Transpo Week 15 Cases-1

7/26/2019 Transpo Week 15 Cases-1

1/61

Page1

G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATECOURT a! DE"ELOPMENT INSURANCE # SURET$ CORPORATION,respondents.

G.R. No. 71478 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE NISSHIN %IRE ANDMARINE INSURANCE CO., a! DO&A %IRE # MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD.,respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA,J.:

These two cases, both for the recovery of the value of cargo insurance, arose fromthe same incident, the sinking of the M/S S!T!" when it caught #re, resulting inthe total loss of ship and cargo.

The basic facts are not in controversy$

!n G.R. No. 69044, sometime in or prior to %une, 1&'', the M/S S!T!", a vesseloperated by petitioner (astern Shipping )ines, !nc., *referred to hereinafter asPetitioner "arrier+ loaded at obe, %apan for transportation to Manila, -, piecesof caloried lance pipes in 0 packages valued at P0-2,3&. consigned toPhilippine 4looming Mills "o., !nc., and ' cases of spare parts valued at P&0,321.'-,consigned to "entral Te5tile Mills, !nc. 4oth sets of goods were insured againstmarine risk for their stated value with respondent 6evelopment !nsurance andSurety "orporation.

!n G.R. No. 71478,during the same period, the same vessel took on board 10cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, in two *0+ containers, consigned toMariveles pparel "orporation, and two cases of surveying instruments consignedto man (nterprises and 7eneral Merchandise. The 10 cartons were insured for

their stated value by respondent 8isshin 9ire : Marine !nsurance "o., for ;SF in the amounts of ;S F to ;S


2/61

Page0

t the outset, we reAect Petitioner "arrierBs claim that it is not the operator of theM/S siatica but merely a charterer thereof. Fe note that in 7.D. 8o. 2&==,Petitioner "arrier stated in its Petition$

There are about 00 cases of the IS!T!"I pending in various courts wherevarious plaintiJs are represented by various counsel representing variousconsignees or insurance companies. The common defendant in these cases ispetitioner herein, being the operator of said vessel. ... 1

Petitioner "arrier should be held bound to said admission. s a general rule, thefacts alleged in a partyBs pleading are deemed admissions of that party and bindingupon it. 2 nd an admission in one pleading in one action may be received inevidence against the pleader or his successor@in@interest on the trial of anotheraction to which he is a party, in favor of a party to the latter action. '

The threshold issues in both cases are$ *1+ which law should govern K the "ivil"ode provisions on "ommon carriers or the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ctL and *0+who has the burden of proof to show negligence of the carrierL

On the Law Applicable

The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs theliability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. 4

s the cargoes in Huestion were transported from %apan to the Philippines, theliability of Petitioner "arrier is governed primarily by the "ivil "ode. (Eowever, inall matters not regulated by said "ode, the rights and obligations of commoncarrier shall be governed by the "ode of "ommerce and by special laws. 6Thus,the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, a special law, is suppletory to the provisions ofthe "ivil "ode. 7

On the Buren o! "roo!

;nder the "ivil "ode, common carriers, from the nature of their business and forreasons of public policy, are bound to observe e5traordinary diligence in the

vigilance over goods, according to all the circumstances of each case. 8"ommoncarriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goodsunless the same is due to any of the following causes only$

*1+ 9lood, storm, earthHuake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamityG

555 555 555 9

Petitioner "arrier claims that the loss of the vessel by #re e5empts it from liabilityunder the phrase Inatural disaster or calamity. I Eowever, we are of the opinionthat #re may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must be so as itarises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. 10!t does notfall within the category of an act of 7od unless caused by lightning 11or by othernatural disaster or calamity. 12!t may even be caused by the actual fault or privityof the carrier. 1'

rticle 12 of the "ivil "ode, which considers #re as an e5traordinary fortuitousevent refers to leases of rural lands where a reduction of the rent is allowed whenmore than one@half of the fruits have been lost due to such event, considering thatthe law adopts a protection policy towards agriculture. 14

s the peril of the #re is not comprehended within the e5ception in rticle 1'3=,#upra,rticle 1'3- of the "ivil "ode provides that all cases than those mention inrticle 1'3=, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to

have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the e5traordinarydeligence reHuired by law.

!n this case, the respective !nsurers. as subrogees of the cargo shippers, haveproven that the transported goods have been lost. Petitioner "arrier has alsoproved that the loss was caused by #re. The burden then is upon Petitioner "arrierto proved that it has e5ercised the e5traordinary diligence reHuired by law. !n thisregard, the Trial "ourt, concurred in by the ppellate "ourt, made the following9inding of fact$

The cargoes in Huestion were, according to the witnesses defendant placed inhatches 8o, 0 and 3 cf the vessel, 4oatswain (rnesto Pastrana noticed that smokewas coming out from hatch 8o. 0 and hatch 8o. 3G that where the smoke was

noticed, the #re was already bigG that the #re must have started twenty@four 0=+our the same was noticedG that carbon dio5ide was ordered released and the crewwas ordered to open the hatch covers of 8o, 0 tor commencement of #re #ghtingby sea water$ that all of these eJort were not enough to control the #re.

Pursuant to rticle 1'33, common carriers are bound to e5traordinary diligence inthe vigilance over the goods. The evidence of the defendant did not show thate5traordinary vigilance was observed by the vessel to prevent the occurrence of#re at hatches numbers 0 and 3. 6efendantBs evidence did not likewise show heamount of diligence made by the crew, on orders, in the care of the cargoes. Fhatappears is that after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspectionwas made as to their condition during the voyage. "onseHuently, the crew couldnot have even e5plain what could have caused the #re. The defendant, in the"ourtBs mind, failed to satisfactorily show that e5traordinary vigilance and care had

been made by the crew to prevent the occurrence of the #re. The defendant, as acommon carrier, is liable to the consignees for said lack of deligence reHuired of itunder rticle 1'33 of the "ivil "ode. 1(

Eaving failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had e5ercised thee5traordinary diligence reHuired by law, Petitioner "arrier cannot escape liabilityfor the loss of the cargo.

nd even if #re were to be considered a Inatural disasterI within the meaning ofrticle 1'3= of the "ivil "ode, it is reHuired under rticle 1'3& of the same "odethat the Inatural disasterI must have been the Ipro5imate and only cause of theloss,I and that the carrier has Ie5ercised due diligence to prevent or minimie theloss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster. I This Petitioner "arrier

has also failed to establish satisfactorily.


3/61

Page3

8or may Petitioner "arrier seek refuge from liability under the "arriage of 7oods bySea ct, !t is provided therein that$

Sec. =*0+. 8either the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damagearising or resulting from

*b+ 9ire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.

555 555 555

!n this case, both the Trial "ourt and the ppellate "ourt, in eJect, found, as a fact,that there was Iactual faultI of the carrier shown by Ilack of diligenceI in thatIwhen the smoke was noticed, the #re was already bigG that the #re must havestarted twenty@four *0=+ hours before the same was noticedG I and that Iafter thecargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to theircondition during the voyage.I The foregoing suCces to show that thecircumstances under which the #re originated and spread are such as to show thatPetitioner "arrier or its servants were negligent in connection therewith."onseHuently, the complete defense aJorded by the ">7S when loss results from#re is unavailing to Petitioner "arrier.

On the $% &'00 "er "ac(a)e Li*itation+

Petitioner "arrier avers that its liability if any, should not e5ceed ;S


4/61

Page=

!n it#ui - o., Lt. /#. A*erican port Line#, 2nc. 232 9 0d ' *1&1+, theconsignees of tin ingots and the shipper of oor covering brought action againstthe vessel owner and operator to recover for loss of ingots and oor covering,which had been shipped in vessel K supplied containers. The ;.S. 6istrict "ourt forthe Southern 6istrict of 8ew Nork rendered Audgment for the plaintiJs, and thedefendant appealed. The ;nited States "ourt of ppeals, Second 6ivision, modi#edand aCrmed holding that$

Fhen what would ordinarily be considered packages are shipped in a containersupplied by the carrier and the number of such units is disclosed in the shippingdocuments, each of those units and not the container constitutes the IpackageIreferred to in liability limitation provision of "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. "arriageof 7oods by Sea ct, =*-+, =2 ;.S."..: 13=*-+.

(ven if language and purposes of "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct left doubt as towhether carrier@furnished containers whose contents are disclosed should betreated as packages, the interest in securing international uniformity wouldsuggest that they should not be so treated. "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, =*-+, =2;.S.".. 13=*-+.

... fter Huoting the statement in )eatherBs 4est, supra, =-1 9 0d at 1-, that

treating a container as a package is inconsistent with the congressional purpose ofestablishing a reasonable minimum level of liability, %udge 4eeks wrote, =1= 9.Supp. at &' *footnotes omitted+$

lthough this approach has not completely escaped criticism, there is, nonetheless,much to commend it. !t gives needed recognition to the responsibility of the courtsto construe and apply the statute as enacted, however great might be thetemptation to ImodernieI or reconstitute it by artful Audicial gloss. !f ">7SBspackage limitation scheme suJers from internal illness, "ongress alone mustundertake the surgery. There is, in this regard, obvious wisdom in the 8inth"ircuitBs conclusion in Eartford that technological advancements, whether or notforseeable by the ">7S promulgators, do not warrant a distortion or arti#cialconstruction of the statutory term Ipackage.I ruling that these large reusablemetal pieces of transport eHuipment Hualify as ">7S packages K at least where,

as here, they were carrier owned and supplied K would amount to Aust such adistortion.

"ertainly, if the individual crates or cartons prepared by the shipper and containinghis goods can rightly be considered IpackagesI standing by themselves, they donot suddenly lose that character upon being stowed in a carrierBs container. ! wouldliken these containers to detachable stowage compartments of the ship. Theysimply serve to divide the shipBs overall cargo stowage space into smaller, moreserviceable loci. ShippersB packages are Huite literally IstowedI in the containersutiliing stevedoring practices and materials analogous to those employed intraditional on board stowage.

!n 3era*e 2nternational /. %.%. ano,,1&'' .M.". 1' *(.6. Oa.+ revBd on other

grounds, -&- 9 0nd &=3 *= "ir. 1&'&+, another district with many maritime casesfollowed %udge 4eeksB reasoning in Matsushita and similarly reAected the functional

economics test. %udge ellam held that when rolls of polyester goods are packedinto cardboard cartons which are then placed in containers, the cartons and not thecontainers are the packages.

555 555 555

The case of %*ith)re5houn /. ur5)ene#, 18followed the Mitsui test$

(urygenes concerned a shipment of stereo eHuipment packaged by the shipperinto cartons which were then placed by the shipper into a carrier@ furnishedcontainer. he nu*ber o! carton# wa# i#clo#e to the carrier in the bill o! lain).ur5)ene# !ollowe the it#ui te#t an treate the carton#, not the container, a#the OG%A pac(a)e#. Eowever, (urygenes indicated that a carrier could limit itsliability to


5/61

Page-

container*s+.

The foregoing would e5plain the use of the estimate ISay$ Two *0+ "ontainers >nlyIin the 4ill of )ading, meaning that the goods could probably #t in two *0+ containersonly. !t cannot mean that the shipper had furnished the containers for if so, ITwo*0+ "ontainersI appearing as the #rst entry would have suCced. and if there is anyambiguity in the 4ill of )ading, it is a cardinal principle in the construction ofcontracts that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall

not favor the party who caused the obscurity.20

This applies with even greaterforce in a contract of adhesion where a contract is already prepared and the otherparty merely adheres to it, like the 4ill of )ading in this case, which is draw. up bythe carrier. 21

On Alle)e enial o! Opportunit5 to "re#ent epo#ition o! 2t# itne##e#+*in 7.D.8o. 2&== only+

Petitioner "arrier claims that the Trial "ourt did not give it suCcient time to takethe depositions of its witnesses in %apan by written interrogatories.

