G.R. No. L-8319 - DECEMBER 1955 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-8319December 29, 1955 Go Chan and Co., Inc. vs. Aboitiz and Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-8271-72December 29, 1955 Fernando Santiago, et al. vs. Realeza Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-3106December 29, 1955 Filomeno O. Gana, et al. vs. Gavino S. Abaya, et al. G.R. No. L-8094December 22, 1955 Amando Mallare, et al. vs. Flora Panahon, et al. G.R. No. L-7859December 22, 1955 Walter Lutz vs. J. Antonio Araneta G.R. No. L-7795December 24, 1955 Alejandro Rafanan, et al. vs. Sixto Rafanan G.R. No. L-7778December 24, 1955 Ruben Bustamante vs. Pete Alfonso G.R. No. L-8555December 20, 1955 Mamerta Cabral. et al. vs. Fidel Ibañez, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-8320December 20, 1955 People of the Philippines vs. Sim Ben G.R. No. L-8223December 20, 1955 Intestate Estate Agustin Montilla, Jr. Adela Santos vda. de Montilla vs. Pacific Commercial, et al. G.R. No. L-8036, L-8037, L-8038December 20, 1955 Gabriel Marukot vs. Amado Jacinto, et al. Lorenzo Baltazar Felipe Baisa G.R. No. L-8013December 20, 1955 Tomasa Bancairen, et al. vs. Francisco Diones, et al. G.R. No. L-7824December 20, 1955 Morton F. Meads vs. Land Settlement and Development Corporation G.R. No. L-7775December 19, 1955 Carlos Amar vs. Segundo C. Moscoso, et al. G.R. No. L-7316 and L-7317December 19, 1955 People of the Philippines vs. Juan B. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-8562-8563December 17, 1955 Intestate Estate Claro Bustamante Josefa Mendoza vs. Teodora Cayas G.R. No. L-7852December 17, 1955 Esteban Lagula, et al. vs. Sergio Casimiro, et al. G.R. No. L-7140December 17, 1955 People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Zeta G.R. No. L-4611December 17, 1955 Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. L-8151December 16, 1955 Virginia Calanoc vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-8218December 15, 1955 Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Leoncio Cardenas, et al. G.R. No. L-8327December 14, 1955 Antonina Cuevas vs. Crispulo Cuevas G.R. No. L-8032, L-8033December 10, 1955 Crisanto Grande vs. Dalisay Santos, et al. Domingo Josef G.R. No. L-43053December 9, 1955 In Re: Vicente Arevalo Fernando Arce vs. Philippine National Bank The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Go Chan and Co., Inc. vs. Aboitiz and Co., Inc. Fernando Santiago, et al. vs. Realeza Cruz, et al. Filomeno O. Gana, et al. vs. Gavino S. Abaya, et al. Amando Mallare, et al. vs. Flora Panahon, et al. Walter Lutz vs. J. Antonio Araneta Alejandro Rafanan, et al. vs. Sixto Rafanan Ruben Bustamante vs. Pete Alfonso Mamerta Cabral. et al. vs. Fidel Ibañez, etc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sim Ben Intestate Estate Agustin Montilla, Jr. Adela Santos vda. de Montilla vs. Pacific Commercial, et al. Gabriel Marukot vs. Amado Jacinto, et al. Lorenzo Baltazar Felipe Baisa Tomasa Bancairen, et al. vs. Francisco Diones, et al. Morton F. Meads vs. Land Settlement and Development Corporation Carlos Amar vs. Segundo C. Moscoso, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan B. Santos, et al. Intestate Estate Claro Bustamante Josefa Mendoza vs. Teodora Cayas Esteban Lagula, et al. vs. Sergio Casimiro, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Zeta Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., Ltd. Virginia Calanoc vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Leoncio Cardenas, et al. Antonina Cuevas vs. Crispulo Cuevas Crisanto Grande vs. Dalisay Santos, et al. Domingo Josef In Re: Vicente Arevalo Fernando Arce vs. Philippine National Bank The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-8319 December 29, 1955
GO CHAN & CO., INC.,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ABOITIZ & CO., INC.,defendant-appellant.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for appellant.
Gaudencio R. Juezan for appellee.
BENGZON,J.:
As owner of 200 boxes of canned milk placed on board theS. S. Daniel R. Hillfor transportation from New Orleans, U. S. A. to Cebu City, plaintiff Go Chan & Co., Inc. sued defendant as the agent of said vessel. The complaint alleged that in February, 1947 such cargo was delivered to it minus 24 cases; and that the value of the shortage was P416.68, for which judgment was accordingly requested.
The defendant answered that the loss was due to a peril of the sea, and that anyway the action was barred because more than one year had elapsed from February 1947 to May 1950 when the complaint was filed.
The court of first instance of Cebu rendered judgment for the plaintiff, upon the following facts, which it found to have been established:
. . . that the plaintiff shipped 240 cases of milk and the correspondong freight was paid; that the cargo was transhipped on theS. S. Snug Hitchand arrived at the port of Cebu in 1947 with 24 cases short-landed; that a timely claim for the short-landed cargo of 24 cases was presented by the plaintiff to the defendant but the latter asked to defer the claim; that when the 24 cases arrived, Go Tiong, the General Manager of the plaintiff corporation did not receive them because they were no longer in cases but in sakes, and that the cans were no longer fit for human consumption — they wer damaged and rusty; that the delay in payment was due to the request of the defendant for amicable settlement which later, the defendant refused to pay. (Record on Appeal, p. 9).
Concerning the defendant;s plea of prescription, founded on Commonwealth Act No. 65 adopting in toto the Act of the U. S. Congress known as Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the Cebu court declared that both laws did not modify our statute of limitations, Act 190, under which, actions of this nature prescribed in four years.
Having failed in a motion to reconsider, defendant perfected its appeal — which we find to be meritorious.
In Chua Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corporation, [93 Phil., 207, 50 Off. Gaz. (1), p. 159] involving a similar controversy, we ruled that the prescriptive period of one year established in the Carriage of foods by Sea Act modifiedpro tantothe provisions of Act No. 190 as to goods transported to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade (trade with U. S. is now foreign). Said American Act provides as follows:
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is broughtwithin one year after delivery of the goodsor the date when the goods should have been delivered; provided, that if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered." (Subsec. 6, sec. 3, Title I) (Emphasis ours.).
Thru Mr. Justice Bautista Angelo this Court explained:
The claim that the prescriptive period to be considered in this case is that embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure is untenable for the simple reason that this is a general law which only applies to cases not covered by any special act. As we have already stated, the transaction under consideration is covered by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and since this is a special act, its provisions must of necessity limit or restrict a law of general application. To hold otherwise would be to render nugatory the prescriptive provision contained in that special act.lawphi1.net
Because this action was not filed within one year from February, 1947 when the cargo was delivered or should have been delivered, the law discharged this defendant from all liability in connection with the carriage of said goods. The judgment will therefore be reversed and the defendant absolved, with costs against appellees. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Padilla, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.