G.R. No. L-24263 November 18, 1967
FULTON INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On August 1, 1961, fifty-one cartons of listing adding machines and three cartons of advertising matters were shipped from San Francisco to Manila, consigned to Marsman & Company. The vessel arrived and discharged the shipment into the custody of the arrastre operators, Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service, on August 25, 1961. The consignee filed a provisional claim for damages on August 30, 1961. Upon delivery, seventeen cartons of adding machines were lost. As insurer, Fulton Insurance Company paid the consignee and was subrogated to its rights. On July 23, 1962, Fulton filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 51017) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, suing alternatively the carrier (American President Lines) and the arrastre operators for the value of the lost goods. On January 31, 1963, the court dismissed the case against the arrastre operators, declaring it lacked jurisdiction because the claim was below P5,000.00. Fulton’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On March 20, 1963, Fulton filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 53457) against the arrastre operators alone, increasing the attorney’s fees claim from P250 to P500. The cases were jointly heard. On September 30, 1964, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the carrier but ordering the arrastre operators to pay P500 (the value of the lost goods was omitted). Fulton filed a motion for reconsideration on October 12, 1964, without a notice of hearing, later supplemented by a “motion to set” on November 11, 1964. On December 1, 1964, the court amended its decision to order payment of P4,701.20 (the actual value) plus attorney’s fees. The arrastre operators appealed, arguing prescription and lack of jurisdiction over the amended order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 51017 against the arrastre operators despite the claim being below P5,000.00.
2. Whether the filing of Civil Case No. 53457 was time-barred under the one-year prescriptive period in the Management Contract.
3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the order of December 1, 1964, amending its decision of September 30, 1964.

RULING

1. Yes. The Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 51017. The complaint alleged alternative causes of action against the carrier (under a contract of carriage) and the arrastre operators (under a contract of deposit). The action called for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, which is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of courts of first instance. Under the Rules of Court, joinder of alternative causes of action is permitted. Consequently, even if the claim against the arrastre operators alone was below P5,000.00, the Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction over the entire case. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the case against the arrastre operators for lack of jurisdiction.
2. No. The filing of Civil Case No. 53457 was not time-barred. The one-year prescriptive period under the Management Contract (from date of discharge, August 25, 1961) was interrupted by the filing of Civil Case No. 51017 on July 23, 1962, pursuant to Article 1155 of the Civil Code. At that point, one month and two days of the prescriptive period remained. The interruption lasted until the order dismissing the case against the arrastre operators became final on March 12, 1963. The remaining period (one month and two days) began to run again from that date. Civil Case No. 53457 was filed on March 20, 1963, only eight days later. Thus, the action was filed within the prescriptive period.
3. No. The trial court acted without jurisdiction in issuing the amending order of December 1, 1964. The plaintiff received notice of the September 30, 1964 decision on October 7, 1964, making the last day to appeal November 6, 1964. The motion for reconsideration filed on October 12, 1964, did not contain a notice of hearing and therefore did not toll the running of the appeal period. By the time the “motion to set” was filed on November 11, 1964, the period for appeal had already lapsed on November 6, and the decision had become final. The court thus lost jurisdiction to amend the decision. The order of December 1, 1964, is null and void.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of December 1, 1964, and affirmed the decision of September 30, 1964. No costs were awarded on equitable considerations.