Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil Lighterage Corporation
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil Lighterage Corporation
—The filing of
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil a claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefore actually
constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action
Lighterage Corporation against a carrier for loss of, or damage to, the goods. The shipper or
G.R. No. 136888. June 29, 2005. *
consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can accrue in
petitioner, vs. CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable
respondent. condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.
Mercantile Law; Insurance; Subrogation; The requirement
that a notice of claim should be filed within the period stated by PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court
Article 366 of the Code of Commerce is not an empty or worthless of Appeals.
proviso.—The requirement that a notice of claim should be filed
within the period stated by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce is The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
not an empty or worthless proviso. In a case, we held: The object Leano & Leano Law Office for petitioner.
sought to be attained by the requirement of the submission of claims Tan, Acut & Lopez Law Office for private respondent.
in pursuance of this article is to compel the consignee of goods
entrusted to a carrier to make prompt demand for settlement of CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
alleged damages suffered by the goods while in transport, so that the
carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims at the time of Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari which assails
delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, and if necessary fix the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
1
responsibility and
_______________ 56209, dated 18 December 1998. The Decision reversed and
set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court
SECOND DIVISION.
*
(RTC), Branch 16, City of Manila, which ordered herein
2
secure evidence as to the nature and extent of the alleged with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Roberto A. Barrios concurring.
damages to the goods while the matter is still fresh in the minds of Rollo, pp. 31-38; Penned by Judge Ramon O. Santiago.
2
the parties. 79
Same; Same; Same; Filing of a claim with the carrier within VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 79
the time limitation therefore actually constitutes a condition Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil
precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for
loss of, or damage to, the goods; If it fails to do so, no right of action Lighterage Corporation
The Facts Id., p. 1.
5
Id., p. 5.
6
The ocean tanker MT “TACHIBANA” unloaded the cargo On 13 May 1991, the petitioner paid PGP the amount of
to Tanker Barge LB-1011 of respondent Chemoil Lighterage P5,000,000.00 as full and final payment for the loss. PGP
11
Corporation, which shall transport the same to Del Pan Bridge issued a Subrogation Receipt to the petitioner.
in Pasig River. Tanker Barge LB-1011 would unload the cargo Meanwhile, on 03 April 1991, PGP paid the respondent the
to tanker trucks, also owned by the respondent, and haul it by amount of P301,909.50 as full payment for the latter’s services,
land to PGP’s storage tanks in Calamba, Laguna. as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 1274. 12
Upon inspection by PGP, the samples taken from the On 15 July 1991, an action for damages was instituted by
shipment showed discoloration from yellowish to amber, the petitioner-insurer against respondent-carrier before the
demon- RTC, Branch 16, City of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No.
_______________ 91-57923. The petitioner prayed for actual damages in the
13
Id., p. 12.
4
less than P1,000,000.00, and costs of suit.
_______________
Id., p. 11.
8
claim of P5,000,000.00 with legal interest from the date of the filing
Id., pp. 20-23.
9
of the complaint. The counterclaims are DISMISSED.” 16
Id., p. 21.
10
Id., p. 26.
11
Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the respondent sought
Defendant’s Folder of Exhibits, p. 62.
12 relief with the Court of Appeals where it alleged in the main
Records, pp. 1-4.
13
that PGP failed to file any notice, claim or protest within the
81 period required by Article 366 of the Code of Com-
VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 81 _______________
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil
Records, pp. 21-30.
14
surveyor/representative of PGP, Adjustment Standard supposedly made by a certain Alfred Chan, an employee of
Corporation, inspected it and found the same clean, dry, and fit PGP, to one of the Vice Presidents of the respondent,
for loading. The entire loading and unloading of the shipment informing the latter of the discoloration, is not the notice
were also done under the control and supervision of PGP’s required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce. 18
surveyor/representative. It was also mentioned by the On 18 December 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated
respondent that the contract between it and PGP expressly its Decision reversing the trial court, the dispositive portion of
stipulated that it shall be free from any and all claims arising which reads:
from contamination, loss of cargo or part thereof; that the “WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED
consignee accepted the cargo without any protest or notice; and AND SET ASIDE and a new one is entered dismissing the
that the cargo shall be insured by its owner sans complaint.” 19
recourse against all risks. As subrogee, the petitioner was A petition for review on certiorari was filed by the petitioner
20
bound by this stipulation. As carrier, no fault and negligence with this Court, praying that the decision of the trial court be
can be attributed against respondent as it exercised affirmed.
extraordinary diligence in handling the cargo. 15 After the respondent filed its Comment and the petitioner
21
After due hearing, the trial court rendered a Decision on 06 filed its Reply thereto, this Court issued a Resolution on 18
22 23
January 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads: August 1999, giving due course to the petition.
“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby Assignment of Errors
rendered in favor of plaintiff ordering defendant to pay plaintiff’s The petitioner assigns as errors the following:
I II
THE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING WHETHER OR NOT THE DAMAGE TO THE CARGO WAS
THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE DUE TO THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE
REQUIRED PERIOD. RESPONDENT.
_______________ The Court’s Rulings
Article 366 of the Code of Commerce has profound application
CA Rollo, p. 55.
