Facts:
SEVALCO Limited, owned and operated by the petitioner, shipped from Rotterdam Netherlands, to Bangkok, Thailand, aboard its M/V "TAIWAN", 2 cargoes of 50 palletized cartons. They were respectively consigned to S. Lersen Company, Ltd. and Muang Ngarm Retreads,Ltd. Both shipments were insured with the private respondent, Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., a foreign insurance company domiciled in London, England.
Despite the arrival of the vessel at Bangkok, the cargo covered by Bill of Lading No. RB-15 was not unloaded nor delivered to the consignee, S. Lersen Company, Ltd. The shipment under Bill of Lading No. RB-16 was delivered to Muang Ngarm Retreads, Ltd. with a shortage in weight because the cargoes had been either totally or partially dissolved in saltwater which flooded the vessel where they had been stored.
Upon arrival in Manila, Arturo C. Saavedra, master of M/V "TAIWAN" filed a marine protest stating that the source of the water could not be definitely ascertained where it comes from. He was suspecting of some leakage of suction pipes and that hold No. 2 cannot be inspected on account of the full cargoes inside the hold, rendering it to be inaccessible.
The consignees filed their respective formal claims for loss and damage to their cargoes. The insurer paid both claims in the amounts of £I2,180 and £2,547.18 for the loss and damage to their cargoes.
Private respondent, as insurer-subrogee, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover from the petitioner and its Manila agent, Carlos Go Thong & Company, what it paid the consignees of the cargo.
Issue:
1. Whether or not petitioner liable for the damage/loss suffered by the subject shipments
2. Whether or not private respondent has capacity to sue in this jurisdiction
3. Whether or not in private respondent's cause of action has not yet prescribed
Held:
1. No. It was incumbent upon the defendants to prove that the losses and damages were due to causes other than the negligence or fault of their employees. Said defendants have not adduced proof on this point. It having been shown that the losses and damages were incurred while the shipments were in the custody of the M/V' Taiwan' the liability of its owner/operator and shipping agent is clear-they must pay for the losses and damages sustained by the consignees as a consequence of the breach of contract of water transportation.
2. Yes, The private respondent may sue in Philippine courts upon the marine insurance policies issued by it abroad to cover international-bound cargoes shipped by a Philippine carrier, even if it has no license to do business in this country, for it is not the lack of the prescribed license (to do business in the Philippines) but doing business without such license, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our courts.
3. No. Section 3(6), Title I, of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Commonwealth Act No. 65) which provides that:
... the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. ...
This provision of the law admits of an xception: if the one-year period is suspended by express agreement of the parties for in such a case, their agreement becomes the law for them.
The exchange of correspondence between the parties and/or their associates/representatives shows that the parties had mutually agreed to extend the time within which the plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest may file suit until December 27,1976. When the complaint was filed on June 25, 1976, that deadline had not yet expired.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento