ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714   January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE<br /><br />033 Phil 194

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714. January 14, 1916. ]

    TRITON INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGEL JOSE, Defendant-Appellee.

    and

    ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGEL JOSE, Defendant-Appellee.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block for Appellants.

    Sumulong & Estrada for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COMMON CARRIERS; INJURY TO GOODS; DAMAGES; FAILURE TO PRESENT PROTEST REQUIRED BY CODE OF COMMERCE. — Following the decision announced by this court in the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. Inchausti & Co. (24 Phil. Rep., 315), it is held that, by reason of the fact that no protest had been presented, the plaintiff cannot recover damages.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The said two cases were tried separately in the court below. A bill of exceptions was presented in each case. By reason of the fact, however, that but one question of law is presented, they were argued together in this court and the appellants and appellee each presented but one brief.

    The purpose of said actions was to recover of the defendant a sum of money as damages resulting from damage done to merchandise in the course of transshipment in a lorcha from a boat in Manila Bay, to a point located upon the Binondo canal, in the city of Manila. The facts as they appear in the record are undisputed, and may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. That a certain consignment of flour for each of the firms "Connell Brothers Company" and "W. F. Stevenson & Company," arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Prinz Sigismund, in the first days of January, 1914.

    2. That said firms entered into a verbal contract with the defendant, by which said cargoes of flour were to be transshipped from said steamship Prinz Sigismund, to the bodegas of said firms, located on the Binondo canal in the city of Manila.

    3. That the defendant, in transshipping said cargoes of flour, used the lorcha Petroning. It is not denied that said lorcha was a new one and was duly licensed for the purpose for which it was used in the present case.

    4. That during the transshipment, the said lorcha sprung a leak; that water entered the same and the cargoes of flour were damaged; that said cargoes of flour were placed on said lorcha; that on January 5, 1914, C. B. Nelson, a marine surveyor, examined said cargoes of flour for the plaintiffs (the insurance companies); that on or about January 7 or 8, 1914, the cargoes of flour were delivered to the respective companies, "Connell Brothers Company," and "W. F. Stevenson & Company," and were by them accepted, without protest; that said companies later also paid the charges of transportation to the defendant, without protest. Later, or on or about the 21st or 22d of January, 1914, a formal protest was made by each of the plaintiffs in each of said causes.

    5. Later the damage done to said cargoes of flour was paid by the said insurance companies, to the respective owners of the same. Those actions are now brought by the insurance companies, upon the theory that they have been subrogated to the rights of the owners of said cargoes of flour.

    Upon the foregoing facts, the lower court, in a very interesting opinion, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Without discussing the other questions involved in the case, the court is of the opinion that under article 366 of the Code of Commerce, and the rule laid down in the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. Inchausti & Co. (24 Phil. Rep., 315), recovery is barred, through the failure of the assignee to present a claim for damages within twenty-four hours from the time of the delivery of the flour. The court appreciates the force of the plaintiff’s contention, that articles 366 (supra) applies only to river and land transportation, but the analogy between the present case and the Inchausti case is so close, that the distinction, if any, may best be drawn by the Supreme Court itself, and not by an inferior court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The appellant, in a very carefully prepared brief, attempts to show that the facts in the present case are not analogous to the facts in the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. Inchausti & Co. (supra). We have again examined the facts and the law announced in said case, and are of the opinion that the rule of law therein announced is applicable to the facts in the present case, and without a further discussion, and basing our conclusions upon the facts in the present case and the rule of law announced in the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. Inchausti & Co., the judgments of the lower court in the present cases are hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714   January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE<br /><br />033 Phil 194


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED