WEEK 11 #21 Wallem Philippines v. S.R.

Farms  Petitioner filed a Complaint for damages against:

G.R. No. 161849 |  July 9, 2010 o Conti-Feed & Maritime Pvt. Ltd., a foreign corporation doing
By: ARQUILLO business in the Philippines and the owner of M/V "Hui Yang";
o RCS Shipping Agencies, Inc., the ship agent of Conti-Feed;
o OTSI, the arrastre operator at Anchorage No. 7, South
Topic: Code of Commerce
Harbor, Manila; and
Petitioner: WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC o Cargo Trade, the customs broker.5
Respondent: S.R. FARMS, INC  Respondent filed an Amended Complaint impleading petitioner as
Ponente: PERALTA, J defendant alleging that Petitioner, and not RCS, was the one which
FACTS: acted as Conti-Feed’s ship agent.6
 Continental Enterprises, Ltd. loaded on board the vessel M/V "Hui  OTSI alleged that
Yang," at Bedi Bunder, India, a shipment of Indian Soya Bean Meal, o it exercised due care and diligence in the handling of the
for transportation and delivery to Manila, with plaintiff WALLEM shipment from the carrying vessel unto the lighters;
[herein respondent] as consignee/notify party. o no damage or loss whatsoever was sustained by the cargo in
o shipment weighs 1,100 metric tons question while being discharged by OTSI;
o covered by Bill of Lading No. BEDI 4 dated March 25, 1992 o petitioner’s claim had been waived, abandoned or barred by
 The vessel is owned and operated by defendant Conti-Feed, with laches or estoppels;
defendant [herein petitioner] Wallem as its ship agent. o liability, if any, is attributable to its co-defendants.
 The subject cargo is part of the entire shipment of Indian Soya Bean  Petitioner alleged that
Meal/India Rapeseed Meal loaded in bulk on board the said vessel o it is not accountable for shortage sustained while in the
for delivery to several consignees: possession of its co-defendants;
o Among the consignees were San Miguel Corporation and o shortage was due to negligent or faulty loading or unloading
Vitarich Corporation, including the herein plaintiff of the cargo by the stevedores/shipper/consignee;
 On April 11, 1992, the said vessel arrived at Manila o shortage due to pre-shipment damage, inherent nature, vice
o shipment transferred into the custody of the receiving or defect of the cargo for which herein petitioner is not liable;
barges, the NorthFront-333 and NorthFront-444. o respondent’s claim barred by laches and/or prescription.
o The offloading of the shipment went on until April 15, 1992  RTC: dismissing respondent’s complaint
and was handled by [Ocean Terminal Services, Inc.]  CA: reversed
 OTSI used its own manpower and equipment and o ordered defendants-appellees Conti-Feed and Maritime Pvt.
without the participation of the crew members of the Ltd. and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., to pay the value of
vessel. During unloading there was good weather. 80.467 metric tons shortdelivered,
 At Plaintiff’s instance a cargo check of the shipment was made by ISSUE:  Whether the claim against petitioner was timely filed.
Lorenzo Bituin of Erne Maritime and Allied Services, Co. Inc., who
noted a shortage in the shipment placed at 80.467 metric tons based RULING: No.
on draft survey made on the NorthFront-33 and NorthFront-444
showing that the quantity of cargo unloaded was only 1019.53  Carriage of Goods by Sea Act17 (COGSA), Section 3 (6): Unless notice
metric tons. Per bill of lading, there was a shortage of 80.467. of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be
 Upon discovery, the vessel chief officer was immediately notified of given in writing to the carrier or his agent
the short shipment by the cargo surveyor, who accordingly issued o at the port of discharge
the Certificate of Discharge
 o or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for
the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit -- may be
carriage, applied suppletorily.
o such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by  SC not persuaded by respondent’s claim that the complaint against
the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the petitioner was timely filed. Respondent argues that the suit for
loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given damages was filed on March 11, 1993, which is within one year from
within three days of delivery. the time the vessel carrying the subject cargo arrived at the Port of
o Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the Manila on April 11, 1993, or from the time the shipment was
receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery completely discharged from the vessel on April 15, 1992.
thereof.  Respondent erred in arguing that the complaint for damages, insofar
o The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods as the petitioner is concerned, was filed on March 11, 1993.1awph!l
has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey o Petitioner was not impleaded as a defendant in the
or inspection. original complaint filed on March 11, 1993.  It was only on
o In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from June 7, 1993 that the Amended Complaint, impleading
all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought petitioner as defendant, was filed.
within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when  Respondent cannot argue that the filing of the Amended Complaint
the goods should have been delivered; Provided, That, if a against petitioner should retroact to the date of the filing of the
notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not original complaint.
given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect  The filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of
or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitation runs
year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods until the submission of the amendment. 
should have been delivered. o As an exception, an amendment which merely supplements
o In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates
carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to back to the date of the commencement of the action and is
each other for inspecting and tallying the goods. not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after
 Petitioner claims that pursuant to the above-cited provision, the service of the original complaint.
o respondent should have filed its Notice of Loss within o The exception, however, would not apply to the party
three days from delivery. The cargo was fully discharged impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.
from the vessel on April 15, 1992, but respondent failed to  Petitioner was only impleaded in the amended Complaint of June 7,
file any written notice of claim. 1993, or 1 year, 1 month and 23 days from April 15, 1992, the date
o Respondent’s claim prescribed because the complaint for when cargo was fully unloaded. Hence, reckoned from April 15,
damages was filed more than 1 year after discharge. 1992, the one-year prescriptive period had already lapsed.
 SC agrees with Petitioner. However, under Section 3 (6) of the
COGSA, failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not
bar recovery if a suit is nonetheless filed within one year from
delivery of the goods or from the date when the goods should
have been delivered.
 A claim is not barred by prescription as long as the one-year period
has not lapsed.
 Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce
states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the COGSA--