7/26/2019 Wallem Philippines Shipping vs. SR Farms (2010)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wallem-philippines-shipping-vs-sr-farms-2010 1/1

110. Wallem Philippines Shipping vs. SR Farms, Inc. (2010)

Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., petitioner, vs.S.R. Farms, Inc., respondent.G.R. No. 16184, !"l# , $%1%. !. Peralta&

FACTS& 'ontinental (nterprises, )td. loaded on *oard the vessel +- "i /ang, at 0edi 0"nder, India, a shipment oIndian So#a 0ean +eal, or transportation and deliver# to +anila, 2ith S.R. Farms, Inc. as consigneenoti# part#. 3hesaid shipment is said to 2eigh 1,1%% metric tons and covered *# a 0ill o )ading No. 3he vessel is o2ned and operated*# 'ontiFeed, 2ith Wallem Philippines Shipping as its ship agent. +- "i /ang arrived at the port o +anila 3hereater, the shipment 2as discharged and transerred into the c"stod# o the receiving *arges. 3he o5oading othe shipment 2as handled *# cean 3erminal Services, Inc. 73SI, arrastre operator, "sing its o2n manpo2er ande9"ipment and 2itho"t the participation o the cre2 mem*ers o the vessel. :ll thro"gho"t the entire period o"nloading operation, good and air 2eather condition prevailed. :t the instance o S.R. Farms, Inc., a cargo chec; othe s"*<ect shipment 2as made *# one )oren=o 0it"in o (rne +aritime and :llied Services, 'o. Inc., 2ho noted ashortage in the shipment o 8%.46> metrc tons. ?pon discover# thereo, the vessel chie o@cer 2as immediatel#notiAed o the said short shipment *# the cargo s"rve#or, 2ho accordingl# iss"ed the corresponding 'ertiAcate oBischarge. S.R. Farms, Inc. Aled a complaint or damages against 'ontiFeed and 3SI, among others. S.R. Farms, Inclater on Aled an amended complaint impleading Wallem Philippines Shipping as 'ontiFeedCs ship agent. 3he R3'dismissed the complaint 2hich 2as reversed and set aside *# the ':.

ISSU& Whether the claims o S.R. Farms, Inc. 2as timel# Aled

!"#& 3he 'o"rt Ands it proper to resolve Arst the 9"estion o 2hether the claim against petitioner 2as timel# Aled.With respect to the prescriptive period involving claims arising rom shortage, loss o or damage to cargoes s"stained

d"ring transit, the la2 that governs the instant case is the 'arriage o Goods *# Sea :ct.

?nder Section D 76 o the 'GS:, notice o loss or damages m"st *e Aled 2ithin three da#s o deliver#. :dmittedl#,respondent did not compl# 2ith this provision. ?nder the same provision, ho2ever, a ail"re to Ale a notice o claim2ithin three da#s 2ill not *ar recover# i a s"it is nonetheless Aled 2ithin one #ear rom deliver# o the goods or romthe date 2hen the goods sho"ld have *een delivered.

In the instant case, the 'o"rt is not pers"aded *# respondents claim that the complaint against petitioner 2as timel#Aled. Respondent arg"es that the s"it or damages 2as Aled on +arch 11, 1D, 2hich is 2ithin one #ear rom the timethe vessel carr#ing the s"*<ect cargo arrived at the Port o +anila on :pril 11, 1D, or rom the time the shipment 2ascompletel# discharged rom the vessel on :pril 1E, 1$. 3here is no disp"te that the vessel carr#ing the shipmentarrived at the Port o +anila on :pril 11, 1$ and that the cargo 2as completel# discharged thererom on :pril 1E,1$. o2ever, respondent erred in arg"ing that the complaint or damages, insoar as the petitioner is concerned,2as Aled on +arch 11, 1D. :s the records 2o"ld sho2, petitioner 2as not impleaded as a deendant in the originacomplaint Aled on +arch 11, 1D. It 2as onl# on !"ne >, 1D that the :mended 'omplaint, impleading petitioner as

deendant, 2as Aled. Respondent cannot arg"e that the Aling o the :mended 'omplaint against petitioner sho"ldretroact to the date o the Aling o the original complaint.

It is tr"e that, as an eception, this 'o"rt has held that an amendment 2hich merel# s"pplements and ampliAes actsoriginall# alleged in the complaint relates *ac; to the date o the commencement o the action and is not *arred *#the stat"te o limitations 2hich epired ater the service o the original complaint. 3he eception, ho2ever, 2o"ld notappl# to the part# impleaded or the Arst time in the amended complaint.

In the instant case, petitioner 2as onl# impleaded in the amended 'omplaint o !"ne >, 1D, or one 71 #ear, one 71month and t2ent#three 7$D da#s rom :pril 1E, 1$, the date 2hen the s"*<ect cargo 2as "ll# "nloaded rom thevessel. ence, rec;oned rom :pril 1E, 1$, the one#ear prescriptive period had alread# lapsed.