Professional Documents
Culture Documents
21
21
*
G.R. No. 87434. August 5, 1992.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
195
196
197
198
REGALADO, J.:
1
A maritime suit was commenced on May 12, 1978 by
herein petitioner Philippine American General Insurance
Co., Inc. (Philamgen) and Tagum Plastics, Inc. (TPI)
against private respondents Sweet Lines, Inc. (SLI) and
Davao Veterans Arrastre and Port Services, Inc. (DVAPSI),
along with S.C.I. Line (The Shipping Corporation of India
Limited) and F.E. Zuellig, Inc., as co-defendants in the
court a quo, seeking recovery of the cost of lost or damaged
shipment plus exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
costs allegedly due to defendants’ negligence, with the
following factual backdrop yielded by the findings of the
court below and adopted by respondent court:
_________________
1 Civil Case No. 115376, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch II.
199
“Of the 600 bags of Low Density Polyethylene 631, the survey
conducted on the same day shows an actual delivery to the
consignee of only 507 bags in good order condition. Likewise noted
were the following losses, damages and shortages, to wit:
/
Undelivered/damaged bags and tally sheets during discharge from vessel-
17 bags.
Undelivered and damaged as noted and observed whilst stored at the
pier-66 bags; Shortlanded-10 bags.
200
_______________
201
6
motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed the instant
petition for review on certiorari, faulting respondent
appellate court with the following errors: (1) in upholding,
without proof, the existence of the so-called prescriptive
period; (2) granting arguendo that the said prescriptive
period does exist, in not finding the same to be null and
void; and (3) assuming arguendo that the said prescriptive
period is valid and legal, in failing to 7conclude that
petitioners substantially complied therewith.
Parenthetically, we observe that herein petitioners are
jointly pursuing this case, considering their common
interest in the shipment subject of the present controversy,
to obviate any question as to who the real party in interest
is and to protect their respective rights as insurer and
insured. In any case, there is no impediment to the legal
standing of petitioner Philamgen, even if it alone were to
sue herein private respondents in its own capacity as
insurer, it having been subrogated to all rights of recovery
for loss of or damage to the shipment insured under8 its
Marine Risk Note No. 438734 dated March 31, 1977 in /
view of the full settlement of the 9 claim thereunder as
evidenced by the subrogation receipt issued in its favor by
Far East Bank and Trust Co., Davao Branch, for the
account of petitioner TPI.
Upon payment of the loss covered by the policy, the
insurer’s entitlement to subrogation pro tanto, being of the
highest equity, equips it with a cause of action
10
against a
third party in case of contractual breach. Further, the
insurer’s subrogatory right to sue for recovery under the
bill of lading in case of loss
11
of or damage to the cargo is
jurisprudentially upheld. However, if an insurer, in the
exercise of its subrogatory right, may
_____________________
202
proceed against the erring carrier and for all intents and
purposes stands in the place and in substitution of the
consignee, a fortiori such insurer is presumed to know and
is just as bound by the contractual terms under the bill of
lading as the insured.
On the first issue, petitioners contend that it was error
for the Court of Appeals to reverse the appealed decision on
the supposed ground of prescription when SLI failed to
adduce any evidence in support thereof and that the bills of
lading said to contain the shortened periods for filing a
claim and for instituting a court action against the carrier
were never offered in evidence. Considering that the
existence and tenor of this stipulation on the aforesaid
periods have allegedly not been established, petitioners
maintain that it is 12
inconceivable how they can possibly
comply therewith. In refutation, SLI avers that it is
standard practice in its operations to issue bills of lading
for shipments entrusted to it for carriage and that it in fact
/
issued bills of lading numbered MD-25 and MD-26 therefor
with 13proof of their existence manifest in the records of the
case. For its part, DVAPSI insists on the propriety of the
dismissal of the complaint as to it due to petitioners’ failure
to prove its direct 14responsibility for the loss of and/or
damage to the cargo.
On this point, in denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals resolved that
although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence,
the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading
which are practically the documents or contracts sued
upon, hence, they are inevitably involved and their
provisions cannot be disregarded in the 15
determination of
the relative rights of the parties thereto.
