Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > November 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12951 November 17, 1959 - FILIPINAS PERALTA DE GUERRERO v. MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO.

106 Phil 485:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12951. November 17, 1959.]

FILIPINAS PERALTA DE GUERRERO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Zoilo Aguinaldo and Ricardo G. Peralta for Appellants.

Bausa, Ampil & Suarez for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. LIMITATION OF ACTION; CARRIERS; PASSENGERS TICKET A WRITTEN CONTRACT; DAMAGES. — Where the complaint shows that appellants’ cause of action is predicated on the failure of appellee to comply with its contract of carrying safely the deceased from one place to another, in that the vessel on which he was riding belonging to appellee capsized because of the reckless and imprudent manner it was managed and steered by its crew, it can be implied that the transportation was under taken by virtue of a written contract of carriage. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a passenger boards a ship for transportation from one place to another he is issued a ticket by the shipper which has all the lements of a written contract namely: (1) the consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger boards the ship and the shipper consents or accepts him in the ship for transportation; (2) cause or consideration which is the fare paid by the passenger as stated in the ticket; and (3) object, which is the transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of destination which are stated in the ticket.

2. MOTIONS TO DISMISS; WHEN ACTION MAY BE DEFERRED. — Action on a motion to dismiss may be inferred until after trial on the merits if the ground alleged in the motion does not appear to be indubitable. (Section 3, Rule 8, of the Rules of Court).


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is an action instituted before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte to recover damages resulting from the death of Pacifico Acacio when the ship where the latter was riding as passenger capsized in San Jose, Antique.

On April 30, 1957, the wife and daughter of Pacifico Acacio, plaintiffs herein, filed a complaint against defendant corporation alleging that on November 1, 1949 Pacifico Acacio entered into a contract of carriage with defendant whereby for certain consideration the latter undertook to carry the former on its vessel "M.S. Regulus" from Malangas, Zamboanga, to the City of Manila; that while the vessel was passing San Jose, Antique, its crew without taking the necessary precaution managed and steered the same in a reckless and imprudent manner thereby causing the vessel to capsize and resulting in the death of Pacifico Acacio.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action has already prescribed. It contended that they should have filed the action within six years from the time of the alleged breach of contract, or on November 1, 1955, and considering that the complaint was filed on April 30, 1957, or more than seven years thereafter, the complaint was filed out of time.

The lower court sustained the motion holding that since the nature of the action is one for recovery of damages which is not based on a written contract, the action is already barred by the statute of limitations. Hence the present appeal.

It appears that the complaint was dismissed by the trial court on the strength of a motion filed by defendant on the ground that the cause of action has already prescribed. No evidence was presented by any party in support of or against the motion, the ruling of the court having been based merely on the factual allegations of the complaint. The question that now arises is: Do the allegations of the complaint shows that the cause of action of plaintiffs is merely for recovery of damages, as found by the trial court, or is one based on a written contract of carriage as claimed by appellants?

We are inclined to uphold the contention of appellants, for a cursory reading of the complaint would show that their cause of action is predicated upon the failure of appellee to comply with its contract of carrying the deceased from Malangas, Zamboanga to the City of Manila safely, in that the vessel on which he was riding belonging to defendant capsized because of the reckless and imprudent manner it was managed and steered by its crew. It is true that the complaint does not in so many words state that the transportation was undertaken by virtue of a written contract of carriage, but this can be implied from the complaint because it is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a passenger boards a ship for transportation from one place to another he is issued a ticket by the shipper wherein the terms of the contract are specified. According to appellants, "This ticket is in itself a complete written contract by and between the shipper and the passenger. It has all the elements of a complete contract, namely: (1) the consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger boards the ship and the shipper consents or accepts him in the ship for transportation; (2) cause or consideration which is the fare paid by the passenger as stated in the ticket; and (3) object, which is the transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of destination which are stated in the ticket."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering that the ticket is not now before us because that case has been decided merely on a motion to dismiss, and this ticket is necessary to determine the right of action of appellants, it would have been more proper had action on the motion been deferred until after trial on the merits. This is authorized by the rule if the ground alleged in the motion does not appear to be indubitable (Section 3, Rule 8, of the Rules of Court). We are therefore of the opinion that, in fairness to appellants, the trial court should not have dismissed the case outright but should have deferred action on the motion until after trial for the evidence to be presented may still show that the contract of the parties is really written and not merely oral as intimated by the court a quo.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12951 November 17, 1959 - FILIPINAS PERALTA DE GUERRERO v. MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO.

    106 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-9836 November 18, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FRANCISCO PASCUAL

    106 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. L-12859 November 18, 1959 - CEBU UNITED ENTERPRISES v. JOSE GALLOFIN

    106 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-13678 November 20, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES CUBELO

    106 Phil 496

  • G.R. Nos. L-11724-25 November 23, 1959 - WACK WACK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-13230 November 23, 1959 - DEMETRIO BUNAYOG v. SIXTO CHIONG

    106 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-13333 November 24, 1959 - ZOSIMO ROJAS v. CITY OF TAGAYTAY

    106 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-13431 November 24, 1959 - VICENTE CAHILO v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

    106 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10362 November 27, 1959 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. ESTELITA DAYAO

    106 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-12587 November 27, 1959 - BALAQUEZON TRANSPORTATION LABOR UNION v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    106 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-13090 November 27, 1959 - CIPRIANO C. ANTONIO v. CARMEN ROCAMORA

    106 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-13428 November 27, 1959 - YAO LIT (YAO DIT) v. A. M. GERALDEZ

    106 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-9268 November 28, 1959 - VICTORY SHIPPING LINES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    106 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. L-9473 November 28, 1959 - ROSARIO DE JESUS-ALANO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    106 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-9521 November 28, 1959 - LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY v. CESAREO DE LEON

    106 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-9648 November 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO CERENA

    106 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-10971 November 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URBANO JACA

    106 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. L-11007 November 28, 1959 - FRANCISCO LAVIDES v. PROCOPIO ELEAZAR

    106 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. L-11165 November 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ELUMBA

    106 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-11642 November 28, 1959 - IN RE: BOON BING NG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-11722 November 28, 1959 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. ROY PADILLA

    106 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-12268 November 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MARTINEZ GODINEZ

    106 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. L-12336 November 28, 1959 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAIL CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-12753 November 28, 1959 - ESPIRITU SANTO PARISH v. JOSE HABITAN

    106 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-12758 November 28, 1959 - FRANCISCO COLLEGE v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    106 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-12867 November 28, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. ARNALDO BORRES

    106 Phil 625

  • G.R. Nos. L-13035 & L-13740 November 28, 1959 - SEVERO ARCE v. EMPERATRIZ ARCE

    106 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-13225 November 28, 1959 - MANUEL G. TORRES v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    106 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-13258 November 28, 1959 - FLORENTINO JOYA v. PEDRO PAREJA

    106 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-13310 November 28, 1959 - TEOFILO ORSAL v. AURELIO ALISBO

    106 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-13661 November 28, 1959 - KO WAI ME v. EMILIO L. GALANG

    106 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-13829 November 28, 1959 - ROBERTO DENOPOL v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    106 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-14183 November 28, 1959 - BENEDICTO DINGLASAN v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    106 Phil 671