Case Digest (G.R. No. 171337)
Facts:
Benjamin Cua (Cua Ulan Tek) v. Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. and Advance Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 171337, July 30, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benjamin Cua sued respondents Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (local agent) and Advance Shipping Corporation (owner/manager of M/V Argo Trader) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Manila, for P2,030,303.52 as damages for loss and shortage of Brazilian soybean cargo under Bill of Lading No. 10.On November 12, 1990, Cua filed the complaint; respondents separately moved to dismiss. Advance Shipping's motion argued the dispute was arbitrable under the Charter Party Agreement; Wallem's motion asserted prescription under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) (one‑year period to sue). Cua opposed Wallem's motion, alleging an agreement extending the commencement of suit until November 12, 1990, supported by reference to an August 10, 1990 telex from Thomas Miller (UK P&I Club). The RTC initially deferred jurisdictional questions, later ruled Cua was not bound by the Charter Party arbitration clause, and—after a June 5, 1992 order denying further action on Wallem's motion to dismiss—required the defendants to answer.
After trial, the RTC issued judgment on December 28, 1995, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for P2,030,000.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, and dismissed respondents' counterclaims. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, on May 16, 2005, reversed the RTC: it found that the alleged August 10, 1990 telex was neither attached to Cua’s opposition nor offered at trial, concluded there was no basis to find an extension of the one‑year period, and dismissed the compla...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a court consider prescription motu proprio when the defendant failed to plead it in a motion to dismiss or answer?
- Did Cua’s action prescribe under COGSA Section 3(6), or was the one‑year period validly extended so that the complaint...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)