17
II
84
THE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
HOLDING THAT DAMAGE TO THE CARGO WAS DUE TO Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil
THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT CHEMOIL. Lighterage Corporation
After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or after the transportation
III charges have been paid, no claim whatsoever shall be admitted
against the carrier with regard to the condition in which the goods
THE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING transported were delivered.
ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION AND IN DISMISSING As to the first issue, the petitioner contends that the notice of
THE COMPLAINT.
contamination was given by Alfredo Chan, an employee of
24
WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED The respondent, however, claims that the supposed notice
WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD. If the answer is in the given by PGP over the telephone was denied by Ms. Abastillas.
affirmative, Between the testimonies of Alfredo Chan and Encarnacion
Abastillas, the latter’s testimony is purportedly more credible courts held that, indeed, a telephone call was made by Alfredo
because it would be quite unbelievable and contrary to business Chan to Encarnacion Abastillas, informing the latter of the
practice for Alfredo Chan to merely make a verbal notice of contamination. However, nothing in the trial court’s decision
claim that involves millions of pesos. 26
stated that the notice of claim was relayed or filed with the
On this point, the Court of Appeals declared: respondent-carrier immediately or within a period of twenty-
. . . We are inclined to sustain the view that a telephone call made to four hours from the time the goods were received. The Court of
defendant-company could constitute substantial compliance with the Appeals made the same finding. Having examined the entire
requirement of notice considering that the notice was given to a records of the case, we cannot find a shred of evidence that will
responsible official, the Vice-President, who promptly replied that precisely and ultimately point to the conclusion that the notice
she will look into the matter. However, it must be pointed out that of claim was timely relayed or filed.
compliance with the period for filing notice is an essential part of the
The allegation of the petitioner that not only the Vice
requirement, i.e., immediately if the damage is apparent, or otherwise
within twenty-four hours from receipt of the goods, the clear import President of the respondent was informed, but also its drivers,
being that prompt examination of the goods must be made to as testified by Alfredo Chan, during the time that the delivery
ascertain damage if this is not immediately apparent. We have was actually being made, cannot be given great weight as no
examined the evidence, and We are unable to find any proof of driver was presented to the witness stand to prove this. Part of
compliance with the required period, which is fatal to the accrual of the testimony of Alfredo Chan is revealing:
the right of action against the carrier.
27
Q ...
_______________
:
Rollo, p. 9.
25 Mr. Witness, were you in your plant site at the time these
Rollo, p. 54.
26
various cargoes were delivered?
Rollo, p. 25.
27
85
A No, sir.
VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 85 :
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil ...
Lighterage Corporation Q So, do you have a first hand knowledge that your plant
The petitioner is of the view that there was an incongruity in : representative informed the driver of the alleged
the findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, contamination?
the former allegedly holding that the period to file the notice A What do you mean by that?
had been complied with, while the latter held otherwise. :
We do not agree. On the matter concerning the giving of the Q Personal knowledge [that] you yourself heard or saw them
notice of claim as required by Article 366 of the Code of : [notify] the driver?
Commerce, the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals does not 86
actually contradict the finding of fact of the trial court. Both 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil
28
TSN, 11 April 1996, pp. 27-29.
29
Roldan v. Lim Ponzo and Co., 37 Phil. 285 (1917).
Lighterage Corporation 30
Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines,
A: No, sir. 28 Inc., G.R. No. 87434, 05 August 1992, 212 SCRA 194, 208, citing 13 C.J.S.,
Carriers 537, 463, 508; 14 Am. Jur. 2d, Carriers 97;
From the preceding testimony, it is quite palpable that the
87
witness Alfredo Chan had no personal knowledge that the
VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 87
drivers of the respondent were informed of the contamination.
The requirement that a notice of claim should be filed Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Chemoil
within the period stated by Article 366 of the Code of Lighterage Corporation
Commerce is not an empty or worthless proviso. In a case, we The filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation
held: therefore actually constitutes a condition precedent to the
The object sought to be attained by the requirement of the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of, or
submission of claims in pursuance of this article is to compel the damage to, the goods. The shipper or consignee must allege
consignee of goods entrusted to a carrier to make prompt demand for and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no
settlement of alleged damages suffered by the goods while in right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the
transport, so that the carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable
at the time of delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, and if condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of
necessary fix responsibility and secure evidence as to the nature and action. 31
extent of the alleged damages to the goods while the matter is still
The second paragraph of Article 366 of the Code of
fresh in the minds of the parties.
29
liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment has been of the view that the payment for services does not invalidate its
damaged and that it is charged with liability therefore, and to give it claim. It contends that under the second paragraph of Article
an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This 366 of the Code of Commerce, it is clear that if notice or
protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an protest has been made prior to payment of services, claim
investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily
against the bad order condition of the cargo is allowed.
investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent
claims.30
We do not believe so. As discussed at length above, there is
_______________ no evidence to confirm that the notice of claim was filed within
the period provided for under Article 366 of the Code of
Commerce. Petitioner’s contention proceeds from a false © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
presupposition that the notice of claim was timely filed. reserved.
_______________
——o0o——