Government of the Philippine Islands v. Inchausti
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, on June 3, 1909, delivered 500 barrels of cement to the defendant's steamer Venus for shipment to Tabaco, Albay. The cement was in good order and condition when loaded. Upon arrival, the defendant unloaded the cement, and the consignee issued a receipt indicating good condition. Subsequently, the consignee discovered that 42 barrels were broken and half the cement lost, alleging this was due to the defendant's careless handling. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed a complaint on February 18, 1911, seeking reimbursement for the lost cement. The defendant filed a demurrer, which was sustained by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed. The Petition: The plaintiff insisted that Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce were repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, by Section 67 of Act No. 1792.
Issue(s)
Whether Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce have been repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce have been repealed by Section 67 of Act No. 1792. Whether the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged the fulfillment of conditions precedent for a claim against the carrier.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer, holding that the relevant provisions of the Code of Commerce were not repealed and that the plaintiff failed to allege the fulfillment of conditions precedent.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce have been repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court held that the first paragraph of clause No. 2 of Article 952 of the Code of Commerce, relating to the prescription of actions, may have been repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, Article 366 and the last paragraph of clause No. 2 of Article 952 of the Code of Commerce do not pertain to the prescription or limitation of actions. Instead, they establish conditions precedent that must be met before a right of action against a carrier for damages to merchandise can accrue. These specific provisions were not repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals generally with the limitation of civil actions. On whether Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce have been repealed by Section 67 of Act No. 1792: The Court found that Section 67 of Act No. 1792 primarily concerns the liability of consignees of public funds or property. While a proviso in this section addresses the carrier's liability upon evidence of opening or tampering with packages, it does not fundamentally alter the existing law regarding conditions precedent for claims against carriers, except in specific instances related to government property. The Court reasoned that the mere repetition of a part of the existing law in Act No. 1792 cannot be construed as an implied repeal of unrepealed parts of that law without a clear legislative intent to do so. The purpose of Article 366 is to give the carrier an opportunity to ascertain the validity of a claim before the goods leave its possession or their condition is altered. On whether the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged the fulfillment of conditions precedent for a claim against the carrier: The Court stated that if a plaintiff's right of action depends upon a condition precedent, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove the fulfillment of that condition or a legal excuse for its non-fulfillment. The complaint in this case failed to allege that any protest or reservation was made at the time of delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, as required by Article 366 and the last paragraph of Article 952 of the Code of Commerce for claims involving damages not ascertainable from the exterior of the packages. An omission of such an allegation renders the complaint defective and subject to demurrer. The Court also noted that the plaintiff did not make any complaint or demand on the defendant prior to filing the complaint, which was filed approximately two years after the delivery.
Main Doctrine
The provisions of Article 366 and the latter part of Article 952 of the Code of Commerce, which establish conditions precedent for the accrual of a right of action against carriers for damages to merchandise, have not been repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Failure to allege and prove fulfillment of these conditions precedent renders a complaint demurrable.