Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953.) Similarly, We Now Hold That in Such A

    Uploaded by

    Anty Castillo
    Dole Philippines filed a claim against Maritime Company of the Philippines for loss or damages under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Maritime argued the claim was prescribed under COGSA's one-year period. Dole countered that the extrajudicial demand it filed tolled the prescription period per the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Code does not apply to COGSA claims given COGSA's intent for quick resolution. Prescription periods in COGSA cannot be extended by Civil Code rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953.) Similarly, We Now Hold That in Such A

    Uploaded by

    Anty Castillo
    88 views1 page
    Dole Philippines filed a claim against Maritime Company of the Philippines for loss or damages under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Maritime argued the claim was prescribed under COGSA's one-year period. Dole countered that the extrajudicial demand it filed tolled the prescription period per the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Code does not apply to COGSA claims given COGSA's intent for quick resolution. Prescription periods in COGSA cannot be extended by Civil Code rules.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Dole v Maritime

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dole Philippines filed a claim against Maritime Company of the Philippines for loss or damages under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Maritime argued the claim was prescribed under COGSA's one-year period. Dole countered that the extrajudicial demand it filed tolled the prescription period per the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Code does not apply to COGSA claims given COGSA's intent for quick resolution. Prescription periods in COGSA cannot be extended by Civil Code rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    88 views1 page

    Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953.) Similarly, We Now Hold That in Such A

    Uploaded by

    Anty Castillo
    Dole Philippines filed a claim against Maritime Company of the Philippines for loss or damages under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Maritime argued the claim was prescribed under COGSA's one-year period. Dole countered that the extrajudicial demand it filed tolled the prescription period per the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Code does not apply to COGSA claims given COGSA's intent for quick resolution. Prescription periods in COGSA cannot be extended by Civil Code rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [ G.R. No.

    61352, February 27, 1987 ]


    DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES,
    DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

    Facts
    Plaintiff filed a claim against Maritime Company of the Philippines for loss and/or damages under the
    provisions of COGSA.

    Maritime filed their answer pleading the affirmative defense of prescription under the provisions of the
    Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, section 3, paragraph 6, provides that:

    The carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
    brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been
    delivered; Provided, That, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as
    provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit
    within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

    The motion was opposed by Dole, stating in its argument since the provisions of the Civil Code are,
    suppletory to the Code of Commerce and special laws, and there being a patent deficiency with respect
    to the tolling of the prescriptive period provided for in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, prescription
    under said Act is subject to the provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code on tolling; and because Dole's
    claim for loss or damage made on May 4, 1972 amounted to a written extrajudicial demand which would
    toll or interrupt prescription under Article 1155, it operated to toll prescription also in actions under the
    Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.  The Trial Court, after due consideration, resolved the matter in favor of
    Maritime and dismissed the complaint. Dole sought a reconsideration, which was denied, and thereafter
    took the present appeal from the order of dismissal.

    Issue:

    W.O.N. Article 1155 of the Civil Code providing that the prescription of actions is interrupted by the
    making of an extrajudicial written demand by the creditor is applicable to actions brought under the
    Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

    Held: No

    The Court in an earlier decision stated in a case governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the
    general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on prescription should not be made to apply. ( Chua
    Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953.) Similarly, we now hold that in such a
    case the general provisions of the new Civil Code (Art. 1155) cannot be made to apply, as such
    application would have the effect of extending the one-year period of prescription fixed in the law. It is
    desirable that matters affecting transportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as possible;
    the application of the provisions of Article 1155 of the new Civil Code would unnecessarily extend the
    period and permit delays in the settlement of questions affecting transportation, contrary to the clear
    intent and purpose of the law.

    You might also like