Case Digest (G.R. No. 28028)
Facts:
The case at hand is Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. vs. Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd., et al. (G.R. No. 28028), decided on November 25, 1927. The plaintiff, Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., a domestic corporation, filed a complaint seeking to recover the sum of P9,940.95 from the defendants for four cases of merchandise that were delivered for shipment on October 25, 1922, from Manila to Surigao via the steamship Andres. The intended consignee was Salomon Sharuff, but these cases were neither delivered to him upon arrival nor returned to the plaintiff. Following the original complaint, amendments were made to include members of Gabino Barretto & Co., et al., as defendants.In response, the defendants denied the allegations and argued that the merchandise was never delivered to them. They cited a provision in the bill of lading that required the plaintiff to file any claims within sixty days of accrual. Furthermore, they contended that, under another clause in the bill of lading, liability was l
Case Digest (G.R. No. 28028)
Facts:
- Parties and Transaction
- Plaintiff: Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., a domestic corporation.
- Defendants: Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd. and others, including the limited partnership members and individuals Andres H. Limgengco and Vicente Javier (appellants).
- Transaction: The plaintiff delivered 164 cases of merchandise (silk) on October 25, 1922, in Manila for shipment aboard the steamship Andres destined for Surigao, with Salomon Sharuff designated as the consignee.
- Alleged Loss
- Discrepancy in Delivery: Although 164 cases were loaded, only 160 cases were reportedly delivered in Surigao.
- Specific Merchandise at Issue: Four cases of merchandise (silk) were never delivered to the consignee, nor returned to the plaintiff, prompting the recovery claim of P9,940.95.
- Amended Complaint and Defendants’ Responses
- Amendment: The original complaint was amended to include additional defendants (i.e., Gabino Barretto and P. E. Soon as members of the limited partnership).
- Denials and Special Defenses:
- Defendants issued a specific denial of all material allegations.
- Defendants raised a special defense invoking paragraph 7 of the printed conditions on the back of the bill of lading, alleging that the action was not initiated within the required sixty-day period from the accrual of the cause of action.
- Additionally, the defendant Soon did not answer the complaint.
- Another special defense was based on clause 12 of the bill of lading, which purported to limit the carrier’s liability to P300 for any package of silk, unless the value had been correctly declared.
- Documentary Evidence and Testimonies
- Documentary Evidence:
- Exhibit D (Manifest): Signed by “G. Barretto, Agents” for Andres H. Limgengco, showing 165 cases as belonging to the plaintiff.
- Bills of Lading (Exhibits I, J, K): Signed by the second officer, Claro Galleros, documenting the shipment of 165 cases.
- Exhibit H: A triplicate copy of bill of lading No. 62, annotated by first officer Francisco Masingsong, mentioning that among the merchandise discharged in Surigao were the four missing cases.
- Testimonies:
- Claro Galleros testified that throughout the loading process, he tallied and noted on the bill of lading that only 160 cases were loaded on board.
- Annotations: The original figure “1” and the word “bulto” on Exhibit I were altered by Galleros to read “5” and “bultos.”
- Salomon Sharuff’s Testimony: Sharuff denied conformity with Galleros’ annotation regarding any shortage.
- Other Witnesses: Notably, the first officer Francisco Masingsong, who attested that all merchandise, including the four cases in question, were discharged in Surigao. However, these additional witnesses were not presented by the appellants to corroborate Galleros’ testimony.
- Timing of Claims and Proceedings
- Plaintiff’s Immediate Actions:
- Claim for loss was made by the plaintiff within seven days of discovering the shortage of cases.
- A second claim was articulated on December 29, 1922, with a notice of potential attorney intervention if the claim was unsettled by January 3, 1923.
- Commencement of Judicial Action: The complaint was ultimately filed on April 17, 1923, nearly six months after the shipment.
Issues:
- Factual Determination on Shipment Quantities
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that 164 cases of goods were delivered and loaded on board the steamship Andres, given conflicting tallies and annotations on the bill of lading.
- Applicability and Binding Nature of Bill of Lading Provisions
- Whether the appellees were bound by the terms and conditions printed on the back of the bill of lading, especially considering that these conditions were not printed on the triplicate copies delivered to the plaintiff.
- Whether the special defense alleging that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred under paragraph 7 (limitation period of sixty days) of the bill of lading applies.
- Limitation of Liability Clauses
- Whether the trial court erred in not giving effect to the appellants’ special defense based on clause 12 of the bill of lading, which limits the liability of the carrier for any single package of silk to P300, unless the package’s value was correctly declared.
- Whether such a limitation is reasonable and enforceable, particularly in view of the actual commercial value of the goods and principles of public policy.
- Assessment of Damage and Judgment Amount
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding judgment in the sum of P9,940.95 against the appellants, considering the purported contractual limitations and alleged discrepancies in the shipment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)