ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 134753.
NEGROS NAVIGATION vs. BACQUING
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated
G.R. No. 134753 (Negros Navigation Company, Inc. vs. Heirs Of Moises Bacquing, Represented By Gilbert Bacquing & Ponciano Magbanua, Jr.)
In this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Negros Navigation Co., Inc. urges us to set aside the Decision dated 13 March 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52726 which reversed an earlier Order of the Regional Trial Court at Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 17 dismissing, on ground of prescription, respondents' complaint against petitioner for breach of contract, sum of money and damages.
Respondents are businessmen engaged in the buy-and-sell of tomatoes and other agricultural products. They buy the products in Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental and Bukidnon. The purchased products are crated in marked wooden boxes for their eventual transport to Manila and delivery to their consignees thereat.
On
The shipment, however, was not loaded on board M/S Sta. Florentina on the scheduled date of its voyage because the vessel immediately departed for llolio after unloading passengers and cargoes at the Cagayan de Oro City pier.
As shippers, respondents lodged a protest with Noel Tabor, petitioner's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City, who promised respondents that their cargoes of tomatoes will be shipped on the next trip.
Four (4) days later, or on
In the same month of November, 1988, respondents filed their
claim with Tabor. The negotiation resulted in an amicable settlement whereby
petitioner agreed to pay 60% of the value of the shipment or P241,500.
Despite demands, petitioner failed to pay the agreed amount, prompting respondents to file with the Regional Trial Court at Cagayan de Oro City their complaint against petitioner for breach of contract, sum of money and damages, which complaint was raffled to Branch 17 of the court.
In its answer, petitioner raised the defenses that respondents' claim has prescribed and that the complaint states no cause of action.
After the respondents rested their case, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence on the following grounds: (a) the claim has prescribed; (b) the evidence points to the fact that a compromise agreement has been arrived at; and (c) the evidence presented by respondents are inadmissible. In their opposition, respondents argued that their cause of action is anchored on petitioner's breach of the compromise agreement.
In an Order dated
xxx. The issue left to be resolved by the Court is whether or not
the cause of action of the plaintiffs has really already prescribed. The
incident which led to the filing of this case allegedly happened sometime on
The Court has gone over the memoranda of the parties and is morally convinced by the jurisprudential authorities cited by the defendant in their [sic] memorandum, which has shown to the Court the validity of their [sic] claim that the provisions in the bill of lading, with regards to the time of the filing of the action, should be respected and should be upheld by the parties. The defendant cited a litany of authorities to support its claim, which has convinced the Court as to the validity of its arguments. On the other hand, the plaintiffs failed to show to the Court that the negotiation on their claim suspended or tolled the period of prescription. Thus, the Court is led to the considered view that the filing of this complaint was made way beyond the prescribed period of one (1) year, as agreed upon by the parties in their contract, which is the bill of lading and, therefore, is left with no other option but to sustain the theory of the defendant.
Therefrom, respondents went to the Court of Appeals whereat their recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52726.
In the herein assailed Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, the
order appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering appellee to pay appellants the sum of P241,500, plus 12%
interest from
Cost against appellee.
SO ORDERED.
In thus deciding, the Court of Appeals reasoned out that the prescriptive period in the bill of lading was superseded by petitioner's offer to pay 60% of the value of the damaged shipment. The offer was accepted by the respondents, thereby resulting into a compromise agreement between the parties, which compromise agreement binds the petitioner. In effect, the appellate court viewed respondents' cause of action as hinged on the same compromise agreement.
Obviously displeased, petitioner is now with this Court via the present recourse, contending that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in declaring that respondents' claim is based on the parties' compromise agreement and in applying Article 1145 of the Civil Code instead of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
The petition is unavailing.
It is undisputed that respondents initially filed their claim with
petitioner's branch manager Noel Tabora who concluded an amicable settlement
with them, whereunder petitioner agreed to pay 60% of the value of the shipment or P241,500.
However, despite demands, petitioner failed to pay the agreed amount.
Consequently, respondents filed an action for breach of the compromise
agreement.
The trial court's finding of prescription based on the 1-year prescriptive period appearing in the bill of lading is erroneous. The prescriptive period in the bill does not apply to a violation of a compromise agreement mutually binding upon the contracting parties.
In this connection, Article 1145 of the Civil Code is pertinent. It provides:
The following actions must be commenced within six years:
(1)���� Upon an oral contract;
(2)���� Upon a quasi-contract.(n)
Here, the parties' compromise agreement was not reduced to writing. Hence, and conformably with aforequoted provision of the Civil Code, the action must be commenced within six (6) years from violation of respondents' right.
Records show that the parties arrived at an amicable settlement
in 1998 and petitioner failed to comply therewith despite demands. The
complaint having been filed on
No reversible error was then committed by the Court of Appeals when it reversed and set aside the challenged order of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA
ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Artemio S. Toquero and concurred in by Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Eubolo B. Verzola; Rollo, pp. 16-20.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