Fe do not agree. petitioner "arrier was given@ full opportunity to present itsevidence but it failed to do so. >n this point, the Trial "ourt found$

555 555 555

!ndeed, since after 8ovember 2, 1&', to ugust 0', 1&'&, not to mention the timefrom %une 0', 1&', when its answer was prepared and #led in "ourt, untilSeptember 02, 1&', when the pre@trial conference was conducted for the lasttime, the defendant had more than nine months to prepare its evidence. !ts belatednotice to take deposition on written interrogatories of its witnesses in %apan, servedupon the plaintiJ on ugust 0-th, Aust two days before the hearing set for ugust0'th, knowing fully well that it was its undertaking on %uly 11 the that thedeposition of the witnesses would be dispensed with if by ne5t time it had not yetbeen obtained, only proves the lack of merit of the defendantBs motion forpostponement, for which reason it deserves no sympathy from the "ourt in that

regard. The defendant has told the "ourt since 9ebruary 12, 1&'&, that it was goingto take the deposition of its witnesses in %apan. Fhy did it take until ugust 0-,1&'&, or more than si5 months, to prepare its written interrogatories. >nly thedefendant itself is to blame for its failure to adduce evidence in support of itsdefenses.

555 555 555 22

Petitioner "arrier was aJorded ample time to present its side of the case. 2' !tcannot complain now that it was denied due process when the Trial "ourt renderedits 6ecision on the basis of the evidence adduced. Fhat due process abhors isabsolute lack of opportunity to be heard. 24

On the Awar o! Attorne5:# ;ee#+

Petitioner "arrier Huestions the award of attorneyBs fees. !n both cases, respondent"ourt aCrmed the award by the Trial "ourt of attorneyBs fees of P3-,. in favorof 6evelopment !nsurance in 7.D. 8o. 2&==, and P-,. in favor of 8!SSE!8and 6>F in 7.D. 8o. '1='.

"ourts being vested with discretion in #5ing the amount of attorneyBs fees, it isbelieved that the amount of P-,. would be more reasonable in 7.D. 8o.2&==. The award of P-,. in 7.D. 8o. '1=' is aCrmed.

FE(D(9>D(, 1+ in 7.D. 8o. 2&==, the Audgment is modi#ed in that petitioner(astern Shipping )ines shall pay the 6evelopment !nsurance and Surety"orporation the amount of P0-2,3& for the twenty@eight *0+ packages ofcaloried lance pipes, and P'1,-= for the seven *'+ cases of spare parts, withinterest at the legal rate from the date of the #ling of the complaint on %une 13,1&', plus P-, as attorneyBs fees, and the costs.

0+ !n 7.D.8o.'1=',the Audgment is hereby aCrmed.

S> >D6(D(6.

Nar/a#a, ru7S.

! cannot go along with the maAority in applying the it#uiandur5)ene#decisionsto the present case, for the following reasons$ *1+ The facts in those cases diJermaterially from those obtaining in the present caseG and *0+ the rule laid down inthose two cases is by no means settled doctrine.

!n it#ui and ur5)ene#,the containers were supplied by the carrier or shipping


6/61

Page2

company. !n it#uithe "ourt held$ I"ertainly, if the individual crates or cartonsprepared by the shipper and containing his goods can rightly be consideredIpackagesI standing by themselves, they do not suddenly lose that character uponbeing stowed in a carrierBs container. ! would liken these containers to detachablestowage compartments of the ship.I "artons or crates placed inside carrier@furnished containers are deemed stowed in the vessel itself, and do not lose theircharacter as individual units simply by being placed inside container provided bythe carrier, which are merely Idetachable stowage compartments of the ship.

!n the case at bar, there is no evidence showing that the two containers in Huestionwere carrier@supplied. This fact cannot be presumed. The facts of the case in factshow that this was the only shipment placed in containers. The other shipmentinvolved in the case, consisting of surveying instruments, was packed in twoIcases.I

Fe cannot speculate on the meaning of the words ISay$ Two *0+ "ontainers >nly, Iwhich appear in the bill of lading. bsent any positive evidence on this point, wecannot say that those words constitute a mere estimate that the shipment could #tin two containers, thereby showing that when the goods were delivered by theshipper, they were not yet placed inside the containers and that it was thepetitioner carrier which packed the goods into its own containers, as authoriedunder paragraph 11 on the dorsal side of the bill of lading, (5hibit . Such

assumption cannot be made in view of the following words clearly stamped in redink on the face of the bill of lading$ IShipperBs )oad, "ount and Seal Said to"ontain.I This clearly indicates that it was the shipper which loaded and countedthe goods placed inside the container and sealed the latter.

The two containers were delivered by the shipper to the carrier already sealed forshipment, and the number of cartons said to be contained inside them wasindicated in the bill of lading, on the mere say@so of the shipper. The freight paid tothe carrier on the shipment was based on the measurement *by volume+ of the twocontainers at 7S package limitation is in a state of u5, 1as the courtscontinue to wrestle with the troublesome problem of applying the statutorylimitation under ">7S to containeried shipments. The law was adopted beforemodern technological changes have revolutionied the shipping industry. There isneed for the law itself to be updated to meet the changes brought about by thecontainer revolution, but this is a task which should be addressed by the legislativebody. ;ntil then, this "ourt, while mindful of merican Aurisprudence on the subAect,should make its own interpretation of the ">7S provisions, consistent with whatis eHuitable to the parties concerned. There is need to balance the interests of theshipper and those of the carrier.

!n the case at bar, the shipper opted to ship the goods in two containers, and paidfreight charges based on the freight unit, i.e., cubic meters. The shipper did not

declare the value of the shipment, for that would have entailed higher freightchargesG instead of paying higher freight charges, the shipper protected itself byinsuring the shipment. s subrogee, the insurance company can recover from thecarrier only what the shipper itself is entitled to recover, not the amount it actuallypaid the shipper under the insurance policy.

!n our view, under the circumstances, the container should be regarded as theshipping unit or IpackageI within the purview of ">7S. Eowever, we realie that

this may not be eHuitable as far as the shipper is concerned. !f the container is notregarded as a IpackageI within the terms of ">7S, then, the ) a+o o o o) ?1@ )y?20@-oo)+ oa)+ o! 271 +o o oo! o+ a**a+) o3)+)! y o La! No. (1(-M a! o) ?1@ o+y ?40@-oo)+ oa)+ o!o/+ /!+)! o+y- )3) ?447@ +o, ) ?10@ /= a! )y-B3) ?9(@a+o o oo! o+ a**a+) o3)+)! y o La! No. (0(-M. T)oa 3a/), /! 3o) 3a/), +)a), /o> !/), a5) a!>a+ >*o+ a>o/ o US'9,88(.8( o+ ) B+ *>) ) ao ) )o! *>) a>o/ o US94,190.((. o *>) )+)o)! o ) P**) A**a+), I. a! /+)! ) G))+aA!) %+) a! L) A/+a) Co+*o+ao, L!. ?GA%LAC o+ [email protected]) 3)) o)! a! o*)+a)! y Ao< S** Co+*o+ao?Ao< o+ o+@.

O Oo)+ '1, 1980 o ay o Maa ) 3)) /= a! a


7/61

Page'

!)a+)! o a a+o). GA%LAC *a! ) o)) )a>o/ US'9,88(.8( o+ P'19,086.80 a! US94,190.(( o+ P7(',(24.40o+ ) o a+o. A GA%LAC a /+oa)! o a ) +, )+)a! ao o ) o)) aa Aoa) aa Ao< ) R)oa T+a Co/+ o Maa a)a ) o a !/) o ) a/ a! ))) o Ao< a! )>a)+ a! +) o 3)) a )y !! o o)+3) ))5+ao+!a+y !)) +)/+)! y a a +)a+! o>>o a++)+.

A)+ ) /) )+) o)! a! ) +a o ) >)+ a !)o a+)!)+)! y ) +a o/+ o F/) 29, 198(, ) !*o3) *a+ o +)a! a oo

PREMISES CONSIDERED, ) Co/+ B! a3o+ o ) *a a!aa ) !))!a, o+!)+ ) a)+ o *ay ) o+>)+ a/a!a>a) ) /> o P1,072,611.20 */ )a )+) +o> ) !a) o) B o ) o>*a o Oo)+ 28, 1981, / / *ay>))+)o, ao+)y )) ) a>o/ o 20J o ) oa a> a! o*ay ) o.

SO ORDERED. 1

No aB)! )+), Ao< a**)a)! o ) Co/+ o A**)a )+) !/) o/+) a !)o a +)!)+)! o Ma+ 9, 1989 aK+> in toto) a**)a)! !)o, o aa !))!a Ao< . 2

A >oo o+ +)o!)+ao o a! !)o B)! y Ao< a !))! a +)o/o !a)! A// 1(, 1989.

H)) ) )+) *)o o+ +)3) a) a ) Co/+ o A**)a!)!)! ) a) o ao+!a) a )

1. T) Co/+ o A**)a )! a ;B! o a!>+a3) o!) a+)o aay ! o o/+ . T )*)ay o ) a) a a+

)+) GA%LAC a o a *a+y ) MI *+o))! a! *+o))! a o a!3)+a+y a+a)+.; T +/ o+a+y o) *+*) )a)! as!"ez vs. #o"rt of Appeals?1'8 SCRA ((9@,)+) a )! a ) ) MI *o)) ) +)/+)! )5*)+) ** >a)+ a! >/)! /a-/!a *o)+, a/aB! a+) o/3) a! ! o ) o/+. L=)), ) a) o$im%er Eport 'nc. vs. (etla Steams)ip #o. ?CA-G.R. No. 6614'-R@ ao)a)! ) +/) a !)o o MI >/ ) 3) ;+)a >a)+aya! ) o ) !))+>ao a! +)o/o o ) a).;

2. T) Co/+ o A**)a ao )! a ) +a o/+ !! o )++ ) B5)! ) ay o Ao< o o ) a o ) */ao ) o a! a US(00.00 *)+ *a=a):oa)+ / o ) a/a 3a/) o) *>) o oa! ) o ) o a) !)!)! y Hoo+a) S/*+)>) Co/+ o! a o+a+y o*o, a o )o.

'. T) Co/+ o A**)a ao )! a ) +a o/+ !! o a/) !+)o +a GA%LAC >oo o+ )5)/o *)! a**)aoa! ) a)) o +)aoa) a! /Ba) +o/! o/**o+ ) a>). '

U!)+ ) B+ /) *)o)+ a) a ) = o ) 3)) M:" ;P.Ao+a3) 3)ao o!/)! y) oa+! o Ma+) I/+y ?MI@ )+)y a !)o !a)! D))>)+

26, 1984, a o/! a ) = o ) 3)) >ay ) a+/)! oo+) >a)/+) o ao/ o a y*oo. P)o)+ o)! a ))B! a+) o/3) o ) o/+.

I +)) ) )3!)) o)+)! y ) *)o)+ ) a**)a) o/++/)!

