F.H. Stevens - Co., Inc. V Norddeuscher Lloyd

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 006 25/11/2018, 12)33 PM

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


F. H. Stevens & Co., Inc. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd

No. L-17730. September 29, 1962.

F. H. STEVENS & Co., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORD-


DEUSCHER LLOYD, defendant-appellee.

Actions; Dismissal for lack of Jurisdiction; Period within which


a new action may be commenced.·Where an action commenced in
the municipal court on April 27, 1960, was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject-matter on June 13, 1960, or over
twenty (20) days after the expiration of the period of one year,
beginning from May 21, 1959, within which plaintiff Ês action could
be brought, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 65, in relation to
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, it is held, that under section 49 of
Act No. 190, the period within which plaintiff could bring a new
action in the proper court was renewed for another year, beginning
from June 14, 1960 (To-lentino vs. Vitug, 39 Phil. 126; Smith vs.
McNeal, 100 U.S. 426, 27 L. ed. 986).

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of


Manila.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


Delgado, Flores, Macapagal & Dizon for plaintiff-ap-
pellant.
Ross, Selph & Carrascoso for defendant-appellee.

181

VOL. 6, SEPTEMBER 29, 1962 181


F. H. Stevens & Co., Inc. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674921e653fc767097003600fb002c009e/p/AQT794/?username=Guest Page 1 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 006 25/11/2018, 12)33 PM

CONCEPCION, J.:

This is an appeal from an order granting defendantÊs


motion to dismiss and, accordingly, dismissing the case
without any pronouncement as to costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action in the Court of First
Instance of Manila on June 24, 1960. It alleged in the
complaint that on March 28, 1959, it had shipped from
Hamburg to Manila, aboard the „MS SCHWABENSTEIN‰,
a vessel of defendant Norddeuscher Lloyd, 2,000 pieces of
prismatical thermometers valued at $650; that on May 15,
1959, said vessel arrived at Manila; that on May 21, 1959,
the master of said vessel notified the plaintiff, thru its
broker, of the delivery of said goods; that, upon
examination of the case containing the same, it turned out
that 1,154 pieces of said thermometers valued at $342.74,
were missing and/or destroyed; that plaintiff immediately
filed the corresponding notice of loss and/or short delivery,
followed by the corresponding notice and formal claim for
loss and/or short delivery; that, despite several demands,
defendant had refused and failed to pay said sum of
$342.74; that, as a consequence, plaintiff had, also,
incurred damages in the sums of P1,000, as attorneyÊs fees,
and P664.70, as unrealized profits; and that an action
instituted in the Municipal Court of Manila on April 27,
1960·seemingly, for the recovery of the value of said
thermometers and the amount of said damages·was
dismissed by said court on June 13, 1960, without any trial
on the merits, upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject-matter of the case, inasmuch as the same
involved the exercise of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction. Plaintiff prayed for judgment for said sums of
$342.74, P1,000 and P664.70, plus costs.
On July 8, 1960, defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint upon the ground that plaintiff Ês causes of action
had prescribed, it having been filed on June 24, 1960, or
more than a year from May 21, 1959, when plaintiff was
notified of the delivery of the case containing the
thermometers in question. This motion having been
granted and the complaint dismissed, plaintiff interposed
this appeal, maintaining that the period of one (1) year pre-

182

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674921e653fc767097003600fb002c009e/p/AQT794/?username=Guest Page 2 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 006 25/11/2018, 12)33 PM

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


F. H. Stevens & Co., Inc. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd

scribed in Commonwealth Act No. 65, in relation to the


Carriage of Goods by Sea Act·within which the liability of
carriers, based upon a contract of carriage of goods by sea,
may be enforced by suit·was suspended by the
commencement of the first action in the municipal court, on
April 27, 1960; that the running of said period was
resumed or continued on June 13, 1960, when said action
was dismissed; and that, excluding said period, from April
27, 1960 to June 13, 1960, or forty-seven (47) days, less
than one (1) year has elapsed from May 21, 1959 to June
24, 1960, when this case was filed in the court of first
instance. In support of this pretense, plaintiff invokes
Article 1155 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, reading:

