Stevens & Co. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff F. H. Stevens & Co., Inc. shipped 2,000 pieces of prismatical thermometers valued at $650 from Hamburg to Manila aboard the vessel "MS SCHWABENSTEIN" owned by defendant Norddeuscher Lloyd. Upon arrival in Manila, 1,154 pieces valued at $342.74 were found missing and/or destroyed. Plaintiff filed a notice of loss and/or short delivery, followed by a formal claim, but the defendant refused to pay. Procedural History: Plaintiff incurred damages for attorney's fees (P1,000) and unrealized profits (P664.70). An action was instituted in the Municipal Court of Manila on April 27, 1960, for the recovery of the value of the thermometers and damages. This action was dismissed on June 13, 1960, without trial on the merits, due to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, as it involved admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The present action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on June 24, 1960. The Petition: Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the causes of action had prescribed, as the action was filed on June 24, 1960, more than one year from May 21, 1959 (when plaintiff was notified of the delivery). Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, contending that the one-year prescriptive period under Commonwealth Act No. 65, in relation to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, was suspended by the initial action in the Municipal Court and resumed upon its dismissal, making the present action timely.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year prescriptive period provided under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act was interrupted by the filing of the initial action in the Municipal Court, notwithstanding its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court held that the action was filed within the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sole Issue: The Supreme Court held that the action had not prescribed because the filing of the first case in the Municipal Court interrupted the prescriptive period. Applying Article 1155 of the Civil Code, the Court noted that the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court. The initial action was filed on April 27, 1960, which was within one year from the notice of delivery on May 21, 1959. While the Municipal Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on June 13, 1960, this dismissal occurred after the original one-year period had already expired. Under Section 49 of Act No. 190, if a plaintiff fails in a timely action otherwise than upon the merits and the time limit has expired, they may commence a new action within one year after such failure. Since the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits, the plaintiff was entitled to a renewed one-year period starting from June 14, 1960. The CFI action filed on June 24, 1960, was therefore filed well within the renewed period allowed by law.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an action in a court that lacks jurisdiction, if done within the prescriptive period, interrupts the running of such period, and the plaintiff may commence a new action within one year after the dismissal of the first action, pursuant to Section 49 of Act No. 190, even if the prescriptive period has already expired at the time of dismissal.