Respondent court correctly passed upon the matter of
prescription, since that defense was so considered and
controverted by the parties. This issue may accordingly be
taken cognizance of by the court even if not inceptively
raised as a defense so long as its existence is plainly
apparent on the face of
_________________
12 Rollo, 11.
13 Comment of SLI; Rollo, 4-5.
14 Comment of DVAPSI; ibid., 148-149.
15 Annex I, Petition; Rollo, 68.
203
16
relevant pleadings. In the case at bar, prescription as an
affirmative
17
defense was seasonably raised by SLI in its
answer, except that the bills of lading embodying the
same were not formally offered in evidence, thus reducing
the bone of contention to whether or not prescription can be
maintained as such defense and, as in this case,
consequently upheld on the strength of mere references
thereto.
As petitioners are suing upon SLI’s contractual
obligation under the contract of carriage as contained in
the bills of lading, such bills of lading can be categorized as
actionable documents which under the Rules must be 18
properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses,
and the genuineness and due execution of which are
/
deemed admitted unless
19
specifically denied under oath by
the adverse party. The rules on actionable documents
cover and apply to 20both a cause of action or defense based
on said documents.
In the present case and under the aforestated
assumption that the time limit involved is a prescriptive
period, respondent carrier duly raised prescription as an
affirmative defense in its answer setting forth paragraph 5
of the pertinent bills of lading which comprised the
stipulation thereon by parties, to wit:
_______________
16 Vda. de Portugal, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 159 SCRA
178 (1988).
17 Original Record, 31; Annex B, Petition; Rollo, 23.
18 Sec. 7, Rule 8, Rules of Court.
19 Sec. 8, id., ibid.
20 Toribio, et al. vs. Bidin, et al., 134 SCRA 162 (1985).
204
_______________
205
_________________
25 61A Am. Jur. 2d, Pleadings 172-173; Galofa vs. Nee Bon Sing, 22
SCRA 48 (1968); Tamayo vs. Callejo, et al., 46 SCRA 27 (1972).
26 Exhibits H and I; Original Record, 177-178.
206
27
all stipulations contained therein. Verily, as petitioners
are suing for recovery on the contract, and in fact even
went as far as assailing its validity by categorizing it as a
contract of adhesion, then they necessarily admit that
there is such a contract, their knowledge of the existence of
which with its attendant stipulations they cannot now be
allowed to deny.
On the issue of the validity of the controverted
paragraph 5 of the bills of lading above quoted which
unequivocally prescribes a time frame of thirty (30) days
/
for filing a claim with the carrier in case of loss of or
damage to the cargo and sixty (60) days from accrual of the
right of action for instituting an action in court, which
periods must concur, petitioners posit that the alleged
shorter prescriptive period which is in the nature of a
limitation on petitioners’ right of recovery is unreasonable
and that SLI has the burden of proving otherwise, citing
the earlier
28
case of Southern Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
et al.. They postulate this on the theory that the bills of
lading containing the same constitute contracts of adhesion
and are, therefore, void for being contrary to public policy,
supposedly 29pursuant to the dictum in Sweet Lines, Inc. vs.
Teves, et al.
Furthermore, they contend, since the liability of private
respondents has been clearly established, to bar
petitioners’ right of recovery on a mere 30
technicality will
pave the way for unjust enrichment. Contrarily, SLI
asserts and defends the reasonableness of the time
limitation within which claims should be filed with the
carrier; the necessity for the same, as this condition for the
carrier’s liability is uniformly adopted by nearly all
shipping companies if they are to survive the concomitant
rigors and risks of the shipping industry; and the
countervailing balance afforded by such stipulation to the
legal presumption of negligence under which the 31carrier
labors in the event of loss of or damage to the cargo.
______________
207
_______________
208
_________________
209
/
On the other hand, the validity of a contractual
limitation of time for filing the suit itself against a carrier
shorter than the statutory period therefor has generally
been upheld as such stipulation merely affects the shipper’s
remedy and does not affect the liability of the carrier. In
the absence of any statutory limitation and subject only to
the requirement on the reasonableness of the stipulated
limitation period, the parties to a contract of carriage may
fix by agreement a shorter time for the bringing of suit on a
claim for the loss of or damage to the shipment than that
provided by the statute of limitations. Such limitation is
not contrary to public policy for it does not in any way
defeat the complete vestiture of the right to recover, but
merely requires the assertion of that right by action at an
earlier period than would be necessary to defeat it 43through
the operation of the ordinary statute of limitations.