„The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed


before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by
the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the
debt by the debtor.‰

Upon mature deliberation, we are of the opinion, and so


hold, that the order appealed from should be reversed, not
only because of the operation of said Article 1155 of our
Civil Code, but, also, in view of the provisions of section 49
of Act No. 190, pursuant to which:

„If, in an action commenced, in due time, a judgment for the


plaintiff be reversed, or if the plaintiff fail otherwise than upon the
merits, and the time limited for the commencement of such action
has, at the date of such reversal or failure, expired, the plaintiff, or,
if he die and the cause of action survive, his representatives may
commence a new action within one year after such date, and this
provision shall apply to any claim asserted in any pleading by a
defendant.‰

The action commenced by the plaintiff in the Municipal


Court of Manila, on April 27, 1960, was dismissed on June
13, 1960, or over twenty (20) days after the expiration of
the period of one (1) year, beginning from May 21, 1959,
within which plaintiff Ês action could be brought, pursuant
to Commonwealth Act No. 65, in relation to the Carriage of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674921e653fc767097003600fb002c009e/p/AQT794/?username=Guest Page 3 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 006 25/11/2018, 12)33 PM

Goods by Sea Act. Under said section 49 of Act No. 190, the
period within which plaintiff could initiate the present case
was renewed, therefore, for another year, beginning from
June 14, 1960 (Tolentino vs.

183

VOL. 6, SEPTEMBER 29, 1962 183


F. H. Stevens & Co., Inc. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd

Vitug, 39 Phil. 126; Smith vs. McNeal, 100 U.S. 426, 27 L.


ed. 986). The case at bar was commenced on June 24, 1960,
or within the period last mentioned.
The cases of Oriental Commercial Co. vs. Jureidini (71
Phil. 25) and Conspecto vs. Fruto (31 Phil. 144), in which it
was held that:

„x x x Cuando se entabía una accíon dentro del plazo de prescripcion


y se desiste de ella despues, o se sobresee sin condiciones, por una
razon u otra, no hace que la acción que se entable mas tarde, pero
ya fuera del periodo de prescripcion, se pueda considerar como
presentada detro de dicho periodo porque quiere contrase con la
acción entablada con anterioridad. La falta de gestion de la
recurrente por cuya causa se desestimaron sus demandas segunda y
tercera, no puede interpretarse sino como una renuncia de su parte;
y, al ejercitar su última acción no se ha colocado en la misma
situación en que antes se hallaba al ejercitar sus tres anteriores
acciones. Este es el mismo criterio que expresamos cuando se nos
presentó una cuestión análoga en la causa de Conspecto contra
Fruto, 31 Jur. Fil., 155.‰ (Italics supplied.)

are not in point, for the dismissal of the herein plaintiff Ês


complaint in the municipal court was not due to its
desistance or voluntary abandonment.
Insofar as inconsistent with the conclusion we have thus
reached, the view adopted in Chua Kuy vs. Everest
Steamship Corp., L-5534 (May 27, 1953) and Yek Tong Lin
Fire & Marine Insurance Co. vs. American President Lines,
Inc., L-11081 (April 30, 1958) should be, as it is hereby,
modified accordingly.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and
this case remanded to the lower court for further

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674921e653fc767097003600fb002c009e/p/AQT794/?username=Guest Page 4 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 006 25/11/2018, 12)33 PM

proceedings, with costs of this instance against defendant


Norddeuscher Lloyd. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Barrera,


Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Labrador, J., concurs in the result.
Reyes, J.B.L., did not take part.

Order reversed and case remanded to lower court for


further proceedings.

Note.·See Ongsiako v. Ongsiako, L-7510, March 30,


1957 and Amar v. Odianan, L-15179, Sept. 30, 1960, which

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Torrijos vs. Crisologo

held that while the prescription of action is interrupted


when they are filed before the court, still, if the case is
dismissed without any unfavorable judgment against the
defendants, even if without prejudice to another action, the
same does not constitute an interruption of the period of
prescription for the parties are in exactly the same
position.

········

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674921e653fc767097003600fb002c009e/p/AQT794/?username=Guest Page 5 of 5

You might also like