GR L 25266; (January, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25266. January 15, 1975.
AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., and/or LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION and/or LUZON BROKERAGE CORPORATION, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Aetna Insurance Company, as insurer, filed a complaint on February 22, 1965, against Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, and Luzon Brokerage Corporation. It sought to recover damages to a cargo of truck parts shipped on the SS Turandot, which arrived in Manila on February 22, 1964, and was delivered in bad order on February 25, 1964. Barber Steamship Lines moved to dismiss, contesting jurisdiction and asserting it was not the real party in interest, as the bill of lading indicated the vessel owner was the Wilh. Wilhemsen Group.
On April 7, 1965, Aetna filed an amended complaint, correcting the defendant’s name from Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. to Barber Line Far East Service. The trial court, in an order dated July 7, 1965, dismissed the amended complaint against Barber Line Far East Service on the ground of prescription. The court ruled that the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the bill of lading, which commenced from the delivery of the goods on February 25, 1964, had expired by the time the amended complaint was filed on April 7, 1965.
ISSUE
Whether the action against Barber Line Far East Service, as named in the amended complaint filed on April 7, 1965, had prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The prescriptive period for filing suit under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the contractual bill of lading is one year from the delivery of the goods or the date they should have been delivered. The damaged cargo was delivered on February 25, 1964, making the deadline for filing suit February 25, 1965. The amended complaint, which first impleaded Barber Line Far East Service, was filed only on April 7, 1965, well beyond this period.
The Court rejected Aetna’s argument that the amended complaint merely corrected a misnomer and thus related back to the filing of the original complaint. The legal logic is that the original complaint was filed against a different entity, Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. The amended complaint did not simply correct the name of the same party but substituted a new and distinct party, Barber Line Far East Service. Consequently, the filing of the original complaint interrupted the prescriptive period only as to the originally named defendant, not as to the newly substituted defendant. Since the suit against Barber Line Far East Service was initiated for the first time after the one-year period had lapsed, the action was correctly dismissed on the ground of prescription.