Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > April 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22688 April 27, 1967 - UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22688. April 27, 1967.]

UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL., Defendants, MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

D. F. Macaranas and Manuel C. Gonzales for defendants and appellants.

William H. Quasha & Associates for plaintiff and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; CASE AT BAR. — There is no question that one of the causes of action as found in the complaint - that of admiralty against the Royal Interocean Lines — is cognizable by the Court of First Instance. Notwithstanding, therefore, that the other cause of action would fall within the jurisdiction of the municipal and/or city court by reason of the amount involved, the case was correctly filed with the Court of First Instance.

2. ID.; ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSES OF ACTION. — A party may in one pleading state in the alternative as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party if they arise from the same transaction with the particularity that the case may be filed in the court of first instance if any of said causes of action falls within its jurisdiction.

3. ARRASTRE SERVICE; FILING OF PROVISIONAL CLAIM. — The filing of a mere provisional claim within the prescribed 15-day period is sufficient compliance with the requirement (Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., Et. Al. v. Manila Port Service, L-21907, April 29, 1966; State Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Manila Port Service, L-21833, Feb. 28, 1966; Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. v. MRR, L-17027, Nov. 29, 1965; and G.S.I.S. v. MRR, L-20342, Nov. 29, 1965).


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


Appeal on questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 21808 entitled "United Insurance Company, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Royal Interocean Lines and/or Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Company, Defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff is the insurer of a shipment of 3,768 cases of corned beef consigned to the Visayan Commercial of Manila, loaded on the S/S "Straat Van Diemen," a vessel owned and operated by defendant Royal Interocean Lines. The said vessel arrived at the port of Manila on October 4, 1961, and the said cargo was discharged unto the custody of the Manila Port Service which also delivered the same to the consignee. Upon delivery, however, the cargo was found short of sixty-six (66) cases. Claims were filed by the broker with the Manila Port Service, the arrastre operator, followed by formal claims with the carrying vessel and the plaintiff insurance company. The value of the loss was paid by the plaintiff to the consignee and the former was thereby subrogated to the rights of the latter. Hence, the plaintiff filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint against the Royal Interocean Lines, the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company as alternative defendants.

In its answer, the defendant carrier denied liability by claiming that the cargo in question was completely discharged to the custody of the arrastre operator, and interposed a counterclaim for damages representing attorney’s fees against the plaintiff which, according to said defendant, acted with gross and evident bad faith thereby compelling it to hire the services of counsel.

The defendant arrastre operator, on the other hand disclaimed having received the missing cases from the carrying vessel. As special defense, it averred that since no claim for value was filed by the consignee or its representative within fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, the claim had become time-barred and/or had prescribed pursuant to the Management Contract.

The lower court found from the evidence that the entire cargo of 3,768 cases of corned beef were delivered to the Manila Port Service but, as already stated, the latter failed to deliver 66 cases to the consignee. Consequently, the said arrastre operator, together with its mother company, was held liable for $1,118.32 or P3,371.43, the value of the missing cases and the actual amount paid by plaintiff to the consignee under the insurance policy covering the shipment.

Having been adjudged liable, the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company have appealed. For the first time in this appeal, they dispute the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the action as to them considering that, while plaintiff’s cause of action against their co-defendant, Royal Interocean Lines, is for breach of contract of carriage or affreightment (therefore, involving maritime admiralty matters), the cause against them as arrastre operator is for the short delivery of the cargo valued at only P3,371.43, which is less than the minimum amount falling under the jurisdiction of the court.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that —

". . . the loss occurred while defendant carrier had custody of the cargo and failed to discharge the same or, after discharge of the cargo, while defendant port service had custody of the goods, in either of which case, there was violation of the duty properly to safely carry and discharge the goods on the port of the carrier or, in the alternative, to make delivery of the goods on the part of defendant port service after discharge." (Paragraph 9)

This allegation simply shows that during the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was yet uncertain as to whose custody the goods were under when the loss took place. Hence it had to join both the shipping company and the arrastre operator as alternative defendants, pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is uncertain against which of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

Such a joinder of parties is also sanctioned by the first paragraph of Section 5, Rule 2 of same Rules, which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Joinder of causes of action. — Subject to rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties, a party may in one pleading state, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party (a) if the said causes of action arise out of the same contract, transaction or relation between the parties, or (b) if the cause of action for demands for money, or are of the same nature and character."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to the second paragraph of the same section "in the cases falling under clause (a) the action shall be filed in the inferior court unless any of the causes joined falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in which case it shall be filed in the latter court."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no question that one of the causes of action as found in the complaint — that of admiralty against the Royal Interocean Lines — is cognizable by the Court of First Instance. 1 Notwithstanding, therefore, that the other cause of action would fall within the jurisdiction of the municipal and/or city court by reason of the amount involved, 2 the case was correctly filed with the Court of First Instance.

