Monico G. Roldan vs.Lim Ponzo & Co.

G.R. No. L-11325 December 7, 1917

FACTS:

Plaintiff Roldan executed a case against the Defendant Lim Ponzo &Co., to recover damages in
the sum of P3,780 for the alleged failure of the defendant company to live up to its contract for
the transportation of 2,244 packages of sugar to Roldan’s hacienda in Iloilo. The defendant
admits the existence of the contract but denies liability averring that the sugar was lost in a
wreck without the fault on the part of the owner, the patron, or the crew of the
vessel. Accordingly, among the 2,244 packages, only 1,022 were saved in a more or less
damaged condition from the wreckage. Nevertheless, at the trial, after the plaintiff offered his
pieces of evidence, the trial court dismissed the case ruling that the plaintiff failed to comply with
the provisions of section 366 of the Commercial Code which provides that a “claim” must be
submitted to the carrier within 24 hours upon the receipt of the goods for bringing an action on
account of damages on the goods delivered and failure to do so prescribes the right of the
consignee to claim damages against the carrier. Plaintiff then sought for the appeal of the RTCs
decision.

ISSUE:
WON Article 366 of Commercial Code is applicable in case of failure of delivery of goods to a
consignee

RULING:

No. Article 366 of Commercial Code is limited to cases of claims for

damage to goods “actually turned over by the carrier and received by the consignee.”
Clearly it has no application in cases wherein the goods entrusted to the carrier are not
delivered by the carrier to the consignee. The claim for damages then arises exclusively out
of the failure to make delivery.

Article 366 of the Commercial Code is limited to cases of claims for damaged goods actually
turned over by the carrier and received by the consignee, whether those damages be apparent
from the examination of the packages in which the goods are delivered, or of such a character
that the nature and extent of the damage is not apparent until the packages are opened and the
contents examined. It does not apply to cases where the goods entrusted to the carrier are not
delivered by the carrier to the consignee. The purpose of requiring the submission of claims in
pursuance of this article is to compel the consignee of goods entrusted to a carrier to make
prompt demand for settlement of alleged damages suffered by the goods while in transport, so
that the carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims at the time of delivery or within twenty-
four hours.

Also, the necessity for making the claim in accordance with Article 366 did not arise if, as it is
alleged, these 1,022 packages of sugar were recovered from the wreck by the plaintiff himself,
in an effort, by his own activities, to save his property from total loss. The measures to be taken
under the terms of article 367 of the Code indicate that the necessity for the presentation of
claims under this article arises only in those cases wherein the carrier makes delivery and the
consignee receives the goods in pursuance of the terms of the contract.