G.R. Nos. L-10381 and 10714; January 14, 1916
TRITON INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., and ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANGEL JOSE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
1. Two consignments of flour arrived in Manila aboard the steamship Prinz Sigismund in early January 1914, destined for the firms Connell Brothers Company and W.F. Stevenson & Company.
2. The defendant, Angel Jose, entered into a verbal contract with these firms to transship the flour from the steamship to their bodegas located along the Binondo canal in Manila.
3. For the transshipment, the defendant used the lorcha Petroning, a new and duly licensed vessel.
4. During the transshipment, the lorcha sprang a leak, allowing water to enter and damage the flour. The cargo was delivered to the consignees on January 7 or 8, 1914, and they accepted it without protest. The freight charges were also paid without protest.
5. On January 21 or 22, 1914, formal claims for damages were filed by the insurance companies. The plaintiffs, Triton Insurance Company and Alliance Insurance Company, had previously indemnified the owners for the damage and were now subrogated to their rights.
6. The two separate actions filed by the insurance companies were consolidated on appeal as they presented a single legal issue.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs’ right to recover damages from the carrier is barred due to their failure to present a claim within twenty-four hours from delivery of the goods, as required under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court, dismissing the complaints.
The Court held that the failure to present a claim for damages within twenty-four hours from the delivery of the flour barred recovery. It applied the rule established in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Inchausti & Co. (24 Phil. Rep., 315), which interpreted Article 366 of the Code of Commerce. The Court found the facts of the present case to be analogous to those in Inchausti, where a similar timeliness requirement was enforced. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ subrogated claims were deemed extinguished due to non-compliance with the statutory prescriptive period. Costs were taxed against the appellants.