Aetna Insurance Company v. Barber Steamship Lines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Aetna Insurance Company, as insurer, filed a complaint against Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, and Luzon Brokerage Corporation to recover P12,100.06 for damages to a cargo of truck parts shipped on the SS Turandot. Aetna had paid the damages to the consignee, Manila Trading & Supply Company. Procedural History: Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. moved to dismiss, asserting it was a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines, had no Philippine agent, and was not the owner or operator of the SS Turandot. It also questioned the service of summons. Subsequently, Aetna filed an amended complaint, correcting the name of the defendant to Barber Line Far East Service. Barber Line Far East Service then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it was not a juridical person, the court lacked jurisdiction, it was not the real party in interest, and the action had prescribed. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and subsequently dismissed the amended complaint against Barber Line Far East Service, ruling that the action had prescribed beyond the one-year period stipulated in the bill of lading and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The Petition: Aetna Insurance Company appealed the dismissal, arguing that the trial court erred in holding that Barber Line Far East Service was substituted for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and in dismissing the action on the ground of prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the action against Barber Line Far East Service, as ventilated in its amended complaint filed on April 7, 1965, had prescribed. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Barber Line Far East Service was substituted for Barber Steamship Lines, Inc.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the action against Barber Line Far East Service had prescribed, as the amended complaint impleading it was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the one-year statutory and contractual prescriptive period had expired when Aetna Insurance Company filed its action against Barber Line Far East Service in the amended complaint on April 7, 1965. The one-year period commenced on February 25, 1964, when the damaged cargo was delivered to the consignee. The Court clarified that the rule that a plea of prescription will relate back to the filing of the original complaint applies when the original complaint states a cause of action but does so imperfectly, and an amended complaint corrects a defect. However, this rule does not apply to a new party impleaded for the first time in an amended complaint. In this case, Barber Line Far East Service was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint, and it was considered a distinct entity from Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. Therefore, the filing of the original complaint did not interrupt the prescriptive period as to Barber Line Far East Service. On the issue of substitution: The Court found no merit in the contention that there was merely a correction in the name of a party-defendant. The original complaint was dismissed as to Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., and new summons had to be issued to Barber Line Far East Service, which replaced Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. as a defendant. This indicated that Barber Line Far East Service was treated as a distinct entity, not merely a correction of name.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an amended complaint impleading a new party, who was not a party to the original complaint, does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint for purposes of prescription. The prescriptive period for the new party commences from the filing of the amended complaint.