TRANSPORTATION LAW – V.

MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY

Assigned cases for digest
B. Persons Participating In Maritime No question is made upon the point that the captain delinquency of his own captain. This cannot be permitted.
exercised proper discretion in casting this petroleum The evident intention of the Code, taken in all of its
Commerce overboard, as a step necessary to the salvation of the ship; provisions, is to place the primary liability upon the person
and in fact it appears that even after the vessel was thus who has actual control over the conduct of the voyage and
1. Art. 586–608 –Shipowners and Ship Agent eased, she was with difficulty prevented from capsizing, so who has most capital embarked in the venture, namely, the
great was the intensity of the storm. owner of the ship, leaving him to obtain recourse, as it is very
G.R. No. L-13695 October 18, 1921 easy to do, from other individuals who have been drawn into
the venture as shippers.
Issue: Who is the person, or persons, who are liable to make
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, plaintiff- good this loss, and what are the conditions under which the
appellee, action can be maintained? Application: It results that the plaintiff is entitled to recover
vs. in this action; and the only additional point to be inquired into
MANUEL LOPEZ CASTELO, defendant-appellant. is the amount that should be awarded. In this connection it
Ruling: Principle: That the owner of the ship is a person to
appears that the total value of the jettisoned cargo, belonging
whom the plaintiff in this case may immediately look for
partly to the plaintiff to another shipper, was P880.35, of
Facts: By contract of character dated February 8, 1915, reimbursement to the extent above stated is deducible not
which P719.95 represented the value of the plaintiff's
Manuel Lopez Castelo, as owner, let the small interisland only from the general doctrines of admiralty jurisprudence
petroleum. Upon the apportionment of this total loss among
steamer Batangueño for the term of one year to Jose Lim but from the provisions of the Code of Commerce applicable
the different interests involved, to wit, value of ship, value of
Chumbuque for use in the conveying of cargo between to the case. It is universally recognized that the captain is
cargo, and the earned but lost freight, it appears that the
certain ports of the Philippine Islands. In this contract it was primarily the representative of the owner; and article 586 of
amount of the loss apportionable to the plaintiff is P11.28.
stipulated that the officers and crew of the Code of Commerce expressly declares that both the
Deducting this from the value of the petroleum, we have as a
the Batangueño should be supplied by the owner, and that owner of the vessel and the naviero, or charterer, shall be
result, the amount of P708.67, which is the amount for which
the charterer should have no other control over the captain, civil liable for the acts of the master. In this connection, it
judgment should be given.
pilot, and engineers than to specify the voyages that they may be noted that there is a discrepancy between the
should make and to require the owner to discipline or relieve meaning of naviero, in articles 586 of the Code of
them as soon as possible in case they should fail to perform Commerce, where the word is used in contradistinction to the 2. Arts. 587– 590,837 – Doctrine of Limited
the duties respectively assigned to them. term "owner of the vessel" ( propietario), and in article 587
Liability
where it is used alone, and apparently in a sense broad
enough to include the owner. Fundamentally the word
While the boat was being thus used by the charterer in the G.R. No. L-42926 September 13, 1985
"naviero" must be understood to refer to the person
interisland trade, the standard Oil Company delivered to the PEDRO VASQUEZ, SOLEDAD ORTEGA, CLETO B.
undertaking the voyage, who in one case may be the owner
agent of the boat in Manila a quantity of petroleum to be BAGAIPO, AGUSTINA VIRTUDES, ROMEO VASQUEZ
and in another the charterer. But this is not vital to the
conveyed to the port of Casiguran, in the Province of and
present discussion. The real point to which we direct
Sorsogon. For this consignment a bill of lading of the usual MAXIMINA CAINAY, petitioners,
attention is that, by the express provision of the Code, the
form was delivered, with the stipulation that freight should be vs.
owner of the vessel is civilly liable for the acts of the captain;
paid at the destination. Said bill of lading contained no THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS PIONEER
and he can only escape from this civil liability by abandoning
provision with respect to the storage of the petroleum, but it LINES, INC., respondents.
his property in the ship and any freight that he may have
was in fact placed upon the deck of the ship and not in the earned on the voyage (arts. 587, 588, Code of Comm.).
hold. Facts: When the inter-island vessel MV "Pioneer Cebu" left
the Port of Manila in the early morning of May 15, 1966
In considering the question now before us it is important to bound for Cebu, it had on board the spouses Alfonso
While the boat was on her way to the port mentioned, and off remember that the owner of the ship ordinarily has vastly Vasquez and Filipinas Bagaipo and a four-year old boy,
the western coast of Sorsogon, a violent typhoon passed more capital embarked upon a voyage than has any Mario Marlon Vasquez, among her passengers. The MV
over that region, and while the storm was at its height the individual shipper of cargo. Moreover, the owner of the ship, "Pioneer Cebu" encountered typhoon "Klaring" and struck a
captain was compelled for the safety of all to jettison the in the person of the captain, has complete and exclusive reef on the southern part of Malapascua Island, located
entire consignment of petroleum consisting of two hundred control of the crew and of the navigation of the ship, as well somewhere north of the island of Cebu and subsequently
cases. When the storm abated the ship made port, and as of the disposition of the cargo at the end of the voyage. It sunk. The aforementioned passengers were unheard from
thirteen cases of the petroleum were recovered, but the is therefore proper that any person whose property may have since then.
remainder was wholly lost. been cast overboard by order of the captain should have a
right of action directly against the ship's owner for the breach Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad Ortega are the
To recover the value of the petroleum thus jettisoned but not of any duty which the law may have imposed on the captain parents of Alfonso Vasquez; plaintiffs Cleto Bagaipo and
recovered, the present action was instituted by the Standard with respect to such cargo. To adopt the interpretation of the Agustina Virtudes are the parents of Filipinas Bagaipo; and
Oil Company against the owner of the ship in the Court of law for which the appellant contends would place the plaintiffs Romeo Vasquez and Maxima Cainay are the
First Instance of Manila. shipowner in a position to escape all responsibility for a parents of the child, Mario Marlon Vasquez. They seek the
general average of this character by means of the recovery of damages due to the loss of Alfonso Vasquez,

