GR L 6420; (July, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6420 July 18, 1955
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS TERMINALS, INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Insurance Company of North America, filed a complaint against the defendant, Philippine Ports Terminals, Inc. The defendant was the contractor and operator of the arrastre service in the Port of Manila, with the duty to care for and deliver cargo discharged at the piers. The complaint alleged that in September 1949, the steamship “PRESIDENT VAN BUREN” discharged one case of machine knives, consigned to Central Saw Mill and valued at P3,796.00, into the defendant’s custody, but the defendant never delivered the merchandise. The defendant admitted non-delivery and offered to pay only P500.00. The plaintiff, as insurer, was subrogated to the rights of the consignee by virtue of a receipt dated October 21, 1949. The defendant refused to pay the full value. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was filed after one year from the accrual of the cause of action, invoking the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Public Act No. 521 , made applicable by Commonwealth Act No. 65 ). The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the one-year prescriptive period for bringing suit under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies to the defendant, Philippine Ports Terminals, Inc., as an arrastre operator.
RULING
No. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply to the defendant. The Act defines “carrier” as including the owner or charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper, and “ship” as any vessel used for the carriage of goods by sea. The defendant, as an arrastre service contractor and operator, is neither a carrier nor a ship. Therefore, the one-year prescriptive period under the Act is inapplicable. The ordinary prescriptive period of four years under the Code of Civil Procedure applies. Since the action was brought within that four-year period, the complaint should not have been dismissed. The order of dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.