8/19/2016

G.R.No.L61352

TodayisFriday,August19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L61352February27,1987
DOLEPHILIPPINES,INC.,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
MARITIMECOMPANYOFTHEPHILIPPINES,defendantappellee.
DomingoE.deLara&Associatesforplaintiffappellant.
Bito,MisaandLozadaLawOfficefordefendantappellee.

NARVASA,J.:
Thisappeal,whichwascertifiedtotheCourtbytheCourtofAppealsasinvolvingonlyquestionsoflaw,1relatesto
a claim for loss and/or damage to a shipment of machine parts sought to be enforced by the consignee, appellant Dole
Philippines, Inc. (hereinafter caged Dole) against the carrier, Maritime Company of the Philippines (hereinafter called
Maritime),undertheprovisionsoftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct.2

The basic facts are succinctly stated in the order of the Trial Court 3 dated March 16, 1977, the relevant portion of
whichreads:

xxxxxxxxx
Beforetheplaintiffstartedpresentingevidenceattoday'strialattheinstanceoftheCourtthelawyers
enteredintothefollowingstipulationoffacts:
1. The cargo subject of the instant case was discharged in Dadiangas unto the custody of the
consigneeonDecember18,1971
2.Thecorrespondingclaimforthedamagessustainedbythecargowasfiledbytheplaintiffwiththe
defendantvesselonMay4,1972
3.OnJune11,1973theplaintifffiledacomplaintintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,docketed
thereinasCivilCaseNo.91043,embodyingthree(3)causesofactioninvolvingthree(3)separate
and different shipments. The third cause of action therein involved the cargo now subject of this
presentlitigation
4.OnDecember11,1974,JudgeSerafinCuevasissuedanOrderinCivilCaseNo.91043dismissing
thefirsttwocausesofactionintheaforesaidcasewithprejudiceandwithoutpronouncementasto
costsbecausethepartieshadsettledorcompromisedtheclaimsinvolvedtherein.Thethirdcauseof
actionwhichcoveredthecargosubjectofthiscasenowwaslikewisedismissedbutwithoutprejudice
asitwasnotcoveredbythesettlement.Thedismissalofthatcomplaintcontainingthethreecauses
ofactionwasuponajointmotiontodismissfiledbytheparties
5.Becauseofthedismissalofthe(complaintinCivilCaseNo.91043withrespecttothethirdcause
ofactionwithoutprejudice,plaintiffinstitutedthispresentcomplaintonJanuary6,1975.
xxxxxxxxx4
TothecomplaintinthesubsequentactionMaritimefiledananswerpleadinginteraliatheaffirmativedefenseof
prescription under the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 5 and following pretrial, moved for a
preliminary hearing on said defense. 6 The Trial Court granted the motion, scheduling the preliminary hearing on April 27,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/feb1987/gr_l_61352_1987.html

1/3

8/19/2016

G.R.No.L61352

1977. 7 The record before the Court does not show whether or not that hearing was held, but under date of May 6, 1977,
Maritimefiledaformalmotiontodismissinvokingoncemorethegroundofprescription. 8ThemotionwasopposedbyDole
9andtheTrialCourt,afterdueconsideration,resolvedthematterinfavorofMaritimeanddismissedthecomplaint 10Dole
soughtareconsideration,whichwasdenied,11andthereaftertookthepresentappealfromtheorderofdismissal.

The pivotal issue is whether or not Article 1155 of the Civil Code providing that the prescription of actions is
interruptedbythemakingofanextrajudicialwrittendemandbythecreditorisapplicabletoactionsbroughtunder
theCarriageofGoodsbySeaActwhich,initsSection3,paragraph6,providesthat:
***thecarrierandtheshipshallbedischargedfromallliabilityinrespectoflossordamageunless
suitisbroughtwithinoneyearafterdeliveryofthegoodsorthedatewhenthegoodsshouldhave
beendeliveredProvided, That, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or conceded, is not
givenasprovidedforinthissection,thatfactshallnotaffectorprejudicetherightoftheshipperto
bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have
beendelivered.
xxxxxxxxx
Doleconcedesthatitsactionissubjecttotheoneyearperiodoflimitationprescribeintheabovecitedprovision.
12 The substance of its argument is that since the provisions of the Civil Code are, by express mandate of said Code,

suppletoryofdeficienciesintheCodeofCommerceandspeciallawsinmattersgovernedbythelatter, 13andtherebeing
"***apatentdeficiency***withrespecttothetollingoftheprescriptiveperiod***"providedforintheCarriageofGoodsby
SeaAct,14prescriptionundersaidActissubjecttotheprovisionsofArticle1155oftheCivilCodeontollingandbecause
Dole's claim for loss or damage made on May 4, 1972 amounted to a written extrajudicial demand which would toll or
interruptprescriptionunderArticle1155,itoperatedtotollprescriptionalsoinactionsundertheCarriageofGoodsbySea
Act.TomuchthesameeffectisthefurtherargumentbasedonArticle1176oftheCivilCodewhichprovidesthattherights
and obligations of common carriers shag be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws in all matters not
regulatedbytheCivilCode.