/ o3)+ a! ao3) a )) o!)+ao, ) +a o/+ !! o )++ o 3 ) o ) B! o ) MI a ) 3)) a= !/) o ao+/o/ )3). %! o a!>+a3) o!) a+) o aay !o o/+. T )*)ay o ) a) a a+ )+) *a a o a*a+y ) MI *+o))! a! *+o))! a o a!3)+a+y a+a)+. 4

A a ))+a +/), a!>+a3) B! o a a+) o !/+)! y) o/+ ) /**o+)! y /aa )3!)) /) a)! /a+) o+ a++a+) a o/! a>o/ o a/) o !+)oo+ a= o /+!o. (E3) as!"ez vs. #o"rt of Appeals, 6 )! y *)o)+, Co/+ +/)! a &) )3)+)) !a+)) ) o/o o ) MI )5o)+a ) a*a +o> ay )));) o3o/y a! o a=) o ao/ ) )a +)*oy o ao>>o a++)+ oa+! ) )/+y o ) *a))+ 3o3)!.;

T a) a +o/ o o/+ o Oo)+ 28, 1981. T) +a o/+ a)3)+ o+>)! o a *a+a) a!>+a3) 3)ao a a )o!/)! y ) MI ay o ) *)a! o ) *)o)+. I a oyo Ma+ 22, 198( ) *)o)+ +)3)a)! o ) +a o/+ ) !)oo ) MI !a)! D))>)+ 26, 1984 ?o) !ay a)+ C+>a !ay@. 7T)a! !)o a**)a+ o a3) )) +)!)+)! o3)+ +)) ?'@ y)a+ a)+) a) a +o/ o o/+.

Mo+)o3)+, a! a!>+a3) 3)ao a o!/)! /a)+ay.P+3a) +)*o!) GA%LAC a o oB)! o+ 3) a o**o+/y o*a+*a) )+). I ao )+)y ) o/! y a! B! a!o/o o ) MI.

T) +a o/+ a! ) a**)a) o/+ o/! a ) = o ) M:";P. Ao ;$o;/ !/) o ) a/ a! ))) o *)o)+, >a)+ a! +). T)o/+ +)*+o!/) a**+o3a a! B!

555 555 555


8/61

Page

A)+ a a+)/ )5a>ao o ) )3!)), ) Co/+ o3)! )*a a> a ) M:" ;Aoa)/+).

To ) , *a+a+a* 4 o ) >a+) *+o) ?E5. ;4;, ao E5;M;@, !))!a o )3!)), o a ) ! o+) )) -a)! * o/!)+)! a 10 o 1( =o. Ao+! o ) )a/o+Sa) ?E5 ;I;@, a!>)!y a a/+a) +))+)) o+

>)a/+ ! 3)oy, ) ! o+) o 10 o 1( =o aB)! aa) No. 4 a! !)+)! a ;>o!)+a) +))a a3), )o>o)+, a+y +)/) ) o+). M))o+oo F/o I)a, F+.>) aK+> ) ao3) !)+*o o a ! o+) o 10 o 1( =oa! a!! a ) )a)+ o!o *+)3a /!)+ a! ! o+) //a a! o+))a). T/ I)a, F+. )B)!

. I ) >a+) *+o) o ) >a)+ o ) 3)) o Ao ) o 1( =o. I )a/o+ Sa), yo/ ) a) o a+y a ! o+) o 10 o 1( a a)! )>a+) *+o)

A. I ) /!)+ %o+) 4 o ) )a/o+ Sa).

. &a ) a o yo/+ a)+

A. 10 o 1( a a) o ) )a/o+ Sa), %o+) 4.

Ay. Do))

May I +)a! o ) +)o+!, $o/+ Hoo+. %o+) 4, !)+*3) )+>>o!)+a) +))))+ *)+ )o!, (.(-7.9 =o>))+ *)+ o/+ o 20 o 28 =o>))+ *)+ o/+ a! 1' o 18 >)*)+ o/+. S)a ) !)+*o o ) >a a3) )o> o)+a+y +)/) ) o+) ?sic@.

. I ) ay>a a/a) o !o yo/ )+*+) ) o+)

A. I >)a ) o+>. A ) o* o ) +) )y )+) ) oo+> ) oa>.

. Ho ao/ >o!)+a) +)))+ 1, 1980, yo/ ay a )5+ao+!a+y o+ o+!a+y

A. I a o+!a+y.

. &) yo/ a! o+!a+y, a //a o+ ///a

A. I //a.

. &) yo/ a! //a o+)))a) a! *+)!a)

A. %o+ a )5*)+))! >))o+oo =) a * a*a, o+)))a).

. &) o+)))a), ))a+y oo a ) )a)+ o/! )*+)!)! a)! o ) )a)+ /) o+ +)*o+

A. $), +.

. A! //ay ) /) a) ) o!o o)+ o+!, )a)+ o!o yo/ )B)! o a! +)))! yo/+ E5 ;7; a o+!a+y o/++)) a a+)a o P**) +)*oy

A. $), +.

. A! a )a)+ o!o o ) a*a)! a a >) o) y)a+ +)*) o )a)+ o!o +)))! E5;7;

A. I a +)/a+ o/++)).

555 555 555

Mo+)o3)+, Ca*. Ra) aa a!>)! Co/+ a -a)! 3))a 200 >) aay +o> ) o+> $o ) a=. Sa! Ca*.Ra)

. Ho a+ )+) yo/ +o> !)*+)o o+ )a)+ !/+a) oOo)+ '0, 1980

A. To /!+)! >).

555 555 555

. I o)+ o+!, !)*+)o a a+ +o> yo/+ +o/) )a/) oo=a o+)+ a**+oa )+)a yo/ )+) oa+! ) o/ a**+oa

A. A I a3) a!, I a 200 >) aay +o> ) !/+a).

555 555 555


9/61

Page&

Co!)+ ) o+)o +)ao, ) Co/+ o! a ) 3)) M:";Aoa)/+).

I ao+!a) A+) 17'2 o ) C3 Co!), ) !))!a o>>oa++)+, +o> ) a/+) o /) a! o+ +)ao o */ *oy, o/! o o)+3) )5+ao+!a+y !)) ) 3a) o3)+ ) oo!a! o+ ) a)y o ) *a))+ +a*o+)! y ao+! o a )

+/>a) o )a a). &) ) oo! a+) ) *o)o o )a++)+, / a+ a )5)+) )5+a o+!a+y !)) *+o))> +o> o o+ !a>a), a! o/+ ) a *+)/>) a a!/) o ) a++)+ a/ o+ ))) a ))a+y o *+o) ))+) o ) **)+ a ) >)+y o ) a++)+ ?A+) 17(6,C3 Co!) A/+a 3. P/o, 17 SCRA 224 No/> 3. La/a Tayaa /Co., '0 SCRA 69 La!a 3. Paaa T+a*o+ao Co>*ay, 88SCRA 284@. I ) a) a a+, ) !))!a a)! o *+o3) a ) oo ) /) a+o a o !/) o a/ o+ ))). 8

T) a! a/a B! o ) a**)a) o/+ a! ) +a o/+ a+)B! o Co/+. I o/o as to t)e ne*li*enceo ) *)o)+ /**o+)! y ) )3!)).

T) )o! /) +a)! o ) )) a ) ay o ) *)o)+o/! ) B5)! a US(00.00 *)+ *a=a):oa)+, a */a)! ) o a! a! o a ) a/a 3a/) o ) a+o, o/! ) +)o3)!aa *)o)+.

&) +/) a ) o a! )+) / */ao a )ay o ) a++)+ US(00.00 *)+ *a=a):oa)+:/o>a+y+), )+) a )5)*o, a , ) ) a/+) a! 3a/) o /oo! a3) )) !)a+)! y ) **)+ )o+) *>) a! )+)! ) o a!. T *+o3!)! o+ S)o 4?(@ o ) Ca++a) oGoo! y S)a A o

?(@ N))+ ) a++)+ o+ ) * a ay )3) ) o+ )o>) a)

o+ ay o o+ !a>a) o o+ o)o ) +a*o+ao ooo! a a>o/ )5))! (00 *)+ *a=a) o a/ >o)y o )U)! Sa), o+ a) o oo! o **)! *a=a), *)+/o>a+y +) /, o+ ) )/3a) o a /> o)+ /++)y,"nless t)e nat"re and val"e of s"c) *oods )ave %een inserted in t)e %illof ladin*. T !)a+ao, )>o!)! ) o a!, a )prima facie )3!)), / a o ) o/3) o ) a++)+.

y a+))>) ))) ) a++)+, >a)+ o+ a) o ) a++)+, a! )**)+ ao)+ >a5>/> a>o/ a a >)o)! *a+a+a*>ay ) B5)! P+o3!)!, a / >a5>/> a o ) ) a )B/+) ao3) a>)!. I o )3) a ) a++)+ ) a) o+ >o+) a) a>o/ o !a>a) a/ay /a)!.

N))+ ) a++)+ o+ ) * a ) +)*o) ay )3) o+ o

o+ !a>a) o o+ o)o ) +a*o+ao o ) oo! )a/+) o+ 3a/) )+)o a )) =oy a! +a/!/)y >-a)!y ) **)+ ) o a!. ?E>*a /**)!.@

I a) ) !)+*o o ) a/+) a! ) 3a/) o ) oo!**)! a+) !)a+)! a! +)))! ) o a!. T/, )a o ) ay o ) a++)+ a ) a/a 3a/) o ) o.

Mo+)o3)+, a/+! o )+*+) ;oa)+,; a *+o3!)! ) oa! o ) 3a/)! a US(00.00 )a, o +))+ o ) oa)+ ) >o!)+ //) o+ ) o! o ) 3)). 9T) *a=a):oa)+o)>*a)! y ) a o > ) ay o ) a++)+ o/! ))y +)a)! o ) / ) **)+ *a=)! ) oo! a!!)+)! )>, o a a+) >)a o), /oay a *a+ o ) *, ) a++)+ /)! )> o ) oa)!. 10S/ ;oa)+; >/) 3) ) a>) >)a a! aBao a a ;*a=a); a!;/o>a+y +) /.;

T) a**)a) o/+ !*o /) /o)! !)o A)!G/a+a)) I/+a) Co. I. 3. Ao< S** Co+*o+ao, CA GR. C"No. 04121, Ma+ 2', 1987, viz+

$)ird. S o)!)! a ) a++)+ ay >)! o (00.00,*/+/a o )o 8 o ) o La! *+o3!) a T)ay o ) Ca++)+ o+ ay o o+ !a>a) o ) oo! a o a))5))! ) /> o U.S. (00.00 *)+ *a=a):oa)+:/o>a+y +)/, /) ) 3a/) o ) oo! a )) o++)y !)a+)! a! )5+a+) *a!, *+o+ o ) *>) a! a )! !)a+ao o ))a**)a+ ) o a!, !/y oB+>)! y ) Ca++)+. ... I o)!)! a ) o La! !o) o !a) ) 3a/) o )oo!. No+ a ) o++)*o! +) ... *a! *+o+ o *>).

