Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > January 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25266 January 15, 1975 - AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-25266. January 15, 1975.]

AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., and/or LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION and/or LUZON BROKERAGE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

Camacho, Zapa, Andaya & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rose, Selph, Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito & Mesa for defendant-appellee Barber Steamship Lines, Inc.

H. San Luis & L. V. Simbulan for defendant-appellee Luzon Stevedoring Corporation.

Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellee Luzon Brokerage Corporation.

SYNOPSIS


Plaintiff and appellant the trial court’s order dismissing the amended complaint insofar as defendant Barber Line Far East Service is concerned on the ground of prescription, contending that the original complaint was filed within the one-year period provided for in the Bill of Lading and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The trial court predicated its order on the fact that Barber Line Far East Service was substituted for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., in the amended complaint and the substitution was made beyond the aforecited one-year period and that, as far as the new defendant is concerned, the date of filing the amended complaint was the date the amendment was made. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal.


SYLLABUS


1. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS; ONE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD COMMENCES FROM DATE DAMAGED CARGO IS DELIVERED. —The trial court correctly held that the one-year statutory and contractual prescriptive period had already expired when appellant company filed on April 7, 1965 its action against Barber Line Far East Service. The one-year period commenced on February 25, 1964 when the damaged cargo was delivered to the consignee.

2. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD AS TO DEFENDANT IMPLEADED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMENDED COMPLAINT. — The rule that — where the original complaint states an imperfect cause of action and is afterwards amended to correct the defect, the plea of prescription will relate to the filing of original complaint, — does not apply to a defendant impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Aetna Insurance Company appealed on a legal question from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing its amended complaint against Barber Line Far East Service on the ground of prescriptions.

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On February 22, 1965 Aetna Insurance Company, as insurer, filed a complaint against Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and Luzon Brokerage Corporation.

It sought to recover from the defendants the sum of P12,100.06 as the amount of the damages which were caused to a cargo of truck parts shipped on the SS Turandot. The insurer paid the damages to Manila Trading & Supply Company, the consignee.

In a manifestation dated March 31, 1965, Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., without submitting to the court’s jurisdiction, alleged that it was a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines, that it was not engaged in business here, that it had no Philippine agent and that it did not own nor operate the SS Turandot.

On April 5, 1965 Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., again with the caveat that it was not submitting to the court’s jurisdiction, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction over the person and (b) that it was not the real party in interest.

Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. alleged that the service of summons was not effected upon it in accordance with section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. It clarified that the summons intended for it was served upon Macondray & Co., Inc. which was not its agent.

It asserted that it was not the real party in interest because according to the bill of lading annexed to the complaint the owner of the SS Turandot, the carrying vessel, was the Wilh, Wilhemsen Group. (Note, however, that the same bill of lading indicated that Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. was the vessel’s agent).

Two days later, or on April 7, 1965 plaintiff Aetna Insurance Company filed a manifestation stating that the name of defendant Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. was incorrect and that the correct name was Barber Line Far East Service. Attached to the manifestation was an amended complaint containing the correction. Aetna Insurance Company manifested that copies of the amended complaint would be served on the parties by means of alias summons.

On April 20, 1965 Aetna Insurance Company filed a motion for the admission of its amended complaint. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. opposed the motion. It contended that its pending motion to dismiss the original complaint should first be resolved before the amended complaint may he admitted.

Judge Ramon O. Nolasco in an order dated April 19, 1965 dismissed the complaint against Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and directed that alias summonses be issued to the defendants named in the amended complaint.

On May 19, 1965 Barber Line Far East Service, supposedly without admitting to the court’s jurisdiction, moved for the dismissal of the amended complaint on the grounds (1) that it is not a juridical person and, hence, it could not be sued; (2) that the court had no jurisdiction over its person; (3) that it was not the real party in interest and (4) that the action had prescribed according to the bill of lading and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Aetna Insurance Company opposed the motion.

Judge Nolasco in his order of July 7, 1965 ruled that inasmuch as according to the complaint the shipment arrived in Manila on February 22, 1964 and the amended complaint, impleading Barber Line Far East Service, was filed on April 7, 1965, or beyond the one-year period fixed in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the action had already prescribed. The case was dismissed as to Barber Line Far East Service.

The legal question under the above facts is whether the action of Aetna Insurance Company against Barber Line Far East Service, as ventilated in its amended complaint, which was filed on April 7, 1965, had prescribed.

As previously stated, the action was for the recovery of damages to a cargo of truck parts which was insured by Aetna Insurance Company and which arrived in Manila on the SS Turandot and were delivered in bad order to the consignee on February 25, 1968 (4 Record on Appeal).

The bill of lading covering the shipment provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"19. In any event the Carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the dates when the goods should have been delivered. Suit shall not be deemed brought until jurisdiction shall have been obtained over the Carrier and/or the ship by service of process or by an agreement to appear."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Commonwealth Act No. 65 (Public Act No. 521 of the 74th Congress of the United States) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES

"Section 3. . . .

"(6) . . .

