Case Summary (G.R. No. 28028)
Background of the Claim
The plaintiff filed the original complaint to recover the amount of ₱9,940.95, reflecting the claimed value of the undelivered merchandise. The merchandise was initially delivered to the steamship "Andres" for shipment on October 25, 1922, but did not reach the consignee, Salomon Sharuff, nor was it returned to the plaintiff. The complaint was amended to include additional defendants, including members of Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd.
Defendants’ Position
In their defense, the defendants specifically denied the material allegations of the complaint while asserting several defenses. Notably, they contended that the four cases of merchandise were never delivered to them. They also raised a statute of limitations argument, asserting that the action was barred as it was not filed within the sixty-day timeframe stipulated in the bill of lading for claims.
Court Findings and Rulings
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the full amount claimed. The court examined the evidence, which included the shipping manifest and bill of lading documentation. Testimonies revealed inconsistencies about the actual number of cases shipped and delivered. Specifically, the plaintiff's evidence supported the claim that 164 cases were shipped, but only 160 were delivered.
Evaluation of the First Assignment of Error
The appellants’ first assignment of error questioned the trial court's finding regarding the number of cases delivered. The court emphasized that sufficient evidence justified its ruling, as the majority of the documents, including signed manifests, contradicted the defendants’ claims. The trial court's reliance on these documents and witness testimonies was deemed appropriate, providing a clear basis for the conclusion that the four cases were not delivered.
Assessment of the Statute of Limitations
For the second assignment of error, the appellants referred to a provision in the bill of lading which required claims to be made within a specified timeframe. The plaintiff, having filed the original complaint nearly six months post-delivery, was argued to be in violation of this stipulation. However, the trial court determined the conditions outlined in the bill of lading were not reasonable and thus would not bar the action. The court referenced prior rulings, noting that contractual limitations must be reasonable and conducive to the context of the shipment.
Clause Limitation and Legal Reasonableness
The third assignment of error implicated clause 12 of the bill of lading, which limited the carrier’s liability for silk packages to ₱300 unless specific conditions were met.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 28028)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Date: November 25, 1927
- Citation: 51 Phil. 90
- G.R. No.: 28028
- Parties: Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. (Plaintiff and Appellee) vs. Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd., et al. (Defendants) and Andres H. Limgengco and Vicente Javier (Appellants).
Background of the Case
- The plaintiff, a domestic corporation, sought to recover P9,940.95 from the defendants for the value of four cases of merchandise.
- The merchandise was delivered to the steamship Andres on October 25, 1922, intended for delivery to Salomon Sharuff in Surigao.
- The cases were neither delivered to the consignee nor returned to the plaintiff.
- The original complaint was amended to include additional defendants, Gabino Barretto and P. E. Soon, as members of the limited partnership.
Defendants' Response
- The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint.
- A special defense was raised under the bill of lading conditions, asserting the claim was barred due to the failure to file within sixty days.
- They further claimed that the liability was limited to P300 per package of silk unless properly declared in the bill of lading.
Trial Court Proceedings
- Evidence was presented, leading the lower court to rule in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
- The trial court found that