G))+ay *)a= a */ao, > ) o>>o a++)+ ay o) 3a/) o ) oo! a**)a+ ) o a!, /) ) **)+o+ o)+ !)a+) a +)a)+ 3a/), 3a!. ?C3 Co!), A+. 1749@. S/

*/ao, o)3)+, >/ ) +)aoa) a! / /!)+ )+/>a) a! >/ a3) )) a+y a! +))y a+))! /*o. ?S.Pa/ %+) # Ma+) I/+a) Co. 3. Mao!+ay Co., 70 SCRA 122, 126-127 ?1976@ I ) a) a a+, ) oo! **)! o ) M:" ;P. Ao


10/61

Page1.

a/)! y o ))). ?F/a $>a) # Co. 3. Gao a++)o # Co.,s"pra@ H)+) o > ) ay o Ao< S** o (00.00 o/!/y ) *oy o ) a >*o o o>>o a++)+ ) !/y oo)+3) )5+ao+!a+y !)) ) a++a) o oo!.

I!))!, )3) !o// ))+ ) o+! ;oa)+; )o 8 o) o La! /!) oa)+ a+) a //) o+ ) o!o a 3)). T *+o3o > ) a++)+ ay o ;) /> o

US(00.00 *)+pac-a*e container c"stomary frei*)t "nit./y ) +/) onoscit"r a sociis) o+! ;oa)+; >/ ) 3) ) a>) >)a a*a=a) a! /o>a+y +) / a! )+)o+) ao *oy +))+o >o!)+ oa)+ a+) /)! o+ *>) o oo! /=. 11

I ) a>) , ) +! /) /)o ) o+!)+ o )5)/o*)! a**)a o ) +a o/+ >/ ) +)o3)! aa *)o)+ a).

T) a3)+>) ) >oo o+ )5)/o *)! a**)a !a)!D))>)+ 8, 198( a+) a oo

A!) +o> ) a a *)o)+ a )ay *o a /*)+)!)a o! o

ay )5)/o, o)+ +/>a) a+) *+)) *)/a+ )!) o ) = o M:" P. Ao< o/! /y ) /a)o )5)/o *)! a**)a. T)+) a+) o)+ !)!)! a) a!/!*)o)+ a) ) o)+ o/+ ) a>) !). O)+ a) a+)o a**)a, /*o> a! ao/ o ) !)!)!. T) 3a/) o a+o oa/)! y ) = o *)o)+ 3)) ) /) o o ) aBy >o *)o /3) o )+) )) a! a a>. I /+)+ ao) a=+/* a! *)o)+ ao) >/ a) a! a)+ o+ a ))a>. I o) +a o ) R)oa T+a Co/+ o Maa ao) )+) a+))y B3) ?2(@ a) *)! aa *)o)+ 3o3 ) a>) oo a+o) aoa+! M:" ;P. Ao !o o /!) o)+, *)! 3a+o/ o/+ M)+o Maa o/! a3) o ) aB)! />a)y y *)o)+, ) a o>>o a++)+ a)! o )5)+) )5+ao+!a+y !))

o3)+ ) oo! o. T) /!>) o/ o ) )o+)! >ay !))! )+)!)+)! >>)y ))/a ) />a) aay.

T) */+*o) o S). 2 R/) '9 o/! o ) a)3)! o+ )5)/o*)! a**)a o/! o ) a)3)! o3)y o/! )aa)!. T) +)>)!y a3aa) o *)o)+ /!)+ S). ' R/) '9 o )R/) o Co/+ / o *a) o3)y a a o!o o /a) o a +o )5)/o *)! a**)a o/! +)!)+ /o+y a! ))/a.

F/) a! )/y )+)o+) !a), a a a o)/)) o ) o!*o)! y *+3a) +)*o!) a! )+) ) )3)+a o)+ a) aa*)o)+, !)!)! a ) a *)!, ) oay o a> >ay+)!)+ ) a**)a)! !)o >>)y ))/a a! ) /+)+ a

a ) a**)a ) )+*o)! )3!)y o+ !)ay a a o)/))o ) )3)+a a!3)+) !)o aa a a o>>o a++)+ )

o)+ o/+, a +)o!)+ao o ) !)o !a)! No3)>)+ 2(, 198(o ) Hoo+a) Co/+ ) ooa) a, /+*+/!)) a!)/y.

I o+!)+ o )+a) a a**+))o a ) ao+)a! /!>) aa+! ! /* ))/a ) o >>)!a)y )5)/)!, >o+)*)/y *+ay)! a )+) +)*o!) ) +)/+)! o *o a/*)+)!)a o!. T) a/o+y /!)+a= o *o a o! )

a)3) a +))-*+o)! !+)o o /), ?1@ a o !o/ o) o3)y o ) )+) *)o)+ ?2@ o !))a o+ +)!)+*y++ a / +)o/o o ) a) )3)+ *a+y *+)3a ) )!o+ ) >a a) o a**)a, ) o o )+ a> a+) )/+)! y)+ o++)*o! o! a! ?'@ */ o )/a) o*)+ao S).' R/) '9 o ) R)3)! R/) o Co/+. 12

T) o+)o a)ao )+) o +a3)+)! a *)o)+ a >ay a / a+ +o> a! = o 3)) 3o3a+o o o o ) a (0 >o *)o, o>) a) o /!>) a! )) +)!)+)! aa Aoay +)!)+ ay /!>) o+ GA%LAC ))/a, a )a**)a )+*o)! >a)y o+ !)ay a! ) ) o GA%LAC

o */ /* a o! )+ay a+) o) a) o+ ) /a) o a o+!)+o )5)/o *)! a**)a.

%ay, a >a+ a) o+ !a>a) a+ +o> ) a>) !)))!A%oitiz S)ippin* #orporation vs. Honora%le #o"rt of Appeals andAllied G"aranteed 'ns"rance #ompany, 'nc., G.R. No. 881(9, Co/+ a +)o/o !a)! No3)>)+ 1', 1989 !>)! ) *)o o+ a= o>)+. T)+) Co/+ )! *a+

T) a**)a) o/+ aK+>)! ) !)o o ) o)+ o/+ a)! o B! a ) a/) o = o ) 3)) a !/) o /)ao+) a! ) a/+) o +) a! ) >a)+ o )5)+))5+ao+!a+y !)).

T) *)o)+, o)3)+, o)! a ) a**)a) o/+ )++)! o >a)+ a! a ) o+a+y B! o ) oa+! o Ma+)I/+y ?MI@, o!/)! a )*a+a) 3)ao o ) )) a) *+o5>a) a/) o ) = o ) 3)) a !/) o force maje"rea! a ) oK)+ a! +) a! )5a/)! a *+)3)3) >)a/+) oa3) ) 3)) a! )+ a+o / o o a3a, o/! *+)3a. T,ao+! o ) *)o)+ a)! o ) !o+) o *+>a+ya!>+a3) /+!o.

T a+/>) /)a).

A /+o+y +)a! o ) !)o a! +)o/o o ) a**)a) o/+

o a ) a>) oo= o o!)+ao o oy ) B! o )o)+ o/+ / ao ) B! o ) MI. T/, ) a**)a) o/+


11/61

Page11

a)!

I!))!, ) !)o o ) oa+! a a)! >*y o B! a )P**) Coa G/a+! a! )+B)! ) 3)) o ) )ao+y a! a a= )a/) a )5*o)! a)+ o a oo> y*oo *o)! ) +a!/ )+) ) 3)) a *oo)!. T ))+a ) a/a B! o )a**)a) o/+ a! +/) a ) !o+) o *+>a+y a!>+a3)/+!o o a**a) ) a) a a+.

T) o)+ /) +a)! ))+ o+ o ) a++)+ ay >)! o(00.00 */+/a o )o 8 o ) o La!. T) *)o)+ a>a ) a**)a) o/+ )++)! !+)a+! ) >ao o ay*/a)! ) o a!. I a+/) a ) o)) a+))! o a>o/ ?a!@ )+)o+) o/! y +a) a! a )+) o ao+ ) a**)a) o/+ B! a ) +a) /+)aoa).

T) a+/>) o )-a=). A a*y a)! y ) a**)a) o/+

G))+ay *)a= ay */ao, > ) o>>o a++)+ ayo ) 3a/) o ) oo! a**)a+ ) o a!, /) )**)+ o+ o)+ !)a+) a +)a)+ 3a/) 3a!. ?C3 Co!), A+. 1749@S/ */ao, o)3)+, >/ ) +)aoa) a! / /!)+ )+/>a) a! >/ a3) )) a+y a! +))y a+))! /*o. ?S.Pa/ %+) # Ma+) I/+a) Co. 3. Mao!+ay # Co., 70 SCRA 122, 126-127 Q1976 I ) a) a a+, ) oo! **)! o ) M:" ;P. Aoao o ay a) o/!+)!)+ )Kao/ ) )5+ao+!a+y !)) +)/+)! y a oo>>o a++)+. 1'

T) >oo o+ +)o!)+ao o a! +)o/o B)! y *)o)+ a!))! Bay a +)o/o !a)! Fa/a+y 8, 1990. Sa! +)o/oo ) a) a! )o>) Ba a! )5)/o+y, )+y o /!>) a3)) >a!) a! ) +)o+! +)>a!)! o+ )5)/o o Ma+ 22, 1990.

Sa! a) o ) a o ) a) a**a) o ) *+)) *)o.

&HERE%ORE, ) *)o !>)! o aa *)o)+.

SO ORDERED.

0arvasa 1#)airman2, #r"z, Gri3o4A!"ino and 5edialdea, JJ., conc"r.


12/61

Page10

G.R. No. L-'7604 Oo)+ 2', 1981

EASTERN AND AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP CO., LTD. AND %. E. UELLIG, INC.,petitioners, vs.GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. a! COURT O% %IRSTINSTANCE O% MANILA, RANCH III, respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the "ourt of 9irst

!nstance of Manila, 4ranch ?!!!, dated %uly 0-, 1&'3, in "ivil "ase 8o. &-,entitled I7reat merican !nsurance "o., plaintiJ, vs. (astern : ustralian

Steamship "o., )td. and/or 9.(. uellig, !nc., defendants,I the dispositive portion ofwhich reads$

FE(D(9>D(, Audgment is hereby rendered, #nding the defendants liable to theplaintiJ in the amount of n 6ecember 1, 1&'1, the %ackson and Spring *Sydney+ Pty. )td. shipped fromSydney, ustralia, one *1+ case of impellers for warman pump on board the SSI"hitral,I a vessel owned and operated in the Philippines by (astern : ustralianSteamship "o., )td., thru its agent 9.(. uellig, !nc. under 4ill of )ading 8o. 31, fordelivery to Manila, Philippines in favor of consignee 4enguet "onsolidated, !nc. Theshipment was insured with 7reat merican !nsurance, "o. for P 3-,&01.1 againstall risks. >n 6ecember 00, 1&'1 the SS I"hitralI arrived in Manila but failed todischarge the shipment or any part thereof. 6emand was made on hereinpetitioners for the delivery of said shipment, but having failed to make delivery, aclaim was presented against them for the value of the shipment. Petitioners,likewise, failed to make good the claim. s a conseHuence of the loss of theshipment, private respondent 7reat merican !nsurance "o. was compelled to paythe consignee P 3-,&01,1. s subrogee, said private respondent #led a complaintdated 8ov. 0, 1&'0 against herein petitioners for recovery of the said amount withlegal interest and attorneyBs fees.

!n the answer dated 8ov. 0', 1&'0 petitioners alleged that their liability for the lossof the shipment is only limited to )1 Sterling or its peso eHuivalent of P1,-==.=as per stipulation in the 4ill of )ading and that even before the #ling of thecomplaint, petitioners have signi#ed their willingness to pay the claim up to theirlimit of liability as stipulated in the 4ill of )ading.

