Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pioneer V Apl

    Uploaded by

    Praisah Marjorey Picot
    48 views1 page
    This case involves a shipment of 250 bags of chili peppers from India to Manila that was insured by Pioneer Insurance. When the shipment arrived, 76 bags were found to be wet, moldy, and unfit for human consumption. Pioneer Insurance paid the claim and then sued APL, the carrier, to recover the payment. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Pioneer Insurance, finding APL negligent, but the CA reversed based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that the one-year prescriptive period for loss of cargo under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governed, not the nine-month period in the bill of lading, so the action was not barred by prescription.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    PIONEER V APL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a shipment of 250 bags of chili peppers from India to Manila that was insured by Pioneer Insurance. When the shipment arrived, 76 bags were found to be wet, moldy, and unfit for human consumption. Pioneer Insurance paid the claim and then sued APL, the carrier, to recover the payment. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Pioneer Insurance, finding APL negligent, but the CA reversed based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that the one-year prescriptive period for loss of cargo under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governed, not the nine-month period in the bill of lading, so the action was not barred by prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    Pioneer V Apl

    Uploaded by

    Praisah Marjorey Picot
    This case involves a shipment of 250 bags of chili peppers from India to Manila that was insured by Pioneer Insurance. When the shipment arrived, 76 bags were found to be wet, moldy, and unfit for human consumption. Pioneer Insurance paid the claim and then sued APL, the carrier, to recover the payment. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Pioneer Insurance, finding APL negligent, but the CA reversed based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that the one-year prescriptive period for loss of cargo under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governed, not the nine-month period in the bill of lading, so the action was not barred by prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 226345 Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. APL Co. PTE Ltd.

    Facts: The shipper, Chillies Export House Limited turned over to respondent APL, Co. Pte. Ltd. 250 bags
    of chili pepper for transport from India to Manila, the cargo was insured with the petitioner. The
    shipment was arrived at the port of Manila and was temporarily stored at North Harbour Manila. The
    bags of chili were withdrawn and delivered to BSFIL. They discovered that the 76 bags were wet and
    heavily infested with molds, the shipment was declared unfit for human consumption. As a result BSFIL
    made a formal claim against APL and Pioneer Insurance. The petitioner insurance corporation paid after
    evaluating the claim and subrogated to all the rights of BSFIL.

    The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, the court granted the complaint and ordered APL to pay
    Pioneer Insurance.

    The RTC concurred with the MTC, it agreed that APL was presumed ti have acted negligently beacuase
    the damage were happened in their custody.

    CA reversed the decision of the trial court, CA stated that the action was barred by prescription.

    Issue: Whether or not the action of the petitioner was barred by prescription.

    Held: NO, the Supreme Court recognized the stipulated prescriptive period shorter than their statutory
    counterpart are generally valid because they do not affect the shippers remedy. It has long been settled
    that in case of loss or damge of cargoes, the one year prescriptive period under the COGSA. It is at this
    juncture where the parties are odds, with the Pioneer Insurance claiming that the one year prescriptive
    period under the COGSA governs, whereas APL insist that the nine-month prescriptive period under the
    bill of lading applies.

    The bill of lading between the parties reveals that nine month prescriptive period is not applicable in all
    action or claims.As an exception. The nine-month period is inapplicable when there is different period
    provided by a law for particular claim or action, the onr-year prescriptive period under the COGSA
    should govern because the present case involves loss of goods or cargo. In finding so, the Court does not
    construe the Bill of Lading any further but merely applies its terms according to its plain and literal
    meaning .

    Thus, the action of the petitioner was not barred by prescription.

    You might also like