Read the case of PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION vs.

APL
CO. PTE LTD, G.R. No. 226345, August 2, 2017 1 which is sent with this take home
quiz. Answer the following questions correctly, clearly and concisely in yellow paper
and submit before class session starts for FINAL EXAM on December 7, 2019.

1. Did the Supreme Court uphold the findings and decision of the trial court?
Specify your answer. (5 points)

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The
Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court which states that
the nine months prescriptive period set in Bill of Lading could not apply
because it is contrary to the provisions of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
(COGSA) as against to the ruling of Court of Appeals. The ruling of Court of
Appeals states that the nine months prescription period set in the Bill of
Lading shall be applied as it was sufficient and reasonable and further
emphasizing that the stipulations freely agreed upon by the parties to contract
including the prescriptive period had the bound and force of law between
them.

2. How did the Supreme Court determine the intention of the contract between
the parties in the aforementioned case? Elaborate. (10 points)

The Supreme Court determine the intention of the contact between the
parties by perusal and applying the literal meaning of the stipulations of the
contract as its terms are clear and leave no doubt. In the Bill of Lading, it was
categorically stated that the carrier shall in any event be discharged from all
liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought in the
proper forum within nine (9) months after delivery of the goods or the date
when they should have been delivered. The same, however, is qualified in
that when the said nine-month period is contrary to any law compulsory
applicable, the period prescribed by the said law shall apply. With this
stipulation, the intention of the parties is clear that the nine months
prescription period shall be inapplicable if there is a law setting forth different
prescriptive period. Therefore, the COGSA which sets one year prescription
period shall govern rather than the nine months prescription period. Indeed,
the Supreme Court merely applies the terms of the Bill of Lading according to
its plain and literal meaning.
1
Last Accessed on October 28, 2015 https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_226345_2017.html

QUIZ 2-STAT CON FINALS FOR NOV 30, 2019 Page 1 of 2

 3. Was there a need for interpretation in this case? Justify your answer. (10
points)

No. After closer perusal, the Supreme Court finds the provisions of the
contract clear and unequivocal leaving no room for interpretation. Also, the
Court makes use of the cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts as its
reference. The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is embodied in
the first paragraph of Article 1370 of the Civil Code: 11 [i]f the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.

QUIZ 2-STAT CON FINALS FOR NOV 30, 2019 Page 2 of 2