6uring the pre@trial on may 0, 1&'3, the loss of the subAect shipment wasadmitted, and the parties submitted the case for decision on one issue$ whether

petitionerBs liability is limited to )1 Sterling or its peso eHuivalent of P1,-==.= asstipulated in "lause 1' of the 4ill of )ading 1or whether petitionerBs liability shouldbe


13/61

Page13

!

TET D(SP>86(8T "9! (DD(6 !8 6("!6!87 TET TE( )!M!T >9 )!4!)!TN !8 TE(S;M >9 )1 ST(D)!87 >D !TS P(S> (R;!O)(8T >9 TE( O(SS()/"DD!(D, P(DP"7(, S ST!P;)T(6 !8 ");S( 1' >9 TE( 4!)) >9 )6!87, !S ">8TDDN T>)F, 86, TE(D(9>D(, O>!6, and

!!

TET D(SP>86(8T ">;DT (DD(6 !8 FD6!87 TT>D8(NBS 9((S 86 ">STS !89O>D >9 PD!OT( D(SP>86(8T 86 7!8ST TE( E(D(!8 P(T!T!>8(DS.

Petitioners contend that the #rst paragraphs of Section =*-+ of the "arriage of7oods by Sea ct prescribes a ma5imum liability of the vessel/carrier in theamount of


14/61

Page1=

such as this, it is the duty of the shipper to disclose, rather than the carrierBs todemand the true value of the goods and silence on the part of the shipper will besuCcient to limit recovery in case of loss to the amount stated in the contract ofcarriage. 7

!n view of the above #ndings, it is no longer necessary to discuss the secondassignment of error.

FE(D(9>D(, the decision of the court a >uo is hereby reversed and another one isentered #nding petitioners liable to private respondent in the amount of )1Sterling or its peso eHuivalent of P1,-==.=. Fithout pronouncement as to costs.

S> >D6(D(6.

a(a#iar, ;ernane


15/61

Page1-

a contract of carriage goods by sea, may be enforced by suit K was suspended bythe commencement of the #rst action in the municipal court, on pril 0', 1&2Gthat the running of said period was resumed or continued on %une 13, 1&2, whensaid action was dismissedG and that, e5cluding said period from pril 0', 1&2 to

%une 13, 1&2, or forty@seven *='+ days, less than one *1+ year has elapsed fromMay 01, 1&-& to %une 0=, 1&2, when this case was #led in the court of #rstinstance. !n support of this pretense, plaintiJ invokes rticle 11-- of the "ivil "odeof the Philipines, reading$

The prescription of actions is interrupted when they #led before the court, whenthere is a written e5traAudicial command by the creditors, and when there is anywritten acknowledged Audgment of the debt by the debtor.

;pon mature deliberation, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the orderappealed from should be reversed, not only because of the operation of said rticle11-- of our "ivil "ode, but, also, in view of the provisions section =& of ct 8o.1&, pursuant to which$

!f, in an action commenced, in due time, a Audgment for the plaintiJ be reversed, orif the plaintiJ fail otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for thecommencement of such action has, at the date of such reversal or failure, e5pired,the plaintiJ, or, if he die and the cause of action survive, his representatives maycommence a new action within one year after such date, and this provision shallapply to any claim asserted in any pleading by a defendant.

The action commenced by the plaintiJ in the Municipal "ourt of Manila, on pril 0',1&2, was dismissed %une 13, 1&2, or over twenty *0+ days a!terthe e5piration ofthe period of one *1+ year, beginning from May 01, 1&-&, within which plaintiJBsaction could be brought pursuant to "ommonwealth ct 8o. 2-, in relation to the"arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. ;nder said section of ct 8o. 1&, the period withinwhich plaintiJ could initiate the present case was renewed, therefore, for anotheryear, beginning from %une 1=, 1&2 *Tolentino Oitug, 3& Phil., 102G Smith vs.Mc8eal, 1 ;.S. =02, 0' ). ed. &2+. The case at bar was commenced on %une 0=,1&2, or within the period last mentioned.

The cases of Oriental o**ercial o. /#. =ureiini*'1 Phil., 0-+ andon#pecto /#.;ruto*31 Phil., 1==+, in which it was held that$

. . . "uando se entabia una accion dentro del plao de prescripcion 5 #e e#i#te eella e#pue#, o se sobresee sin condiciones, por una raon u otra, no hace Hue laaccion Hue se entable mas tarde pero ya fuera del periodo de prescripcion, sepueda considerar como presentada detro de dicho periodo porHue Huiere contrasecon la accion entablada con anterioridad. La !alta e )e#tion e la recurrenteporcuya causa se desestimaron sus demandas segunda y tercera, no puedeinterpretarse sino como una renunciade su parte y, al eAercitar su ultima accion nose ha colocado en la misma situacion en Hue antes se hallaba al eAercitar sus tresanteriores acciones. (ste es el mismo criterio Hue e5presamos cuando se nospresents una cuestion aniloga en la causa de "onspecto contra9ruto, 31 %ur. 9il1--. *(mphasis supplied.+1awphDl.nEt

are not in point, for the dismissal of the herein plaintiJBs complaint in the municipalcourt was not due to its desistance or voluntary abandonment.

!nsofar as inconsistent with the conclusion we have thus reached, the view adoptedin hua Fu5 /#. /erett %tea*#hip orp., )@--3= *May 0', 1&-3+ and 3e( on) Lin;ire - arine 2n#urance o. /#. A*erican "re#ient Line#, 2nc., )@111 *pril 3,1&-+ should be, as it is hereby, modi#ed accordingly.

FE(D(9>D(, the order appealed from is reversed and this case remanded to thelower court for further proceedings, with costs of this instance against defendant8orddeuscher )loyd. !t is so ordered.

Ben)


16/61

Page12

0. The corresponding claim for the damages sustained by the cargo was #led bythe plaintiJ with the defendant vessel on May =, 1&'0G

3. >n %une 11, 1&'3 the plaintiJ #led a complaint in the "ourt of 9irst !nstance ofManila, docketed therein as "ivil "ase 8o. &1=3, embodying three *3+ causes ofaction involving three *3+ separate and diJerent shipments. The third cause ofaction therein involved the cargo now subAect of this present litigationG

=. >n 6ecember 11, 1&'=, %udge Sera#n "uevas issued an >rder in "ivil "ase 8o.&1=3 dismissing the #rst two causes of action in the aforesaid case with preAudiceand without pronouncement as to costs because the parties had settled orcompromised the claims involved therein. The third cause of action which coveredthe cargo subAect of this case now was likewise dismissed but without preAudice asit was not covered by the settlement. The dismissal of that complaint containingthe three causes of action was upon a Aoint motion to dismiss #led by the partiesG

-. 4ecause of the dismissal of the *complaint in "ivil "ase 8o. &1=3 with respectto the third cause of action without preAudice, plaintiJ instituted this presentcomplaint on %anuary 2, 1&'-.

555 555 555 4

To the complaint in the subseHuent action Maritime #led an answer pleadinginteralia the aCrmative defense of prescription under the provisions of the "arriage of7oods by Sea ct, (and following pre@trial, moved for a preliminary hearing on saiddefense. 6The Trial "ourt granted the motion, scheduling the preliminary hearingon pril 0', 1&''. 7The record before the "ourt does not show whether or not thathearing was held, but under date of May 2, 1&'', Maritime #led a formal motion todismiss invoking once more the ground of prescription. 8The motion was opposedby 6ole 9and the Trial "ourt, after due consideration, resolved the matter in favorof Maritime and dismissed the complaint 106ole sought a reconsideration, whichwas denied, 11and thereafter took the present appeal from the order of dismissal.

The pivotal issue is whether or not rticle 11-- of the "ivil "ode providing that the

prescription of actions is interrupted by the making of an e5traAudicial writtendemand by the creditor is applicable to actions brought under the "arriage of7oods by Sea ct which, in its Section 3, paragraph 2, provides that$

the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss ordamage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or thedate when the goods should have been deliveredG"ro/ie,That, if a notice of lossor damage, either apparent or conceded, is not given as provided for in thissection, that fact shall not aJect or preAudice the right of the shipper to bring suitwithin one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods shouldhave been delivered.

555 555 555

6ole concedes that its action is subAect to the one@year period of limitation

prescribe in the above@cited provision. 12The substance of its argument is thatsince the provisions of the "ivil "ode are, by e5press mandate of said "ode,suppletory of de#ciencies in the "ode of "ommerce and special laws in mattersgoverned by the latter, 1'and there being I a patent de#ciency with respectto the tolling of the prescriptive period I provided for in the "arriage of 7oods bySea ct, 14prescription under said ct is subAect to the provisions of rticle 11-- ofthe "ivil "ode on tolling and because 6oleBs claim for loss or damage made on May=, 1&'0 amounted to a written e5traAudicial demand which would toll or interruptprescription under rticle 11--, it operated to toll prescription also in actions under

the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. To much the same eJect is the further argumentbased on rticle 11'2 of the "ivil "ode which provides that the rights andobligations of common carriers shag be governed by the "ode of "ommerce and byspecial laws in all matters not regulated by the "ivil "ode.

These arguments might merit weightier consideration were it not for the fact thatthe Huestion has already received a de#nitive answer, adverse to the positiontaken by 6ole, in The Nek Tong )in 9ire : Marine !nsurance "o., )td. vs. mericanPresident )ines, !nc. 1(There, in a parallel factual situation, where suit to recoverfor damage to cargo shipped by vessel from Tokyo to Manila was #led more thantwo years after the consigneeBs receipt of the cargo, this "ourt reAected thecontention that an e5traAudicial demand toiled the prescriptive period provided forin the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, vi$

!n the second assignment of error plaintiJ@appellant argues that it was error for thecourt a >uonot to have considered the action of plaintiJ@appellant suspended bythe e5traAudicial demand which took place, according to defendantBs own motion todismiss on ugust 00, 1&-0. Fe notice that while plaintiJ avoids stating any datewhen the goods arrived in Manila, it relies upon the allegation made in the motionto dismiss that a protest was #led on ugust 00, 1&-0 K which goes to show thatplaintiJ@appellantBs counsel has not been laying the facts sHuarely before the courtfor the consideration of the merits of the case. Fe have already decided that in acase governed by the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, the general provisions of the"ode of "ivil Procedure on prescription should not be made to apply. *"hua uy vs.(verett Steamship "orp., 7.D. 8o. )@---=, May 0', 1&-3.+ Similarly, we now holdthat in such a case the general provisions of the new "ivil "ode *rt. 11--+ cannotbe made to apply, as such application would have the eJect of e5tending the one@

year period of prescription #5ed in the law. !t is desirable that matters aJectingtransportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as possibleG theapplication of the provisions of rticle 11-- of the new "ivil "ode wouldunnecessarily e5tend the period and permit delays in the settlement of HuestionsaJecting transportation, contrary to the clear intent and purpose of the law.

Moreover, no diJerent result would obtain even if the "ourt were to accept theproposition that a written e5traAudicial demand does toll prescription under the"arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. The demand in this instance would be the claim fordamage@#led by 6ole with Maritime on May =, 1&'0. The eJect of that demandwould have been to renew the one@ year prescriptive period from the date of itsmaking. Stated otherwise, under 6oleBs theory, when its claim was received byMaritime, the one@year prescriptive period was interrupted K ItolledI would be themore precise term K and began to run anew from May =, 1&'0, aJording 6ole

another period of one *1+ year counted from that date within which to instituteaction on its claim for damage. ;nfortunately, 6ole let the new period lapse


17/61

Page1'

without #ling action. !t instituted "ivil "ase 8o. &1=3 only on %une 11, 1&'3, morethan one month after that period has e5pired and its right of action had prescribed.

