0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
37 Ansichten6 Seiten
Wallem filed a motion to dismiss a damages claim by Cua arguing the claim had prescribed under the 1-year statute of limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Wallem later withdrew this motion but reserved the right to argue prescription as a defense. Cua argued Wallem admitted to an agreement to extend the limitations period when it withdrew the motion. The court ruled that withdrawing the motion did not amount to waiving the prescription defense or admitting to extending the period. The court also found that, based on the pleadings and evidence, Cua's claim had not prescribed as Cua alleged and Wallem admitted to an agreement extending the filing period.
Wallem filed a motion to dismiss a damages claim by Cua arguing the claim had prescribed under the 1-year statute of limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Wallem later withdrew this motion but reserved the right to argue prescription as a defense. Cua argued Wallem admitted to an agreement to extend the limitations period when it withdrew the motion. The court ruled that withdrawing the motion did not amount to waiving the prescription defense or admitting to extending the period. The court also found that, based on the pleadings and evidence, Cua's claim had not prescribed as Cua alleged and Wallem admitted to an agreement extending the filing period.
Wallem filed a motion to dismiss a damages claim by Cua arguing the claim had prescribed under the 1-year statute of limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Wallem later withdrew this motion but reserved the right to argue prescription as a defense. Cua argued Wallem admitted to an agreement to extend the limitations period when it withdrew the motion. The court ruled that withdrawing the motion did not amount to waiving the prescription defense or admitting to extending the period. The court also found that, based on the pleadings and evidence, Cua's claim had not prescribed as Cua alleged and Wallem admitted to an agreement extending the filing period.
v WALLEM G.R. No. 171337 July 11, 2012 Cua filed an action for damages against Wallem and Advance Shipping asking payment for damage to shipment of Brazilian Soyabean consigned to him
Wallem filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription.
Section 3(6) of the COGSA provides for a prescriptive period of 1 year form the time of delivery of the goods. Wallem alleged that the goods were delivered to Cua on August 16, 1989, but the damages suit was instituted only on November 12, 1990.
It later filed an omnibus motion withdrawing its motion to
dismiss but made an express reservation that it was not waiving "the defense of prescription and will allege as one of its
FACTS defenses, such defense of prescription and/or laches in its
Answer should this be required by the circumstances." Cua contends that there was an Wallem deny any admission and agreement to extend the period to file the contends that the withdrawal the suit and this was already admitted by motion to dismiss does not amount to Wallem when it withdrew its motion to an admission nor does it amount to a dismiss on the ground of prescription. waiver of the defense for prescription. ISS UE
Whether or not there was waiver of the
defense of prescription (NO) RULING
GNERAL RULE: The failure to raise or
plead the grounds amounts to a HENCE, there can be no waiver of the ground of prescription because the courts may waiver consider such ground motu proprio and dismiss the complaint if the facts supporting the said ground are apparent from the pleadings ISSUE: Whether or not the Although the action was filed more than 1 year pleadings and the from the time of delivery which is July 8, 1989 evidence support a (COGSA prescriptive period), it was alleged by finding that Cua’s Cua in his pleading there was an agreement claim has prescribed between the parties to extend this period to (NO) Nov. 12, 1990.
It was admitted by Wallem that the case
was filed on “November 11, 1990, within the extended period agreed upon to file suit.”