These arguments might merit weightier consideration were it not for the fact that the question has already
receivedadefinitiveanswer,adversetothepositiontakenbyDole,inTheYekTongLinFire&MarineInsurance
Co.,Ltd.vs.AmericanPresidentLines,Inc. 15There,inaparallelfactualsituation,wheresuittorecoverfordamageto
cargoshippedbyvesselfromTokyotoManilawasfiledmorethantwoyearsaftertheconsignee'sreceiptofthecargo,this
CourtrejectedthecontentionthatanextrajudicialdemandtoiledtheprescriptiveperiodprovidedforintheCarriageofGoods
bySeaAct,viz:

Inthesecondassignmentoferrorplaintiffappellantarguesthatitwaserrorforthecourtaquonotto
have considered the action of plaintiffappellant suspended by the extrajudicial demand which took
place, according to defendant's own motion to dismiss on August 22, 1952. We notice that while
plaintiffavoidsstatinganydatewhenthegoodsarrivedinManila,itreliesupontheallegationmade
in the motion to dismiss that a protest was filed on August 22, 1952 which goes to show that
plaintiffappellant's counsel has not been laying the facts squarely before the court for the
consideration of the merits of the case. We have already decided that in a case governed by the
CarriageofGoodsbySeaAct,thegeneralprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedureonprescription
should not be made to apply. (Chua Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L5554, May 27,
1953.)Similarly,wenowholdthatinsuchacasethegeneralprovisionsofthenewCivilCode(Art.
1155)cannotbemadetoapply,assuchapplicationwouldhavetheeffectofextendingtheoneyear
periodofprescriptionfixedinthelaw.Itisdesirablethatmattersaffectingtransportationofgoodsby
seabedecidedinasshortatimeaspossibletheapplicationoftheprovisionsofArticle1155ofthe
new Civil Code would unnecessarily extend the period and permit delays in the settlement of
questionsaffectingtransportation,contrarytotheclearintentandpurposeofthelaw.***
Moreover, no different result would obtain even if the Court were to accept the proposition that a written
extrajudicialdemanddoestollprescriptionundertheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct.Thedemandinthisinstance
wouldbetheclaimfordamagefiledbyDolewithMaritimeonMay4,1972.Theeffectofthatdemandwouldhave
been to renew the one year prescriptive period from the date of its making. Stated otherwise, under Dole's
theory,whenitsclaimwasreceivedbyMaritime,theoneyearprescriptiveperiodwasinterrupted"tolled"would
bethemoreprecisetermandbegantorunanewfromMay4,1972,affordingDoleanotherperiodofone(1)
year counted from that date within which to institute action on its claim for damage. Unfortunately, Dole let the
new period lapse without filing action. It instituted Civil Case No. 91043 only on June 11, 1973, more than one
monthafterthatperiodhasexpiredanditsrightofactionhadprescribed.
Dole's contention that the prescriptive period "*** remained tolled as of May 4, 1972 *** (and that) in legal
contemplation *** (the) case (Civil Case No. 96353) was filed on January 6, 1975 *** well within the oneyear
prescriptiveperiodinSec.3(6)oftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct." 16equatestollingwithindefinitesuspension.It
isclearlyfallaciousandmeritsnoconsideration.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/feb1987/gr_l_61352_1987.html

2/3

8/19/2016

G.R.No.L61352

WHEREFORE,theorderofdismissalappealedfromisaffirmed,withcostsagainsttheappellant,DolePhilippines,
Inc.
SOORDERED.
Yap(Chairman),MelencioHerrera,Cruz,Feliciano,GancaycoandSarmiento,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.3234.
2U.S.PublicActNo.521whichwasmadeapplicabletoallcontractsforthecarriageofgoodsbysea
toandfromPhilippineportsinforeigntradebyCommonwealthActNo.65approvedOctober22,
1936.
3InCivilCaseNo.96353,CFIofManila.
4RecordonAppeal,pp.2223.
5Id.,pp.1416.
6Id.,pp.2425.
7Id.,pp.2526.
8Id.,pp.2933.
9Id.,pp.3439.
10Id.,pp.3944.
11Id.,pp.6566.
12Appellant'sBrief,p.11.
13Art.18,CivilCode.
14Appellant'sBrief,p.12.
15No.L11081,April30,1958103Phil.1125(unrep.).
16Appellant'sBrief,p.18.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/feb1987/gr_l_61352_1987.html

3/3