6oleBs contention that the prescriptive period I remained tolled as of May =,1&'0 *and that+ in legal contemplation *the+ case *"ivil "ase 8o. &23-3+was #led on %anuary 2, 1&'- well within the one@year prescriptive period in Sec.3*2+ of the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct.I 16 eHuates tolling with inde#nitesuspension. !t is clearly fallacious and merits no consideration.

FE(D(9>D(, the order of dismissal appealed from is aCrmed, with costs againstthe appellant, 6ole Philippines, !nc.

S> >D6(D(6.

3ap hair*an, elencio?@errera, ru)+ 18, 1967

THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPAN$,plaintiJ@appellant, vs.COMPAIAMARITIMA, ET AL.,defendants.

illia* @. Hua#ha - A##ociate# !or plaintiC?appellant.Ro##, %elph - arra#co#oan %alceo !or e!enant?appellee.

MAVALINTAL,J.:

ppeal from the order of the "ourt of 9irst !nstance of Manila *"ivil "ase 8o. ---2+

dismissing, on the ground of prescription, the amended complaint of plaintiJ@appellant, The merican !nsurance "ompany as against alternative defendant


18/61

Page1

Macondray : "o., !nc.

>n ugust 11, 1&20, a certain cargo insured with plaintiJ corporation was shippedin 8ew Nork, ;.S. aboard IM/S T>D(6>DI, of which the general agent in thePhilippines is appellee Macondray : "o., !nc. *hereinafter referred to asMacondray+. The cargo, with an invoice value of D(6>DI was Manila, the carrier,in accepting the cargo at the point of shipment, agreed to transship the same, afterits discharge in Manila, aboard an inter@island vessel to its destination in "ebu.

>n September 1, 1&20, the I M/S T>D(6>DI arrived at the port of Manila and onthe same date discharged the cargo in Huestion. Pursuant to the arrangement thecargo was subseHuently loaded aboard the ISS S!R;!%>DI, an inter@island vessel.

The shipment was #nally discharged in "ebu on September 0=, 1&20.

Fhen the consignee took delivery of the shipment it was found to be short of two*0+ pieces of tractor parts worth D(6>DI

arrived at the port of Manila and discharged the cargo for transshipment to "ebuon board the ISS S!R;!%>D,I and September 0=, 1&20, when the shipment #nallyarrived in "ebu and was discharged the same day.

The motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiJ interposed the present appeal fromthe order of dismissal. PlaintiJ avers that the one year prescriptive period providedfor in the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct does not apply in this case, which should begoverned by the statute of limitations in the "ivil "ode. !n support of thiscontention it is pointed out that the cargo in Huestion was transshipment cargoGthat the discharge thereof in Manila terminated the obligation of Macondray ascarrierG and that its obligation to transship the cargo to "ebu was merely that of aIforwarding agentI of the shipper. Deliance is placed on "lause 11 of the bill oflading which states$

This carrier, in making arrangements for any transshipping or forwarding vessel ormeans of transportation not operated by this carrier shall be considered solely the!orwarin) a)ent o! the #hipperand without any other responsibility.

Fe do not see that the use of the term Iforwarding agent of the shipperI is decisiveof the issue. ccording to paragraph = of the amended complaint the cargo wasloaded on board the IM/S T>D(6>DI in 8ew Nork, Ifreight prepaid to "ebu"ity . . . pursuant to the bill of lading 8o. 13.I !n other words, the action is based on

the contract of carriage up to the #nal port of destination, which was "ebu "ity, forwhich the corresponding freight had been prepaid. The following provisions of thebill of lading are the ones directly in point$

1. This bill of lading shall have eJect subAect to the provisions of the "arriage of7oods by Sea ct of the ;nited States of merica, approved pril 12, 1&32, whichshall be deemed to be incorporated herein and nothing herein contained shall bedeemed a surrender by the "arrier of any of its rights or immunities or an increaseof any of its responsibilities or liabilities under said ct. The provisions stated insaid ct *e5cept as may be otherwise speci#cally provided herein+ shall governbefore the goods are loaded on and after they are discharged from the ship andthroughout the entire time the goods are in the custody of the "arrier. . . .

1&. !n any event the "arrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability inrespect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery ofthe goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. . . .

The transshipment of the cargo from Manila to "ebu was not a separatetransaction from that originally entered into by Macondray, as general agent forthe IM/S T>D(6>DI. !t was part of MacondrayBs obligation under the contract ofcarriage and the fact that the transshipment was made via an inter@island vesseldid not operate to remove the transaction from the operation of the "arriage of7oods by Sea ct. *See 7o "hang : "o., !nc. vs. boiti : "o., !nc., & Phil. 1&'+.

FE(D(9>D(, the order appealed from is hereby aCrmed, with costs. oncepcion,.=., Re5e#, =.B.L., i


19/61

Page1&

G.R. No. L-2(266 Fa/a+y 1(, 197(

AETNA INSURANCE COMPAN$, plaintiJ@appellant, vs.ARER STEAMSHIPLINES, INC., a!:o+ LUON STE"EDORING CORPORATION a!:o+ LUONROVERAGE CORPORATION, defendants@appellees.

a*acho, Iapa Ana5a an A##ociate# !or plaintiC?appellant.

Ro#e, %elph, %alceo, el Ro#ario, Bito an e#a !or e!enant?appellee Barber%tea*#hip Line#, 2nc.

@. %an Lui# an L. . %i*bulan !or e!enant?appellee Lun pril -, 1&2- 4arber Steamship )ines, !nc., again with the caveat that it was notsubmitting to the courtBs Aurisdiction, #led a motion to dismiss on the grounds of *a+lack of Aurisdiction over the person and *b+ that it was not the real party in interest.

4arber Steamship )ines, !nc. alleged that the service of summons was not eJectedupon it in accordance with section 1=, Dule 1= of the Dules of "ourt. !t clari#ed thatthe summons intended for it was served upon Macondray : "o., !nc. which was notits agent.

!t asserted that it was not the real party in interest because according to the bill oflading anne5ed to the complaint the owner of the SS uranot, the carrying vessel,was the Filh, Filhemsen 7roup. *8ote, however, that the same bill of ladingindicated that 4arber Steamship )ines, !nc. was the vesselBs agent+.

Two days later, or on pril ', 1&2- plaintiJ etna !nsurance "ompany #led amanifestation stating that the name of defendant 4arber Steamship )ines, !nc. wasincorrect and that the correct name was 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service. ttached tothe manifestation was an amended complaint containing the correction. etna!nsurance "ompany manifested that copies of the amended complaint would beserved on the parties by means of alias summons.

>n pril 0, 1&2- etna !nsurance "ompany #led a motion for the admission of itsamended complaint. 4arber Steamship )ines, !nc. opposed the motion. !tcontended that its pending motion to dismiss the original complaint should #rst beresolved before the amended complaint may be admitted.

%udge Damon >. 8olasco in an order dated pril 1&, 1&2- dismissed the complaintagainst 4arber Steamship )ines, !nc. and directed that alias summonses be issuedto the defendants named in the amended complaint.

>n May 1&, 1&2- 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service, supposedly without admitting to thecourtBs Aurisdiction, moved for the dismissal of the amended complaint on thegrounds *1+ that it is not a Auridical person and, hence, it could not be suedG *0+ thatthe court had no Aurisdiction over its personG *3+ that it was not the real party ininterest and *=+ that the action had prescribed according to the bill of lading andthe "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. etna !nsurance "ompany opposed the motion.

%udge 8olasco in his order of %uly ', 1&2- ruled that inasmuch as according to thecomplaint the shipment arrived in Manila on 9ebruary 00, 1&2= and the amendedcomplaint, impleading 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service, was #led on pril ', 1&2-, orbeyond the one@year period #5ed in the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, the actionhad already prescribed. The case was dismissed as to 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service.

The legal Huestion under the above facts is whether the action of etna !nsurance"ompany against 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service, as ventilated in its amendedcomplaint, which was #led on pril ', 1&2-, had prescribed.

s previously stated, the action was for the recovery of damages to a cargo oftruck parts which was insured by etna !nsurance "ompany and which arrived inManila on the SS uranotand were delivered in bad order to the consignee on9ebruary 0-, 1&2 *= Decord on ppeal+.

The bill of lading covering the shipment provides$


20/61

Page0.

1&. !n any event the "arrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability inrespect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after the deliveryof the goods or the dates when the goods should have been delivered. Suit shallnot be deemed brought until Aurisdiction shall have been obtained over the "arrierand/or the ship by service of process or by an agreement to appear.

>n the other hand, the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct, "ommonwealth ct 8o. 2-*Public ct 8o. -01 of the '=th "ongress of the ;nited States+ provides$

D(SP>8S!4!)!T!(S 86 )!4!)!T!(S

Section 3. 555 555 555

*2+ 555 555 555

!n any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respectof loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goodsor the date when the goods should have been delivered$ "ro/ie, That, if a noticeof loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in thissection, that fact shall not aJect or preAudice the right of the shipper to bring suitwithin one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should

have been delivered.

etna !nsurance "ompany contends in this appeal that the trial court erred *1+ inholding that the 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service was substituted for 4arber Steamship)ines, !nc. and *0+ in dismissing the action on the ground of prescription.

There is no merit in the appeal. The trial court correctly held that the one@yearstatutory and contractual prescriptive period had already e5pired when appellantcompany #led on pril ', 1&2- its action against 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service. Theone year period commenced on 9ebruary 0-, 1&2= when the damaged cargo wasdelivered to the consignee. *See "hua uy vs. (verrett Steamship "orporation, &3Phil. 0'G Nek Tong 9ire : Marine !nsurance "o., )td. vs. merican President )ines,!nc., 13 Phil. 110-+.

ppellant company invokes the rule that where the original complaint states acause of action but does it imperfectly, and afterwards an amended complaint is#led, correcting the defect, the plea of prescription will relate to the time of the#ling of the original complaint *Pangasinan Transportation "o. vs. Phil. 9arming "o.,)td., 1 Phil. 0'3+. !t contends that inasmuch as the original complaint was #ledwithin the one year period, the action had not prescribed.

That ruling would apply to defendants )uon Stevedoring "orporation and )uon4rokerage "orporation. 4ut it would not apply to 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service whichwas impleaded for the #rst time in the amended complaint.

!t should be recalled that the original complaint was dismissed as to 4arber

Steamship )ines, !nc. in the lower courtBs order of pril 1&, 1&2-. 8ew summonshad to be issued to 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service which had replaced 4arber

Steamship )ines, !nc. as a defendant.

The #ling of the original complaint interrupted the prescriptive period as to 4arberSteamship )ines, !nc. but not as to 4arber )ine 9ar (ast Service, an entitysupposedly distinct from the former. ppellantBs contention that there was merely acorrection in the name of a party@defendant is untenable.

!n view of the foregoing considerations, the lower courtBs order of dismissal is

aCrmed. "osts against the plaintiJ@appellant.

S> >D6(D(6.

;ernano hair*an, Barreo, Antonio an ;ernane


21/61

Page01

G.R. No. 7412( F/y '1, 1990

UNI"ERSAL SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELATECOURT a! ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPAN$, LTD., respondents.

el Ro#ario - el Ro#ario Law Oce !or petitioner. Hua#ha, A#perilla, Ancheta,"eJa, arco# - Nola#co !or pri/ate re#ponent#.

