Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

82. PHILAMGEN v.

SWEET LINES
G.R. No. 87434 / August 5, 1992 / Bills of Lading  The vessel arrived at Manila and discharged its cargoes in the Port of
Manila for transshipment to Davao City. For the transshipment, the
PETITIONERS: Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc. and Tagum service of the vessel MV Sweet Love owned by Sweet Lines was used.
Plastics Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Sweet Lines Inc., Davao Veterans Arrastre and Port  Shipments were discharged from the interisland carrier into the
Services Inc. and CA custody of the consignee. A survey was conducted, and it was found
that, of the cargo covered by Bill of Lading no. 25 and 26, supposed to
SUMMARY. TAGUM, from Davao, imported polyethylene [basic plastic contain 6,400 bags of Low Density Polyethylene 647, but only 5, 413
material] from F. E. Zuellig in America. Co-petitioner PHILAMGEN is its bags were in good order and out of the 600 bags of Low Density
insurer. The shipment has to first arrive in Manila before it can be Polyethylene 631, only 507 bags were in good condition. Only a total of
interisland shipped to Davao. Respondent Sweet Lines was hired to ferry 5,820 bags were delivered to the consignee in good order, leaving a
said shipment to Davao. Upon arrival at Davao, it was found that some balance of 1,080 bags.
of the imported plastics were undelivered or damaged. Petitioners filed
suit on the basis of the bills of lading. Unfortunately, said bills of lading
contain prescriptive periods of sixty (60) days to file for claims of  Tagum filed suit against respondent Sweet Lines and the Davao
loss/damages. It also required notice to respondent carrier before Veterans Arrastre which handled the cargoes at the Davao port.
judicial claims may be had. The bills of lading, however, were not o The basis for such suit are the bills of lading, which serves as
formally presented as evidence during trial. The RTC ruled in favor the contract between parties that the goods indicated therein
of importer-petitioner, but the CA reversed on the basis of prescription. are to be delivered complete in number and in the condition
The SC upheld the CA, saying that even though the bills of lading were specified.
not formally presented as evidence, the same were sufficiently referred o Militating against the petitioners, however, is the prescriptive
to in the pleadings of both parties. Hence, it was deemed judicially period included in the bills of lading. It states that any
admitted and no evidence was required to prove its existence. action arising from shortage or damages must be
brought within sixty (60) days from accrual of right of
action.
DOCTRINE. In the absence of any statutory limitation and subject only o Also, notice of claims for loss or damages is required to be
to the requirement on the reasonableness of the stipulated limitation given to the carrier before the institution of judicial claims.
period, the parties to a contract of carriage may fix by agreement a
shorter time for the bringing of suit on a claim for the loss of or damage • The bills of lading were not formally offered as evidence; hence it was
to the shipment than that provided by the statute of limitations. not shown that a contractual prescriptive period was indicated therein.

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners PHILAMGEN and TAGUM, but
FACTS. the CA reversed on the basis of prescription. Hence, this petition for review
 Petitioners Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc. (Philamgen) on certiorari.
and Tagum Plastics Inc. commenced an action against private
respondents Sweet Lines Inc. (SLI) and Davao Veterans Arrastre and ISSUES & RATIO.
Port Services Inc. (DVAPSI), along with SCI Line and F.E. Zuellig Inc. as 1. WON the CA correctly ruled on the basis of prescription even
co-defendants without formal evidence of its existence? – YES.
.
 The vessel SS VISHVA YASH belonging to or operated by foreign Existence of the provision in the bill of lading on prescription was
common carrier took on board at Baton Rouge, LA, two consignments properly proven in the pleadings
of cargoes for shipment to Manila and later for transshipment to
Davao. It consisted 600 bags Low Density Polyethylene 631 and The litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are
another 6,400 bags Low Density Polyethylene 647. The cargoes were practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are
insured by the Tagum Plastics Inc. with Philamgen. inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in the
determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto. Respondent Contracts of adhesion, while frowned upon, are not absolutely
court correctly passed upon the matter of prescription, since that defense illegal.
was so considered and controverted by the parties.
Petitioners posit that the alleged shorter prescriptive period which is in the
Since petitioners are suing on the basis of contractual obligations indicated nature of a limitation on petitioners' right of recovery is unreasonable and
in the bills of lading, such bills can be categorized as actionable documents that SLI has the burden of proving otherwise, citing the earlier case of
which under the Rules of Court must be properly pleaded either as causes Southern Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
of action or defenses, and the genuineness and due execution of which are
deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse BUT the validity of a contractual limitation of time for filing the
party. suit has generally been upheld as such stipulation merely affects
the plaintiff's remedy and does not affect the liability of the
Failure to specifically deny the existence of the instruments in question defendant.
amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by
the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other In the absence of any statutory limitation and subject only to the
proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being required requirement on the reasonableness of the stipulated limitation period, the
to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been parties to a contract of carriage may fix by agreement a shorter time for
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. the bringing of suit on a claim for the loss of or damage to the shipment
than that provided by the statute of limitations.
In the case at bar, prescription as an affirmative defense was seasonably
raised by respondent Sweet Lines in its answer, except that the bills of Such limitation is not contrary to public policy for it does not in any way
lading embodying the same were not formally offered in evidence. defeat the right to recover, but merely requires the assertion of that right
by action at an earlier period than would be necessary to defeat it through
Petitioner specifically replied to such defense in respondent’s answer, but it the operation of the ordinary statute of limitations.
failed to controvert the existence of the bills of lading. It is thus in the
nature of a negative pregnant. Consequently, they impliedly admitted the The fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve
same when they merely assailed the validity of subject stipulations. the carrier from just liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment
Petitioners MUST SPECIFICALLY DENY THE EXISTENCE OR has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefor.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. This is petitioners’ reply to respondent’s
answer: DECISION.
“In connection with Pars. 14 and 15 of defendant Sweet Lines, Petition denied by the SC.
Inc.'s Answer, plaintiffs state that such agreements are what the Supreme
Court considers as contracts of adhesion and, consequently, the provisions
therein which are contrary to law and public policy cannot be availed of by
answering defendant as valid defenses.”

Petitioners failed to touch on the matter of the non-presentation of the bills


of lading. Hence it is too late in the day to now allow the litigation to be
overturned on that score, for to do so would mean an over-indulgence in
technicalities. Petitioners' feigned ignorance of the provisions of the bills of
lading does not deserve serious attention.

2. WON he stipulation as to the prescriptive period was valid? –


YES.

You might also like