Go Chan & Co. v. Aboitiz & Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Go Chan & Co., Inc. shipped 200 boxes of canned milk from New Orleans, U.S.A. to Cebu City via the S.S. Daniel R. Hill. The cargo was delivered short by 24 cases, valued at P416.68. The plaintiff alleged that the loss occurred in February 1947. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu in May 1950. The defendant, agent of the vessel, claimed the loss was due to a peril of the sea and that the action was barred by prescription, as more than one year had elapsed since February 1947. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that a timely claim was presented, but the defendant requested deferment. When the missing cases arrived, they were damaged and unfit for consumption. The court also held that the prescriptive period was four years under Act 190, not one year under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act should have been applied.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) or the four-year period under Act No. 190 (the general statute of limitations) applies to a claim for cargo loss in foreign trade.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the action was barred by prescription. The defendant was absolved from all liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the one-year prescriptive period in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) governs the dispute. Applying the precedent in Chua Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corporation (93 Phil. 207), the Court emphasized that COGSA is a special law specifically enacted for maritime commerce in foreign trade. As a matter of statutory construction, the provisions of a special act must limit or restrict a law of general application, such as Act No. 190, to avoid rendering the special law's provisions nugatory. Subsection 6, Section 3, Title I of COGSA explicitly states that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability unless suit is brought within one year after delivery. In this case, the cargo was delivered or should have been delivered in February 1947, yet the complaint was not filed until May 1950. Because the action was not initiated within the one-year window mandated by COGSA, the defendant was legally discharged from all liability regardless of any requests for amicable settlement or deferment.
Main Doctrine
The one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies to claims for loss or damage to goods transported in foreign trade, superseding general statutes of limitations.