GRIO-AUINO, J.:

!n this appeal by certiorari, the petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of thethen !ntermediate ppellate "ourt, now "ourt of ppeals, promulgated on March0-, 1&2 in "@7.D. "O 8o. 2&0=, aCrming with modi#cation the decision of theformer "ourt of 9irst !nstance of Manila dated 9ebruary =, 1&1, against the hereinpetitioner, ;niversal Shipping )ines, !nc., the defendant in the trial court.

>n or about March 00,1&'=, S(O)"> )imited, owned and operated by thepetitioner, shipped from Dotterdam 8etherlands, to 4angkok, Thailand, aboard itsM/O IT!F8I, two *0+ cargoes of - palletied cartons consisting of 0, units of0-@kilogram bags of State D 4rand carton black, with a declared gross weight of-3, kilos each. They were respectively consigned to S. )ersen "ompany, )td.and Muang 8garm Detreads,)td., per 4ills of )ading 8os. D4@1- *(5h. + and D4@12*(5h. 4+. 4oth shipments were insured with the private respondent, lliancessurance "ompany, )td., a foreign insurance company domiciled in )ondon,(ngland, which had withdrawn from the Philippine market on %une 3, 1&-1 yet.

6espite the arrival of the vessel on %une 0, 1&'= at 4angkok, the cargo covered by4ill of )ading 8o. D4@1- was not unloaded nor delivered to the consignee, S. )ersen"ompany, )td. The shipment under 4ill of )ading 8o. D4@12 was delivered to Muang8garm Detreads, )td. with a total weight shortage of 11,' kilos because the

cargoes had been either totally or partially dissolved in saltwater which oodedEatch 8o. 0 of the vessel where they had been stored.

;pon arrival in Manila on %uly =, 1&'=, rturo ". Saavedra, master of M/O IT!F8I#led a marine protest *(5h. E+, pertinent portions of which read$

4y investigation, the source of the water could not be de#nitely ascertained whereit comes from. Eowever, the bilge pump was employed to pump out continue

working for almost 10 hours 8o. 0. The bilge pump was employed every other dayto pump out the water, but it was seems to be almost same soundings. Suspectingof some leakage of suction pipes.

That the hold 8o. 0 cannot be inspected on account of the full cargoes inside thehold, rendering it to be inaccessible.

Suspecting that the water comes from outside passing through some loosen rivetson starboard side of the ship. *sic.+

That the pumping out the water from the hold was done by shore help upon arrivalat 4angkok. *sic.+ *pp. 03@0=, Dollo.+

The consignees, S. )ersen "o., )td. and Muang 8garm Detreads, !nc., #led theirrespective formal claims for loss and damage to their cargoes on ugust ', 1&'=*(5hs. 8 and 8@1+ and on 8ovember 10,1&'= *(5h. M+. *p. 0=, Dollo.+ The insurerpaid both claims in the amounts of U!0,1 and U0,-='.1 for the loss and damageto their cargoes.

>n %une 0-, 1&'2, private respondent, as insurer@subrogee, #led an action in the"ourt of 9irst !nstance of Manila to recover from the petitioner and its Manila agent,"arlos 7o Thong : "ompany, what it paid the consignees of the cargo.

fter trial, the court a >uo rendered Audgment for the private respondent, thedispositive portion of which reads$

PD(M!S(S ">8S!6(D(6, Audgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants;niversal Shipping )ines, !nc. and "arlos 7o Thong : "o., Aointly and severally, topay plaintiJ lliance surance "o., )td., under the #rst cause of action, the sum ofU10,1. or the peso eHuivalent thereof, and under the second cause of action,the sum of U0,-='.1 or the peso eHuivalent thereof, both with legal interestthereon from %une 0-, 1&'2, the date of the #ling of the present action, until saidobligations are fully paid, plus attorneyBs fees in the sum of P1,., with costs.*pp. 0=@0-, Dollo.+

>n appeal to the "ourt of ppeals, the decision was aCrmed after e5culpatingpetitionerBs ship@agents in Manila *7o Thong+ from any liability on the ground that ithad no participation in the shipment of the cargo which had been loaded anddischarged in places other than Manila *p. 0, Dollo+.iKtKc?a#l


22/61

Page00

!n this appeal by certiorari, petitioner alleges that respondent court erred$

1. in holding petitioner liable for the damage/loss suJered by the subAectshipmentsG

0. in holding that private respondent has capacity to sue in this AurisdictionG

3. in #nding that private respondentBs cause of action has not yet prescribedG and

=. in awarding attorneyBs fees without stating any factual, legal and eHuitableAusti#cation.

The petition is not meritorious.

The #rst assignment of error raises a factual issue which we decline to review asthis "ourt may review only legal issues which must be distinctly set forth in thepetition *Sec. 0, Dule =-, Dules of "ourt+. !n any event, the "ourt of ppealscommitted no reversible error in holding, as the trial court did, that$

... !t was incumbent upon the defendants to prove that the losses and damages

were due to causes other than the negligence or fault of their employees. Saiddefendants have not adduced proof on this point. !t having been shown that thelosses and damages were incurred while the shipments were in the custody of theM/OB TaiwanB the liability of its owner/operator and shipping agent is clear@theymust pay for the losses and damages sustained by the consignees as aconseHuence of the breach of contract of water transportation. *pp. 0'@0, Dollo.+

>n the issue of Aurisdiction, we uphold the appellate courtBs ruling that the privaterespondent may sue in Philippine courts upon the marine insurance policies issuedby it abroad to cover international@bound cargoes shipped by a Philippine carrier,even if it has no license to do business in this country, for it is not the lack of theprescribed license *to do business in the Philippines+ but doing business withoutsuch license, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our courts. *Paci#cOegetable >il "orporation vs. Singon )@'&1&, pril 0&, 1&--G (astboard 8avigation,

)td. vs. %. Nsmael : "o., !nc., )@&&, Sept. 1, 1&-'.+

nent the issue of prescription of the action under Section 3*2+, Title !, of the"arriage of 7oods by Sea ct *"ommonwealth ct 8o. 2-+ which provides that$

... the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss ordamage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or thedate when the goods should have been delivered. ...

This provision of the law admits of an 5ception$ if the one@year period is suspendedb5 epre## a)ree*ent o! the partie#*"hua ay vs. (verett Steamship "orporation,)@---=, May 0',1&-3G Tan )iao vs. merican President )ines, )td., )@'0, %anuary0, 1&-2+ for in such a case, their agreement becomes the law for them. *Phoeni5ssurance "o., )td. vs. ;nited States )ines, 00 S"D 2'=G 4aluyot vs. Oenegas, 00

S"D =10G )ao vs. Depublic Surety : !nsurance, "o., !nc., 31 S"D 30&G Philippinemerican 7eneral !nsurance "o., !nc. vs. Mutuc, 21 S"D 00@03+.

The e5change of correspondence between the parties and/or theirassociates/representatives *(5hs. D, S, S@1, T, T@1 and T@0+ shows that the partieshad mutually agreed to e5tend the time within which the plaintiJ or itspredecessors@in@interest may #le suit until 6ecember 0',1&'2. Fhen the complaintwas #led on %une 0-, 1&'2, that deadline had not yet e5pired.

n award of attorneyBs fees lies within the discretion of the court and dependsupon the circumstances of each case *Medco !ndustrial "orp., et al. vs. "ourt ofppeals, et al., 12' S"D 3+. iKtKc?a#l !n this case, the award of P1, asattorneyBs fees was reasonable and Austi#ed because the defendantBs reAection ofthe private respondentBs demand, compelled the latter to litigate and incure5penses to protect and enforce its Aust and valid claim.

FE(D(9>D(, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. "osts against thepetitioner.

S> >D6(D(6.

Nar/a#a hair*an, ru


23/61

Page03

G.R. No. L-27798 F/) 1(, 1977

UNION CARIDE PHILIPPINES, INC. ?o+>)+y Naoa Ca+o P**),I.@, plaintiJ@appellant, vs.MANILA RAILROAD CO., //)! y )PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAIL&A$S, MANILA PORT SER"ICE a! AMERICANSTEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendants@ appellees.

%olicitor General Antonio ". Barreo an %olicitor Buena/entura =. Guerrero !orappellant#.

%alceo, el Ro#ario, Bito - i#a !or appellee.

AUINO,J.:

This is an admiralty and arrastre case. >n 6ecember 1, 1&21 the vessel ai#hinaruarrived in Manila with a cargo of 1, bags of synthetic resin consigned to7eneral 4ase Metals, !nc. which later sold the cargo to ;nion "arbide Philippines,!nc.

>n the following day, 6ecember 1&, that cargo was delivered to the Manila PortService in good order and condition e5cept for twenty@ #ve bags which were in badorder *Par. !O and nne5es " to "@0- of Stipulation of 9acts+.

>n %anuary 0 and 9ebruary 2 and , 1&20 eight hundred ninety@eight *&+ bags ofresin *out of the 1, bags+ were delivered by the customs broker to theconsignee. >ne hundred two bags were missing. The contents of twenty@#ve bagswere damaged or pilfered while they were in the custody of the arrastre operator*Par. ?!! and nne5es 6 and E of Stipulation of 9acts ll in all #fty bags out of the& bags were damaged *nne5 6@-+.

The 1-0 bags of resin *10 missing and - damaged+ were valued at ne was an action in admiralty under the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ctagainst the carrierBs agent for the recovery of P1,01'.-2 as the value of twenty@#vebags of resin which were damaged before they were landed *nne5 "@0-+.

The other was an action under the management contract between the 4ureau of"ustoms and the Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of the Manila Dailroad "ompany,for the recovery of P2,1-.00 as the value of the undelivered 10 bags of resin and

twenty@#ve bags, the contents of which were damaged or pilfered while in thecustody of the arrastre operator.


24/61

Page0=

The case was submitted for decision on the basis of a stipulation of facts. The trialcourt in its decision of %anuary 1-, 1&2= dismissed the case as to the carrierBsagent on the ground that the action had already prescribed because it was notIbrought within one year after delivery of the goodsI, as contemplated in section3*2+ of the "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct. The one@year period was counted from6ecember 1&, 1&21 when the cargo was delivered to the arrastre operator. sabove stated, the action was brought on 6ecember 01, 1&2B0 or two days late,according to the trial courtBs reckoning *"ivil "ase 8o. -0-20+.

Fith respect to the consigneeBs claim against the arrastre operator, the trial courtfound that the provisional claim was #led within the #fteen@day period #5ed inparagraph 1- of the arrastre contract. Net, in spite of that #nding, the trial courtdismissed the action against the arrastre operator *p. 2-, Decord on ppeal+.

;nion "arbide appealed to the "ourt of ppeals on Huestions of fact and of law,That ppellate "ourt elevated the case to this "ourt because in its opinion the

appeal raises only the legal issue of prescription *Desolution of May 1, 1&2' in "@7. D. 8o. 33'=3@D+.

;nion "arbide contends that the trial court erred *1+ in #nding that its action wasbarred by the statute of limitations and *0+ in not holding that the carrier and thearrastre operator were liable for the value of the undelivered and damaged cargo.

lai* a)ain#t the carrier:# a)ent.@There is no Huestion that, as shown in thetwenty@#ve tally sheets, &'- bags of resin were delivered by the carrier in goodorder to the arrastre operator and that only twenty@#ve *0-+ bags were damagedwhile in the carrierBs custody *nne5es " to "@0- and @1 of Stipulation of 9acts+.

