amounting to 12,000.
Further payments were, however, subsequently discontinued by the corporation when it became established, as
a result of a chemical test conducted by the National Science Development Board, that the goods that arrived in
Manila were colored chalks instead of dyestuffs. The corporation also refused to take possession of these goods,
and for this reason, the Bank caused them to be deposited with a bonded warehouse paying therefor the amount
of P12,609.64 up to the filing of its complaint with the court.

Issue: Whether or not De Reny fabrics is liable under the letter of Credit

Ruling: NO. Even without the stipulation recited above, the appellants cannot shift the burden of loss to the
Bank on account of the violation by their vendor of its prestation. It was uncontrovertibly proven by the Bank
during the trial below that banks, in providing financing in international business transactions such as those
entered into by the appellants, do not deal with the property to be exported or shipped to the importer, but deal
only with documents. The existence of a custom in international banking and financing circles negating any
duty on the part of a bank to verify whether what has been described in letters of credits or drafts or shipping
documents actually tallies with what was loaded aboard ship, having been positively proven as a fact, the
appellants are bound by this established usage. They were, after all, the ones who tapped the facilities afforded
by the Bank in order to engage in international business.

Under the terms of their Commercial Letter of Credit Agreements with the Bank, the appellants agreed that the
Bank shall not be responsible for the “existence, character, quality, quantity, conditions, packing, value, or
delivery of the property purporting to be represented by documents; for any difference in character, quality,
quantity, condition, or value of the property from that expressed in documents,” or for “partial or incomplete
shipment, or failure or omission to ship any or all of the property referred to in the Credit,” as well as “for any
deviation from instructions, delay, default or fraud by the shipper or anyone else in connection with the property
the shippers or vendors and ourselves [purchasers] or any of us.” Having agreed to these terms, the appellants
have, therefore, no recourse but to comply with their covenant.

You might also like