Go Chan vs.
Aboitiz, 98 Phil 179
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
The plaintiff shipped 240 cases of
milk and the corresponding freight was paid; that the cargo was transhipped on
the S. S. Snug Hitch and arrived at the port of Cebu in 1947 with 24 cases
shortlanded; that a timely claim for the short-landed cargo of 24 cases was
presented by the plaintiff to the defendant but the latter asked to defer the
claim; that when the 24 cases arrived, Go Tiong, the General Manager of the
plaintiff corporation did not receive them because they were no longer in cases
but in sakes, and that the cans were no longer fit for human consumption - they
were damaged and rusty; that the delay in payment was due to the request of the
defendant for amicable settlement which later, the defendant refused to pay.
The defendant answered that the loss
was due to a peril of the sea and that anyway the action was barred because
more than one year had elapsed from February 1947 to May 1950 when the
complaint was filed.
The court of first instance of Cebu
rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Having failed in a motion to reconsider,
defendant perfected its appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the action has
already prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed.
Under existing jurisprudence, the
prescriptive period of one year established in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
modified pro tanto the provisions of Act No. 190 as to goods transported to and
from Philippine ports in foreign trade.
In this case, the transaction under
consideration is covered by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and since this is
a special act, its provisions must of necessity limit or restrict a law of
general application. Moreover, since the action was not filed within one year
from February, 1947 when the cargo was delivered or should have been delivered,
the law discharged this defendant from all liability in connection with the
carriage of said goods.
No comments:
Post a Comment