The one@year period within which the consignee should sue the carrier is computedfrom Ithe delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have beendeliveredI. The "arriage of 7oods by Sea ct provides$

D(SP>8S!4!)!T!(S 86 )!4!)!T!(S

S(". 3. 555 555 555

*2+ ;nless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damagebe given in writing to the carrier or hi agent at the port of i#char)ebefore or atthe time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled toeli/er5thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facieevidence of the eli/er5by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill oflading. !f the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within threedays of the eli/er5.

Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goodsgiven by the person taking eli/er5thereof.

The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time oftheir receipt been the subAect of Aoint survey or inspection.

!n any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respectof loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after eli/er5of the goodsor the date when the goods should have been delivered$

"ro/ie, That if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is notgiven as provided for in this section, that fact shall not aJect or preAudice the rightof the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or thedate when the goods should have been delivered.

!n the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and thereceiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallyingthe goods. *"ommonwealth ct 8o. 2-, adopting ;.S. Public ct 8o. -01 of pril12,1&32+.

Fhat is the meaning of IdeliveryI in section 3*2+ of the "arriage of 7oods by Seact The trial court construed delivery as referring to thei#char)e or lanin) o! thecar)o.

;nion "arbide contends that IdeliveryI does not mean the discharge of goods orthe delivery thereof to the arrastre operator but the actual eli/er5 o! the )oo# tothe con#i)nee b5 the cu#to*# bro(er.

The carrier contends that eli/er5 *ean# i#char)e !ro* the /e##el into thecu#to5 o! the cu#to*# arra#tre operator because under sections 101 and 102 ofthe TariJ and "ustoms "ode merchandise cannot be directly delivered by thecarrier to the consignee but should #rst pass through the customhouse at a port ofentry for the collection of customs duties.

The carrier cites the following provisions of the bill of lading to support itscontention$

&. eli/er5. The "arrier retains the option of delivery at all times from shipBs side orfrom craft, hulk, custom house, warehouse, wharf or Huay at the risk of theshippers, consignees or owners of the goods, and all e5penses incurred by delivery

otherwise than from shipBs side shall be borne by the shippers, consignee orowners of the goods.

11. i#char)e o! Goo#. The goods may be discharge without notice, as soon asthe ship is ready to unload, continuously day and night, Sundays and holidaysincluded, on to wharf or Huay or into warehouse, or into hulk, laaretto or craft oron any other place and be stored there at the risk and e5pense of the shippers,consignees or owners of the goods, any custom of the port to the contrarynotwithstanding. !n any case, the "arrierBs liability is to cease as soon as the goodsare lifted from shipBs deck or leave the shipBs tackle, any custom of the port to thecontrary notwithstanding. "onsignees to pay charges for sorting and stocking thegoods on wharf or in shed.

!f the consignees fail to take delivery of their goods immediately the ship is readyto discharge them, the "arrier shall be at liberty to land and warehouse or


25/61

Page0-

discharge the said goods into hulk or craft, or at any other place at the risk ande5pense of the shippers, consignees or owners of the goods without notice.

1-. Notice o! lai*. ny claim for loss of or damage to the goods must be preferredin writing to the "arrierBs gents at the place of delivery within 3 days after theshipBs i#char)e thereo!, an be!ore the )oo# are re*o/e !ro* the >ua5 or#hip:# M or place o! i#char)e, and in the event of such claim not being preferred asabove speci#ed, the claim shall be deemed as waived, and the "arrier shall bedischarged therefrom.

Suit for the recovery of loss or damage shall not in any event be maintainableagainst the "arrier or the ship unless instituted within one year after the delivery ofthe written notice above speci#ed. The amount of claim shall be restricted to the"ash Oalue of the goods at the place and time of original shipment plus all chargesactually paid thereon, and all claims for either partial or total loss or damage shallbe entertained and adAusted upon this basis of value. *nne5 4+.

!n this connection, it is pertinent to state that the TariJf and "ustoms "ode allowsthe delivery of imported merchandise to the arrastre operator$

S(". 1013. Recei/in) @anlin) u#to5 an eli/er5 o! Article#. K The 4ureau of

"ustoms shall have Ielusive supervision and control over the receiving, handling,custody and delivery of articles on the wharves and piers at all ports of entry andin the e5ercise of its functions it is hereby authoried to acHuire, take over, operateand superintend such plants and facilities as may be necessary for the receiving,handling, custody and delivery of articles, and the convenience and comfort ofpassengers and the handling of baggage, as well as to acHuire #re protectioneHuipment for use in the piers$

"ro/ie, That whenever in his Audgment the receiving, handling, custody anddelivery of articles can be carried on by private parties with greater eCciency, the"ommissioner may, after public bidding and subAect to the approval of thedepartment head, contract with any private party for the service of receiving,handling, custody and delivery of articles, and in such event, the contract mayinclude the sale or lease of government@owned eHuipment and facilities used in

such service.

The sensible and practical interpretation is that delivery within the meaning ofsection 3*2+ of the "arriage of 7oods by Sea )aw means eli/er5 to the arra#treoperator.That delivery is evidenced by tally sheets which show whether the goodswere landed in good order or in bad order, a fact which the consignee or shippercan easily ascertain through the customs broker.

To use as basis for computing the one@year period the delivery to the consigneewould be unrealistic and might generate confusion between the loss or damagesustained by the goods while in the carrierBs custody and the loss or damagecaused to the goods while in the arrastre operatorBs possession.

pparently, section 3*2+ adheres to the common@law rule that the duty imposedwater carriers was merely to transport from wharf to wharf and that the carrier was

not bound to deliver the goods at the warehouse of the consignee *Tan Ei vs.;nited States, &= 9ed. Supp. =30,=3-+.

!n the an @i case, it was held that a reHuirement of Philippine law that all cargounloaded at Manila be delivered to the consignee through the arrastre operatoracting as customsB agent was not unreasonable. The common@law reHuirements asto the proper delivery of goods by water carrier apply only when customsregulations at the port of destination do not otherwise provide. The delivery mustbe in accordance with the usages of the port in order that such delivery woulddischarge the carrier of responsibility. *8otes - and -1, ".%.S. &00G - ". %. 3'0note 0=. See ' m. %ur 0nd 213, note 1&+.

;nder the facts of this case, we held that the one@year period was correctlyreckoned by the trial court from 6ecember 1&, 1&21, when, as agreed upon by theparties and as shown in the tally sheets, the cargo was discharged from thecarrying vessel and delivered to the Manila Port Service. That one@year periode5pired on 6ecember 1&, 1&20. !nasmuch as the action was #led on 6ecember 01,1&20, it was barred by the statute of limitations.

6efendant merican Steamship gencies, !nc., as agent of the carrier, has no moreliability to the consigneeBs assignee, ;nion "arbide Philippines, !nc., in connectionwith the damaged twenty@#ve bags of resin.

Prescription was duly pleaded by the said defendant in its answer and motion todismiss. That defense was correctly entertained by trial court.

lai* a)ain#t the arra#tre operator. K The liability of the arrastre contractor has afactual and legal basis diJerent from that of the carrierBs. The managementcontract between the Manila Port Service and the 4ureau of "ustoms provides$

1-. ... G in any event the ">8TD"T>D hall be relieved and released of any and allresponsibility or liability for loss, damage, misdelivery, and/or non@delivery ofgoods, unless suit in the court of proper Aurisdiction is brought within a period ofone *1+5ear !ro* the ate o! the i#char)e o! the )oo#,or from the date whenthe claim for the value of such goods have been reAected or denied by the">8TD"T>D, provided that such claim shall have been #led with the">8TD"T>D within #fteen *1-+ days from the date of discharge of the lastpackage from the carrying vessel. ... *nne5 of Stipulation of 9acts

;nder the foregoing contractual provisions, the action against the arrastre operatorto enforce liability for loss of the cargo or damage thereto should be #led withinone year from the date of the discharge of the goods or from the date when theclaim for the value of such goods has been reAected or denied by the arrastreoperator.

Eowever, before such action can be #led a condition precedent should be compliedwith and that is, that a claim *provisional or #nal+ shall have been previously #ledwith the arrastre operator within #fteen days from the date of the discharge of the

last package from the carrying vessel *"ontinental !nsurance "ompany vs. ManilaPort Service, )@000, March 3,1&22,12 S"D =0-+.


26/61

Page02

!n this case, the consigneeBs customs broker #led with the Manila Port Service asprovisional claim advising the latter that the cargo was Ishort, short deliveredand/or landed in bad orderI. That claim was #led on %anuary 3, 1&20 or on the#fteenth day following 6ecember 1&, 1&21, the date of the discharge of the lastpackage from the carrying vessel. hat clai* wa# ne/er !or*all5 reecte or enieb5 the anila "ort %er/ice.

Eaving complied with the condition precedent for the #ling of a claim within the#fteen@ day period, ;nion "arbide could #le the court action within one year, eitherfrom 6ecember 1&, 1&21 or from ece*ber 19, 196. This second date is regardedas the e5piration of the period within which the Manila Port Service should haveacted on the claim *Philippine (ducation "o., !nc. vs. Manila Port Service, )@0=&1,01 S"D, 1'=, 1'+.

!n other words, the claimant or consignee has a two?5ear pre#cripti/e perio,counted from the date of the discharge of the goods, within which to #le the actionin the event that the arrastre contractor, as in this case, has not reAected noradmitted liability *"ontinental !nsurance "ompany vs. Manila Port Service, #upra.Philippine (ducation "ompany vs. Manila Port Service, )@03===, >ctober 0&, 1&'1,=0 S"D 31+.

Since the action in this case against the arrastre operator was #led on 6ecember

01, 1&20, or within the two@year period e5piring on 6ecember 1&, 1&23, that actionwas #led on time. The trial court erred in dismissing the action against the ManilaPort Service and its principal, the Manila Dailroad "ompany.

s shown in the statement of facts, the arrastre operator is responsible for thevalue of 10 bags of resin which were not delivered, and twenty@#ve bags, whichwere damaged, or a total of one hundred twenty@seven bags valued at P2,1-.00.

The arrastre operator should pay attorneyBs fees to the plaintiJ for not havingsatis#ed its plainly valid, Aust and demandable claim *rt. 00, "ivil "ode+. Fe #5the attorneyBs fees and the litigation e5penses in the sum of one thousand pesos.

FE(D(9>D(, the trial courtBs Audgment is ar*einsofar as it dismissed plaintiJ@appellantBs claim against defendant merican Steamship gencies, !nc. on theground of prescription.

The trial courtBs decision is re/er#einsofar as it dismissed plaintiJBs claim againstthe Manila Dailroad "ompany, as arrastre operator. The Philippine 8ationalDailways, as the successor of the Manila Dailroad "ompany *See. 00, Depublic ct8o. =1-2+, is hereby ordered to pay plaintiJ ;nion "arbide Philippines, !nc. the sumof P2,1-.00, as the value of the 10' bags of resin *10 bags missing and 0- bagsdamaged+, with legal rate of interest from the #ling of the complaint on 6ecember01, 1&20 up to the date of payment, Plus P1, as attorneyBs fees and litigatione5penses, and the costs.

S> >D6(D(6.

;ernano hair*an, Barre

Documents

Transpo Week 15 Cases-1