Domingo Ang v. Compania Maritima, Maritime Company Of The Philippines And C.l. Diokno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Ang, as assignee of a bill of lading, sued Compania Maritima, Maritime Company of the Philippines, and C.L. Diokno for damages. The merchandise, 559 packages of galvanized steel sheets, was loaded in Japan on May 25, 1961, aboard the M/S Luzon, bound for Manila. The bill of lading was consigned 'to order' of the shipper and indorsed to Yau Yue Commercial Bank, Ltd. of Hongkong. Ang alleged that the defendants authorized the delivery of the cargo to Herminio G. Teves without the surrender of the bill of lading, in violation of its terms. Teves subsequently dishonored the draft drawn by Yau Yue Commercial Bank, and the bill of lading was returned to Yau Yue, then indorsed to Ang. Procedural History: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Ang's complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint on May 22, 1964, citing lack of cause of action and prescription, as the action was filed beyond the one-year period provided in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The Petition: Ang appealed the dismissal order, arguing that his action had not prescribed and that he had a valid cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action and prescription for misdelivery. Whether the action for misdelivery of cargo has prescribed, considering the distinction between misdelivery and loss of cargo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the order of dismissal, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and cause of action for misdelivery: The Supreme Court held that the action for misdelivery of cargo is distinct from an action for loss of cargo. For misdelivery, the applicable prescriptive periods are either four years for quasi-delicts under Article 1146(2) of the Civil Code or ten years for the violation of a written contract under Article 1144(1) of the same Code. The Court noted that the facts of the instant case were substantially the same as those in previous cases decided in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, Ang, where it was held that Ang had a cause of action against the carrier which had not prescribed. Since Ang filed the action less than three years from the date of the alleged misdelivery, the action had not yet prescribed. Furthermore, Ang, as the indorsee of the bill of lading, was considered a real party in interest with a cause of action for damages against the carrier for the misdelivery of the cargo. The dismissal by the trial court was therefore erroneous. On the issue of the applicable prescriptive period: The one-year prescriptive period provided in section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies only to the loss of cargo, not misdelivery. The Court reiterated its previous findings that the action was based on misdelivery, not loss, and thus the prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act was inapplicable.
Main Doctrine
An action for misdelivery of cargo by a carrier is distinct from an action for loss of cargo. The prescriptive period for misdelivery is either four years for quasi-delicts or ten years for breach of a written contract, not the one-year period for loss of cargo under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.