"In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, That, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered."cralaw virtua1aw library

Aetna Insurance Company contends in this appeal that the trial court erred (1) in holding that the Barber Line Far East Service was substituted for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and (2) in dismissing the action on the ground of prescription.

There is no merit in the appeal. The trial court correctly held that the one-year statutory and contractual prescriptive period had already expired when appellant company filed on April 7, 1965 its action against Barber Line Far East Service. The one-year period commenced on February 25, 1964 when the damaged cargo was delivered to the consignee. (See Chua Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corporation, 93 Phil. 207; Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. American President Lines, Inc., 103 Phil. 1125).

Appellant company invokes the rule that where the original complaint states a cause of action but does it imperfectly, and afterwards an amended complaint is filed, correcting the defect, the plea of prescription will relate to the time of the filing of the original complaint (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Phil. Farming Co., Ltd., 81 Phil. 273). It contends that inasmuch as the original complaint was filed within the one-year period, the action had not prescribed.

That ruling would apply to defendants Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and Luzon Brokerage Corporation. But it would not apply to Barber Line Far East Service which was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.

It should be recalled that the original complaint was dismissed as to Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. in the lower court’s order of April 19, 1965. New summons had to be issued to Barber Line Far East Service which had replaced Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. as a defendant.

The filing of the original complaint interrupted the prescriptive period as to Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. but not as to Barber Line Far East Service, an entity supposedly distinct from the former. Appellant’s contention that there was merely a correction in the name of a party-defendant is untenable. **

In view of the foregoing considerations, the lower court’s order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** Parenthetically, it may be noted that apparently Aetna Insurance Company merely relied on the bill of lading which contains the following relevant data:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Heading — Barber Line Far East Service

Ship — Turandot

Shipper — Fort Motor Company

Consignee — Manila Trading & Supply Co.

Ownership clause — The carrying vessel under this contract is owned by the Wilh, Wilhemsen Group consisting of the following shipping companies: Dampskibsaktieselskabet Den Norske Afrika — Og Australielinie, Wilhelmsens Dampskibsaktieselskab, A/S Tonsberg, A/S Tankfart I, A/S Tankfart IV, A/S Tankfart V and A/S Tankfart VI.

Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. — General Agents in Manila — Macondray & Co., Inc.

The bill of lading was signed by Rice, Unruh & Co., agents, for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. as agents.

On the basis of the bill of lading, Aetna Insurance Company in its original complaint sued Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. In its amended complaint, it dropped Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and sued Barber Line Far East Service. In both instances, it designated Macondray & Co., Inc., Shurdut Bldg., Manila, as the agent.

On the basis of the same bill of lading, counsel for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and Barber Line Far East Service (presumably the counsel was hired by Macondray & Co., Inc. which was the one served summons) contended that Aetna Insurance Company should have sued the owner of the SS Turandot, which was the Wilh, Wilhemsen Group, etc. The counsel further clarified that Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. was not doing business in the Philippines and had no agent here and that Barber Line Far East Service was a mere tradename and was not a juridical person.

Obviously, Aetna Insurance Company did not sue Wilh, Wilhemsen Group, etc. because it was beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. But Aetna Insurance Company failed to ascertain the agent for the vessel. The counsel for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and Barber Line Far East Service denied that Macondray & Co., Inc. was the agent for the SS Turandot. (See Art. 586 of the Code of Commerce as to the liability of a ship agent; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. United Lines Co., L-16850, May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 175; Manila Steamship Co. v. Abdulhaman, 100 Phil. 32 and Villanueva v. Barber Wilhelmsen Line, 110 Phil. 34 where Macondray & Co., Inc. was sued as the agent of Barber Steamship Line).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20610 January 9, 1975 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO ESTABILLO

  • G.R. No. L-25266 January 15, 1975 - AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27097 January 17, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO R. TOLING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33535 January 17, 1975 - SERGIO M. ISADA v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34370 January 17, 1975 - CESAR SERRANO v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35284 January 17, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ROA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36276 January 17, 1975 - SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24870 January 21, 1975 - EUGENIA MANABAT VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23745 January 22, 1975 - LITTON MILLS WORKERS UNION-NATU v. SAMUEL F. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25756 January 24, 1975 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23455 January 27, 1975 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33646 January 28, 1975 - AMADO LACUESTA v. A. MELENCIO HERRERA

  • G.R. Nos. L-39516-17 January 28, 1975 - ROSARIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO JUAN

  • G.R. No. L-39592 January 28, 1975 - ANTONIO JAYME, ET AL. v. NESTOR ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975 - PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC. v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

  • G.R. No. L-24122 January 29, 1975 - MARGARITO SAUSI v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30961 January 29, 1975 - DBP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39386 and L-39620-29 January 29, 1975 - FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER v. FEDERICO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34497 January 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BENJAMIN K. ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37633 January 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMO MEDROSO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-37937 January 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS G. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38964 January 31, 1975 - SAVORY LUNCHEONETTE v. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39012 January 31, 1975 - AVELINO ORDOÑO v. ANGEL DAQUIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40004 January 31, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.