FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-7280. January 20, 1956.]
TAN LIAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
Cirilo Paredes and Cornelio Antiquera for appellant.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT; DAMAGES TO GOODS WHILE IN TRANSIT AMOUNTS TO BREACH OF CONTACT OF CARRIAGE. — Any and all injury or damages suffered by the goods, while in transit and in the custody of the carrier, amounts to a breach of the contract of carriage, unless due to fortuitous event; for the carrier is bound to transport the goods safely and so breaches its contract if it neglects such duty.
2. ID.; ID.; NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN DAMAGES TO GOODS AND DAMAGES TO SHIPPER; ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. — Whatever damage or injury is suffered by the goods while in transit would result in loss or damage to either the shipper or the consignee. As long as it is claimed that the losses or damages suffered by the shipper or consignee were due to the arrival of the goods in damaged or deteriorated condition, the action is still basically one for damage to the goods, and must be filed within the period of one year from delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered, as provided by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; OBLIGATIONS OF CARRIER; CARRIER LIABLE FOR UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IN TRANSPORTING GOODS. — The obligation of the carrier to carry the goods includes the duty not to delay their transportation, so that if the goods are lost or damaged by reason of an unjustified delay, the carrier is held liable therefor.
4. ID.; ID.; WHEN TO FILE ACTION; EFFECT ON ACT NO. 190. — The prescriptive period of one year established in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act modified pro tanto the provisions of Act No. 190 as to goods transported to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade, the former being a special act while the latter is a law of general application. (Chua kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., 50 Off. Gaz., No. 1, 159; Go Chan & Co. v. Aboitiz & Co., supra, p. 179.)
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENDENCY OF CLAIM DOES NOT SUSPEND PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
2. ID.; ID.; NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN DAMAGES TO GOODS AND DAMAGES TO SHIPPER; ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. — Whatever damage or injury is suffered by the goods while in transit would result in loss or damage to either the shipper or the consignee. As long as it is claimed that the losses or damages suffered by the shipper or consignee were due to the arrival of the goods in damaged or deteriorated condition, the action is still basically one for damage to the goods, and must be filed within the period of one year from delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered, as provided by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; OBLIGATIONS OF CARRIER; CARRIER LIABLE FOR UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IN TRANSPORTING GOODS. — The obligation of the carrier to carry the goods includes the duty not to delay their transportation, so that if the goods are lost or damaged by reason of an unjustified delay, the carrier is held liable therefor.
4. ID.; ID.; WHEN TO FILE ACTION; EFFECT ON ACT NO. 190. — The prescriptive period of one year established in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act modified pro tanto the provisions of Act No. 190 as to goods transported to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade, the former being a special act while the latter is a law of general application. (Chua kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., 50 Off. Gaz., No. 1, 159; Go Chan & Co. v. Aboitiz & Co., supra, p. 179.)
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENDENCY OF CLAIM DOES NOT SUSPEND PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
