G.R. No. 205179 - Magallanes vs. Palmer Asia, Inc.

Petitioner Benjamin Cua filed a civil action for damages against respondents Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (Wallem) and Advance Shipping Corporation (Advance Shipping) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
The claim related to damage to 218 tons and shortage of 50 tons of Brazilian Soybean cargo, totaling damages of P2,030,303.52, as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. 10.
Advance Shipping was the owner and manager of M/V Argo Trader (the vessel carrying the cargo), while Wallem was its local agent in the Philippines.

Advance Shipping moved to dismiss, challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction, contending the claim should first undergo arbitration under the Charter Party Agreement.
Cua opposed, arguing as consignee he was not bound by the Charter Party Agreement’s arbitration clause.
The RTC initially deferred ruling on jurisdiction until after trial, but later ruled that Cua was not bound by the arbitration clause.
Wallem filed another motion to dismiss, raising prescription under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), asserting the suit was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period following delivery of goods.
Cua opposed, denying prescription and citing an August 10, 1990 telex from Thomas Miller (manager of the UK P&I Club, insurer of vessel) extending the filing period from August 14, 1990 to November 12, 1990.

Wallem withdrew its motion to dismiss but expressly reserved the defense of prescription.
The RTC ordered the defendants to file their answer, and after trial on the merits, rendered a decision ordering respondents jointly and severally liable to pay damages including P2,030,000 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the case was arbitrable and barred by prescription/laches.
CA found the prescription claim meritorious, noting the August 10, 1990 telex was neither attached nor presented in evidence; it set aside the RTC ruling and dismissed the complaint.
CA denied Cua’s motion for reconsideration.

Cua claimed that the withdrawal of Wallem’s motion to dismiss, which alleged prescription, amounted to an admission of the extension of the filing period through the August 10, 1990 telex.
Respondents denied any admission or waiver regarding the telex or the prescription defense, arguing the withdrawal did not amount to admission and they expressly reserved the prescription defense in the RTC order.

Cua filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the CA decisions and reinstatement of the RTC ruling.

Whether Cua’s claim for damages against the respondents has prescribed under the one-year prescriptive period under Section 3(6) of the COGSA.
Whether the extension of the one-year prescriptive period by agreement between the parties (as supported by the August 10, 1990 telex) was admitted by the respondents and thus negated the prescription defense.
Whether the respondents waived the defense of prescription by withdrawing their motion to dismiss raising prescription.
Whether the CA committed reversible error by dismissing the complaint for prescription despite the factual context and admissions in pleadings.