500 Phil. 463
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
As unloading progressed, it was observed on February 14, 1991 that DOP samples taken were discolored from yellowish to amber. Inspection of cargo tanks showed manhole covers of ballast tanks’ ceilings loosely secured. Furthermore, it was noted that the rubber gaskets of the manhole covers of the ballast tanks re-acted to the chemical causing shrinkage thus, loosening the covers and cargo ingress to the rusty ballast tanks…[10]On 13 May 1991, the petitioner paid PGP the amount of P5,000,000.00[11] as full and final payment for the loss. PGP issued a Subrogation Receipt to the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff ordering defendant to pay plaintiff’s claim of P5,000,000.00 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. The counterclaims are DISMISSED.[16]Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the respondent sought relief with the Court of Appeals where it alleged in the main that PGP failed to file any notice, claim or protest within the period required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which is a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against the carrier.[17] A telephone call which was supposedly made by a certain Alfred Chan, an employee of PGP, to one of the Vice Presidents of the respondent, informing the latter of the discoloration, is not the notice required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce.[18]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new one is entered dismissing the complaint.[19]
A petition for review on certiorari[20] was filed by the petitioner with this Court, praying that the decision of the trial court be affirmed.
After the respondent filed its Comment[21] and the petitioner filed its Reply[22] thereto, this Court issued a Resolution[23] on 18 August 1999, giving due course to the petition.ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
The petitioner assigns as errors the following:ITHE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD.II
THE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT DAMAGE TO THE CARGO WAS DUE TO THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT CHEMOIL.III
THE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION AND IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.[24]
WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD. If the answer is in the affirmative,II
WHETHER OR NOT THE DAMAGE TO THE CARGO WAS DUE TO THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPONDENT.
Art. 366. Within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the merchandise a claim may be made against the carrier on account of damage or average found upon opening the packages, provided that the indications of the damage or average giving rise to the claim cannot be ascertained from the exterior of said packages, in which case said claim shall only be admitted at the time of the receipt of the packages.As to the first issue, the petitioner contends that the notice of contamination was given by Alfredo Chan, an employee of PGP, to Ms. Encarnacion Abastillas, Vice President for Administration and Operations of the respondent, at the time of the delivery of the cargo, and therefore, within the required period.[25] This was done by telephone.
After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or after the transportation charges have been paid, no claim whatsoever shall be admitted against the carrier with regard to the condition in which the goods transported were delivered.
. . . We are inclined to sustain the view that a telephone call made to defendant-company could constitute substantial compliance with the requirement of notice considering that the notice was given to a responsible official, the Vice-President, who promptly replied that she will look into the matter. However, it must be pointed out that compliance with the period for filing notice is an essential part of the requirement, i.e.. immediately if the damage is apparent, or otherwise within twenty-four hours from receipt of the goods, the clear import being that prompt examination of the goods must be made to ascertain damage if this is not immediately apparent. We have examined the evidence, and We are unable to find any proof of compliance with the required period, which is fatal to the accrual of the right of action against the carrier.[27]The petitioner is of the view that there was an incongruity in the findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the former allegedly holding that the period to file the notice had been complied with, while the latter held otherwise.
Q: …From the preceding testimony, it is quite palpable that the witness Alfredo Chan had no personal knowledge that the drivers of the respondent were informed of the contamination.
Mr. Witness, were you in your plant site at the time these various cargoes were delivered?
A: No, sir.
…
Q: So, do you have a first hand knowledge that your plant representative informed the driver of the alleged contamination?
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: Personal knowledge [that] you yourself heard or saw them [notify] the driver?
A: No, sir.[28]
The object sought to be attained by the requirement of the submission of claims in pursuance of this article is to compel the consignee of goods entrusted to a carrier to make prompt demand for settlement of alleged damages suffered by the goods while in transport, so that the carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims at the time of delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, and if necessary fix responsibility and secure evidence as to the nature and extent of the alleged damages to the goods while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the parties.[29]In another case, we ruled, thus:
More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods, the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to the action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier’s liability. Such requirement is not an empty formalism. The fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve the carrier from just liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefore, and to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims.[30]The filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefore actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of, or damage to, the goods. The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.[31]