PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. and TAGUM PLASTICS, INC., vs. SWEET LINES, INC., DAVAO VETERANS ARRASTRE AND PORT SERVICES, INC. and HON. COURT OF APPEALS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 87434
- Promulgated: 1992-08-05
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
Contractual conditions precedent in bills of lading (e.g., 30‑day claim period) must be complied with before suit; failure to comply results in loss of remedy unless excused.
Prescription raised as an affirmative defense may be considered even if not inceptively pleaded, provided its existence is plainly apparent from the pleadings and it was seasonably raised.
Technical procedural lapses (such as non‑presentation of controverted documents) will not automatically bar a meritorious defense when the record and pleadings show the defense' existence and parties have litigated the issue.
Facts
Petitioners Philamgen and Tagum Plastics filed a maritime suit on 12 May 1978 against Sweet Lines, Inc. (SLI) and others for recovery of lost or damaged cargo, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs, arising from shipments transshipped from Manila to Davao (bills of lading Nos. 6 and 7).
The cargo arrived and was discharged to the consignee on 15 May 1977; petitioners had a 30‑day contractual period from discharge to file a claim with the carrier under the bills of lading.
Petitioners filed their claim with SLI only on 28 April 1978, beyond the 30‑day period stated in the bills of lading, raising prescription and contractual notice issues.
The courts below could not precisely establish when or under whose custody the loss occurred; trial evidence did not permit apportionment of liability among the ocean vessel, interisland vessel and arrastre operator.
Issues
Whether petitioners' cause of action was barred by the contractual 30‑day claim period in the bills of lading, i.e., prescription/notice defense.
Whether the non‑presentation of the contested bills of lading as formal evidence fatally precludes the carrier from raising prescription as an affirmative defense.
Whether petitioners proved when, where, how and under whose responsibility the loss or damage occurred to fix liability.
Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint given the evidentiary and prescription findings.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the dismissal: petitioners' claim was filed beyond the 30‑day contractual period after discharge, resulting in loss of remedy under the bills of lading.
Non‑inclusion of the controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence was not a fatal procedural lapse here; the carrier could seasonably raise prescription and it was properly considered.
Petitioners failed to establish when and under whose responsibility the loss occurred, so liability could not be precisely apportioned; this supported affirmance of dismissal.
Keywords
G.R. No. 87434, maritime suit, lost or damaged shipment, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, negligence, Bills of Lading Nos. 6 and 7, compromise agreement, amicable settlement, dismissed with prejudice, jointly and severally, prescription, petition for review on certiorari, insurer, subrogated to all rights of recovery, Marine Risk Note No. 438734, subrogation receipt, subrogatory right, contractual breach, lading