GR L 24092; (September, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24092 September 13, 1967
GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Genato Commercial Corporation (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company (defendants) as arrastre operators for the recovery of the value of 16-1/3 cartons of Royal Corned Beef which the defendants allegedly failed to deliver. The goods were discharged from the carrying vessel into the defendants’ custody on August 15, 1962. The complaint was filed on October 21, 1963. The defendants sought the dismissal of the action, contending it was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period stipulated in Section 15 of the Management Contract. They argued the period should be counted from the date of discharge of the goods (August 15, 1962). The plaintiff invoked the alternative period under the same contract, allowing suit within one year from the date the claim is rejected or denied by the contractor. The Municipal Court of Manila rendered judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Manila except for the elimination of an attorney’s fees award. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff’s action was filed within the prescriptive period stipulated in the Management Contract.
RULING
Yes, the action was filed within the prescriptive period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that under Section 15 of the Management Contract, the arrastre operator cannot be sued except within one year from the date of discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim is rejected or denied. Applying its prior rulings, the Court held that when the arrastre operator fails to act on a claim (neither rejecting nor denying it), the one-year period for filing suit begins to run from the expiration of one year from the date of discharge of the last package. Since the goods were discharged on August 15, 1962, the plaintiff had until August 15, 1963, to file its claim with the contractor. The one-year period to file suit would then commence from August 15, 1963. The complaint filed on October 21, 1963, was therefore within the prescriptive period. The Court declined to address the defendants’ alternative argument regarding damaged cartons, as it involved a question of fact not reviewable in an appeal on pure questions of law.