F. H. STEVENS & Co., INC. vs.

NORDDEUSCHER LLOYD HELD:

6 SCRA 180, G.R. No. L-17730
September 29, 1962 49 of Act No. 190 provides:
Concepcion, J.
If, in an action commenced, in due time, a judgment for the plaintiff be
FACTS: reversed, or if the plaintiff fail otherwise than upon the merits, and the time
limited for the commencement of such action has, at the date of such
 Plaintiff F.H. Stevens shipped from Hamburg to Manila 2,000 pieces of reversal or failure, expired, the plaintiff, or, if he die and the cause of action
thermometers aboard defendant’s vessel. survive, his representatives may commence a new action within one year
 May 15, 1959: The vessel arrived in Manila. after such date, and this provision shall apply to any claim asserted in any
 May 21, 1959: The master of said vessel notified the plaintiff that 1,154 of pleading by a defendant.
the 2,000 thermometers were missing and/or destroyed.
 Plaintiff immediately filed the corresponding notice of loss followed by the
The action commenced by the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of Manila, on April
notice and formal claim for loss. But despite repeated demands, defendant
27, 1960, was dismissed June 13, 1960, or over twenty (20) days after the expiration
refused and failed to pay the value of the lost merchandise.
of the period of one (1) year, beginning from May 21, 1959, within which plaintiff's
 April 27, 1960: Plaintiff instituted an action with the Municipal Court of
action could be brought pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 65, in relation to the
Manila for the recovery of the value of the thermometers.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
 June 13, 1960: Complaint was dismissed on the ground of lack of
Under said section of Act No. 190, the period within which plaintiff could
jurisdiction over the subject matter since the same involved the exercise of
initiate the present case was RENEWED, therefore, for another year, beginning
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
from June 14, 1960. The case at bar was commenced on June 24, 1960, or within the
 June 24, 1960: Plaintiff filed a case with the CFI praying for the judgment of
period last mentioned.
the value of the lost thermometers
 July 8, 1960: Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
plaintiff’s cause of action had prescribed, it having been filed more than a CONCLUSION: The order appealed from is reversed and this case remanded to
year from the time when the plaintiff was notified of the delivery of the case the lower court for further proceedings, with costs of this instance against defendant
containing the thermometers. Norddeuscher Lloyd.
 Motion to dismiss was granted.
 Plaintiff filed the present appeal and maintained:
1) that the period of 1 year prescribed in Commonwealth Act No. 65,
in relation to COGSA (within which the liability of carriers may be
enforced by suit), was SUSPENDED by the commencement of the
first action in the Municipal Court on April 27, 1960 and that the
running said period was resumed on June 13, 1960 when said
action was dismissed;
2) that, excluding said period from April 27, 1960 to June 13, 1960, or
forty-seven (47) days, less than one (1) year has elapsed from May
21, 1959 to June 24, 1960, when this case was filed in the court of
first instance.
 In support of this pretense, plaintiff invokes Article 1155 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, which states that “The prescription of actions is interrupted
when they filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial
command by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledged
judgment of the debt by the debtor.”

ISSUE: WON plaintiff is barred from filing the present action by reason of
prescription. NO.