G.R. No. L-24515 November 18, 1967
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL., defendants.

FACTS

On August 11, 1962, cargo insured by the plaintiff, The American Insurance Company, was shipped from New York aboard the “M/S TOREADOR,” for which defendant-appellee Macondray & Co., Inc. was the general agent in the Philippines. The cargo, consigned to Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, was destined for Cebu under a “freight prepaid” bill of lading. The carrier agreed to transship the cargo in Manila to an inter-island vessel for final delivery to Cebu. The “M/S TOREADOR” arrived and discharged the cargo in Manila on September 18, 1962. It was then loaded onto the “SS SIQUIJOR” and discharged in Cebu on September 24, 1962. Upon delivery, a shortage of two tractor parts was discovered. The plaintiff paid the consignee for the loss and, as subrogee, filed a complaint on September 24, 1963, against Compañia Maritima and Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. After Compañia Maritima asserted the lost merchandise was not delivered to it, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 6, 1964 (admitted November 14, 1964), impleading Macondray & Co., Inc. as an additional defendant. Macondray moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground of prescription, arguing that the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act had lapsed, whether reckoned from September 18, 1962 (discharge in Manila) or September 24, 1962 (discharge in Cebu).

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff’s action against Macondray & Co., Inc. has prescribed under the one-year period provided in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

RULING

Yes, the action has prescribed. The one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies. The plaintiff’s contention that Macondray acted merely as a “forwarding agent” for the transshipment from Manila to Cebu, based on Clause 11 of the bill of lading, is not controlling. The action is based on the contract of carriage covered by the bill of lading, which provided for freight prepaid to Cebu City and expressly incorporated the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The transshipment was part of Macondray’s obligation under the original contract of carriage to deliver the goods to the final destination, Cebu. The fact that transshipment was via an inter-island vessel did not remove the transaction from the operation of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Since the amended complaint impleading Macondray was filed beyond one year from the delivery of the goods or the date they should have been delivered, the action had prescribed. The order of dismissal is affirmed.