In the case at bar, there is neither any showing of
compliance by petitioners with the requirement for the
filing of a notice of claim within the prescribed period nor
any allegation to that effect. It may then be said that while
petitioners may possibly have a cause of action, for failure
to comply with the above condition precedent they lost
whatever right of action they may have in their favor or,
taken in another sense,44
that remedial right or right to
relief had prescribed.
The shipment in question was discharged into the
custody of the consignee on May 15, 1977, and it was from
this date that
_________________
210
/
petitioners’ cause of action accrued, with thirty (30) days
therefrom within which to file a claim with the carrier for
any loss or damage which may have been suffered by the
cargo and thereby perfect their right of action. The findings
of respondent court as supported by petitioners’ formal
offer of evidence in the court below show that the claim was
filed with SLI only on April 28, 1978, 45
way beyond the
period provided in the bills of lading and violative of the
contractual provision, the inevitable consequence of which
is the loss of petitioners’ remedy or right to sue. Even the
filing of the complaint on May 12, 1978 is of no remedial or
practical consequence, since the time limits for the filing
thereof, whether viewed as a condition precedent or as a
prescriptive period, would in this case be productive of the
same result, that is, that petitioners had no right of action
to begin with or, at any rate, their claim was time-barred.
What the court finds rather odd is the fact that
petitioner TPI filed a 46provisional claim with DVAPSI as
early as June 14, 1977 and, as found by the trial court, a
survey fixing the extent of loss of and/or damage to the
cargo was 47conducted on July 8, 1977 at the instance of
petitioners. If petitioners had the opportunity and
awareness to file such provisional claim and to cause a
survey to be conducted soon after the discharge of the
cargo, then they could very easily have filed the necessary
48
formal, or even a provisional, claim with SLI itself within
the stipulated period therefor, instead of doing so only on
April 28, 1978 despite the vessel’s arrival at the port of
destination on May 15, 1977. Their failure to timely act
brings us to no inference other than the fact that
petitioners slept on their rights and they must now face the
consequences of such inaction.
The ratiocination of the Court of Appeals on this aspect
is worth reproducing:
_________________
211
‘Art. 366. Within the twenty-four hours following the receipt of the
merchandise, the claim against the carrier for damage or average which
may be found therein upon opening the packages, may be made, provided
that the indications of the damage or average which gives rise to the
claim cannot be ascertained from the outside part of the packages, in
which case the claims shall be admitted only at the time of the receipt.
‘After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or the transportation
charges have been paid, no claim shall be admitted against the carrier
with regard to the condition in which the goods transported were
delivered.’
212
/
days is reasonable enough for appellees to ascertain the facts and
thereafter to sue, if need be, and the 60-day period agreed upon by
the parties which shortened the statutory period within which to
bring action for breach of contract
49
is valid and binding. x x x.”
(Emphasis in the original text.)
_________________
49 Rollo, 52-54.
50 91 SCRA 223 (1979).
213
______________
214
_________________
215
/
VOL. 212, AUGUST 5, 1992 215
Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Sweet Lines, Inc.
216
Neither did nor could the trial court, much less the Court of
Appeals, precisely establish the stage in the course of the
shipment when the goods were lost, destroyed or damaged.
What can only be inferred from the factual findings of the
trial court is that by the time the cargo was discharged to
DVAPSI, loss or damage had already occurred and that the
same could not have possibly occurred while the same was
in the custody of DVAPSI, as demonstrated by the
observations of the trial court quoted at the start of this
opinion.
ACCORDINGLY, on the foregoing premises, the instant
petition is DENIED and the dismissal of the complaint in
the court a quo as decreed by respondent Court of Appeals
in its challenged judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
/
Note.—Judicial admissions are conclusive and no
evidence is required to prove the same. (Solivio vs. Court of
Appeals, 182
__________________
217
SCRA 119)
——o0o——