GR L 12951; (November, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12951; November 17, 1959
FILIPINAS PERALTA DE GUERRERO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On April 30, 1957, the wife and daughter of Pacifico Acacio filed a complaint against Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. They alleged that on November 1, 1949, Pacifico Acacio entered into a contract of carriage with the defendant, which undertook to carry him on its vessel “M.S. Regulus” from Malangas, Zamboanga, to Manila. While passing San Jose, Antique, the vessel capsized due to the reckless and imprudent manner in which it was managed and steered by its crew, resulting in Acacio’s death. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action had prescribed, arguing that the action, based on a breach of contract, should have been filed within six years from November 1, 1949, making the April 1957 complaint untimely. The lower court sustained the motion, holding that the action was for recovery of damages not based on a written contract and was thus barred by the statute of limitations. The case was decided solely on the factual allegations of the complaint, with no evidence presented by either party.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription based solely on its characterization of the action as one for damages not based on a written contract.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that a cursory reading of the complaint showed the cause of action was predicated on the defendant’s failure to safely carry the deceased under their contract of carriage. While the complaint did not explicitly state the contract was written, it could be implied, as it is common knowledge that a passenger is issued a ticket specifying the terms of the contract, which constitutes a complete written contract containing consent, consideration, and object. Since the ticket was not before the Court and the case was decided merely on a motion to dismiss, it was improper to dismiss outright. Under Section 3, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, action on a motion to dismiss should be deferred if the ground is not indubitable. The trial court should have deferred action on the motion until after trial, where evidence could show whether the contract was written or oral.