GR 226345; (August, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226345 . August 2, 2017.
PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. APL CO. PTE. LTD., Respondent.
FACTS
The shipper delivered 250 bags of chili pepper to respondent APL, a common carrier, for transport from India to Manila. The consignee, BSFIL, insured the shipment with petitioner Pioneer Insurance. Upon arrival and delivery, 76 bags were found wet, mold-infested, and a total loss. Pioneer Insurance, as subrogee after paying the claim, filed a complaint for sum of money against APL for the loss.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Pioneer, holding APL liable as a common carrier that failed to overcome the presumption of negligence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. The CA applied the nine-month prescriptive period stipulated in the Bill of Lading, ruling that the action, filed about eleven months after delivery, was time-barred.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner’s claim was barred by prescription under the nine-month period in the Bill of Lading, instead of the one-year period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC decision. The legal logic centered on the specific terms of the Bill of Lading itself. While parties may generally stipulate a reasonable shorter prescriptive period, the Court examined the actual contractual language. The Bill of Lading contained a clause stating that the nine-month period would not apply if a different period was prescribed by a compulsorily applicable law.
The Court applied this exception clause literally. Since the COGSA, a compulsory law governing the carriage of goods by sea to and from the Philippines, prescribes a one-year period for filing actions concerning loss or damage, this different statutory period was triggered. The action, filed within one year from delivery, was therefore timely. The Court distinguished this case from prior jurisprudence where bills of lading stipulated an absolute shorter period without such an exception clause. Here, the contract itself incorporated the possibility of a longer legal period, and the Court merely enforced the parties’ own stipulation as written, leading to the application of COGSA’s one-year prescriptive period.