Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

G.R. No.


July 11, 2012

FACTS: Cua filed a civil case for damages aganst Wallem Inc and Advance Shipping Corp for the payment of
damage to 218 tons and for a shortage of 50 tons of shipment of brazilian soybean. He claimed that the loss was due
to the respondents' failure to observe extraordinary diligence in carrying the cargo. Advance Shipping was a foreign
corporation that was the owner and manager of MV Argo Trader that carried the cargo while Wallem was its local
Wallem filed a motion to dismiss raising the ground of presecription under Section 3(6) of the COGSA which 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."
ISSUE: Whether or not prescription has set in
HELD: NO. The COGSA is the applicable law for all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine
ports in foreign trade; it is thus the law that the Court shall consider in the present case since the cargo was
transported from Brazil to the Philippines. Under Section 3(6) of the COGSA, the carrier is discharged from liability
for loss or damage to the cargo "unless the suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date
when the goods should have been delivered." Jurisprudence, however, recognized the validity of an agreement
between the carrier and the shipper/consignee extending the one-year period to file a claim.
The vessel MV Argo Trader arrived in Manila on July 8, 1989; Cuas complaint for damages was filed before the RTC
of Manila on November 12, 1990. Although the complaint was clearly filed beyond the one-year period, Cua
additionally alleged in his complaint (under paragraph 11) that
"the defendants x x x agreed to extend the time for filing of the action up to November 12, 1990."
The allegation of an agreement extending the period to file an action in Cuas complaint is a material averment that,
under Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, must be specifically denied by the respondents; otherwise, the
allegation is deemed admitted.
A review of the pleadings submitted by the respondents discloses that they failed to specifically deny Cuas
allegation of an agreement extending the period to file an action to November 12, 1990. Wallems motion to
dismiss simply referred to the fact that Cuas complaint was filed more than one year from the arrival of the vessel,
but it did not contain a denial of the extension. This presumed admission is further bolstered by the express
admission made by the respondents themselves in their Memorandum:
1. This case was filed by [the] plaintiff on 11 November 1990 within the extended period agreed upon by the
parties to file suit.

The above statement is a clear admission by the respondents that there was indeed an agreement to extend the
period to file the claim. Thus, Cua timely filed a claim for the damage to and shortage of the cargo.