This is not the first time that this issue is brought before us for resolution. In the case of Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Java Pacific and Hoegh Lines and the Manila Railroad Company, 63 Official Gazette (37) 7892; promulgated on April 30, 1966, this court citing same section 5 of Rule 2, stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As may be seen, the instant case comes within the purview of the rule abovequoted for therein it is postulated that a party may in one pleading state in the alternative as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party if they arise from the same transaction with the particularity that the case may be filed in the court of first instance if any of said causes of action falls within its jurisdiction. This is precisely what was done in this particular case. Because of the uncertainty of the place where the disappearance of the shipment occurred, plaintiff brought the case in the alternative before the court of first instance upon the theory that it may have occurred while the shipment was in transit or while in the custody of the arrastre operator." 3

Anent the other contention of the appellants that the action is time-barred since no claim for value was filed within fifteen days from the date of discharge of the goods, pursuant to section 15 of the Management Contract, the record shows that provisional claim for said goods was filed with the arrastre operator on October 8, 1961, barely three days after the discharge of the last cargo from the carrying vessel. It has been settled that filing of a mere provisional claim within the prescribed 15-day period is sufficient compliance with the requirement. 4

Finding no reversible error in the decision under appeal the same is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J,P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 44(d), Rep. Act 296, as amended.

2. Sec. 88, Rep. Act 296, as amended.

3. Same ruling was applied in Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Manila Railroad Co., Et Al., L-29875, April 30, 1966; Insurance Co. of North America v. U.S. Lines Co., L-21021, May 27, 1666; and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Cia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Et Al., L-22625, April 27, 1967.

4. See Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., Et. Al. v. Manila Port Service, L-21907, April 29, 1966; State Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Manila Port Service, L-21833, Feb. 28, 1966; Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. v. MRR, L-17027, Nov. 29, 1965; and G.S.I.S, v. MRR, L-20342, Nov. 29, 1965.




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






April-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18127 April 5, 1967 - IN RE: CORAZON ADOLFO CALDERON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19726 April 13, 1967 - DOMINGO IMPERIAL v. VENANCIO P. ZIGA

  • G.R. Nos. L-24235-36 April 18, 1967 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20215 April 24, 1967 - DIONISIO PEREZ v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

  • G.R. Nos. L-20246-48 April 24, 1967 - JORGE VYTIACO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22591 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: ANG CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23102 April 24, 1967 - CECILIO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 & L-16256 April 24, 1967 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-17599 April 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NICOLAS CUNANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19606 April 24, 1967 - BUENAVENTURA TAN v. HON. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23387 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: LIM SIH BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23611 April 24, 1967 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22310 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: TAN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22500 April 24, 1967 - NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23855 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: WONG CHUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23390 April 24, 1967 - MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORP. v. MCDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION CO. OF FLORIDA

  • A.C. No. 561 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON

  • G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO AYOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18911 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CLEOFE RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-19425 April 27, 1967 - DEMOSTHENES MEDIANTE, ET AL. v. HON. MONTANO ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-20083 April 27, 1967 - CRISOSTOMO BONILLA, ET AL. v. SEC. OF AGRI. & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20338 April 27, 1967 - BANAGAN LUMIGUIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20408 April 27, 1967 - NARCISO SOLANCHO v. JOSEFA RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20623 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: LAW TAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20797 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21118 April 27, 1967 - LEON CLIMACO v. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21724 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22409 April 27, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22625 April 27, 1967 - FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22688 April 27, 1967 - UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22819 April 27, 1967 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23932 April 27, 1967 - ABELARDO BUENO v. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-24037 April 27, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23766 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE C. TAYENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23734 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SABIO

  • G.R. No. L-23676 April 27, 1967 - TAN GUAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19475 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: JIMMY CHUA YANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25467 April 27, 1967 - LUCAS V. CAUTON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967 - SIMEON SADAYA v. FRANCISCO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-19570 April 27, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20195 April 27, 1967 - HEIRS OF JULIAN MOLINA, ET AL. v. HONORIA VDA. DE BACUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20886 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. ASSOCIATED FINANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 April 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21113 April 27, 1967 - MIGUEL OCAMPO v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21550 April 27, 1967 - ALFREDO DIAZ v. LUIS MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21705 April 27, 1967 - NAWASA v. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22515 April 27, 1967 - EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23377 April 27, 1967 - CARLOS KAHN, ET AL. v. JACOBO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26558 April 27, 1967 - AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20701 April 27, 1967 - MARIA L. VDA. DE MlSA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MARKETING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22650 April 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.