Averell B. Abrasaldo – II-Sanchez Roman 1

TRANSPORTATION LAW – V. MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY
Assigned cases for digest
Filipinas Bagaipo and Mario Marlon Vasquez during said salaries for the unexpired portion of contract, moral and Article 627 of the Code of Commerce defines the Chief Mate,
voyage. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees on October 7, 2000. also called Chief Officer or Sailing Mate, as "the second chief
of the vessel, and unless the agent orders otherwise, shall
Due to the loss of their children, petitioners sued for take the place of the captain in cases of absence, sickness,
Petitioner alleged that respondent was relieved of his
damages before the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil or death, and shall then assume all his powers, duties, and
functions as Chief Officer due to his inefficiency and lack of
Case No. 67139). Respondent defended on the plea of force responsibilities." A Chief Officer, therefore, is second in
job knowledge. Capt. Kowalewski allegedly informed them of
majeure, and the extinction of its liability by the actual total command, next only to the captain of the vessel.
respondent’s lack of experience in tanker operations which
loss of the vessel.
exposed the vessel and its crew to danger and caused
additional expenses. Petitioners allegedly advised The exercise of discretion and judgment in directing a ship’s
Issue: Whether the total loss of the vessel extinguished respondent to take a refresher course in order to facilitate his course is as much managerial in nature as decisions arrived
private respondent’s liability pursuant to Article 587 of the deployment to another vessel. However, instead of taking a at in the confines of the more conventional board room or
Code of Commerce? refresher course, respondent filed a case for illegal executive office. Important functions pertaining to the
dismissal. navigation of the vessel like assessing risks and evaluating
the vessel’s situation are managerial in nature.15
Ruling: With respect to private respondent's submission that
the total loss of the vessel extinguished its liability pursuant On April 23, 2001,6 Labor Arbiter Francisco A. Robles
to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce12 as construed in rendered a Decision dismissing respondent’s complaint. He Application: Thus, respondent, as Chief Officer, is a
Yangco vs. Laserna, 73 Phil. 330 [1941], suffice it to state found that respondent was validly dismissed because he managerial employee; hence, petitioners need to show by
that even in the cited case, it was held that the liability of a committed acts in violation of his duties as Chief Officer, substantial evidence the basis for their claim that respondent
shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel or to the amounting to breach of trust and confidence. He noted that has breached their trust and confidence.
insurance thereon. Despite the total loss of the vessel on September 6, 2000, Capt. Kowalewski wrote in the official
therefore, its insurance answers for the damages that a log book of the vessel that respondent failed to follow entry
Principle (with respect to the second issue): Petitioners’
shipowner or agent may be held liable for by reason of the procedures in loading oil tanks while the vessel was
basis for dismissing respondent was the alleged entry by
death of its passengers. navigating to Aruba; that the Safety Officer of the vessel also
Captain Kowalewski in the ship’s logbook regarding
submitted a report on the violations committed by respondent
respondent’s inexperience and inefficiency. A ship’s
regarding safety rules on entry procedures; that respondent
3. Arts. 609–621 –Captains and Masters of log/logbook is the official record of a ship’s voyage which its
admitted his inadequacy or lack of knowledge in tanker
captain is obligated by law to keep wherein he records the
Vessels Arts. 622–624 – Maritime Protest operations; and that respondent was properly apprised of his
decisions he has adopted, a summary of the performance of
Arts. 627–651 – Officers and Crew violations and was given ample opportunity to be heard.
the vessel, and other daily events. A logbook is a
respectable record that can be relied upon when the entries
G.R. No. 180719 August 22, 2008 Respondent appealed to the NLRC which was dismissed – therein are presented in evidence.
elevated to the Court of Appeals and reversed the decision
of the NLRC.
CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC., CENTENNIAL Application: In the instant case, however, respondent
MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION AND/OR B+H correctly pointed out that the issue is not whether an official
EQUIMAR SINGAPORE, PTE. LTD., petitioners, Issue: (1) Whether or not the position of Chief Officer of an logbook entry is acceptable in evidence, but whether a
vs. ocean going vessel is a managerial position or one of trust document purporting to be a copy of a logbook entry has
RUBEN G. DELA CRUZ, respondent. and Confidence; (2) Whether or not entries in the official been duly established to be authentic and not spurious.
logbook of a vessel should not be given weight for being self-
serving?
Facts: On May 9, 2000, petitioner Centennial Transmarine, In the instant case, respondent has consistently assailed the
Inc., for and in behalf of its foreign principal, petitioner genuineness of the purported entry and the authenticity of
Centennial Maritime Services, Corp., hired respondent Dela Ruling: First issue: YES; Second issue: NO. such copy. He alleged that before his repatriation, there was
Cruz as Chief Officer of the oil tanker vessel "MT no entry in the ship’s official logbook regarding any incident
Aquidneck," owned by petitioner B+H Equimar, Singapore, that might have caused his relief; 20 that Captain
Principle: With respect to the first issue: With respect to a
Pte. Ltd., for a period of nine months. Kowalewski’s signature in such purported entry was
managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for
forged.21 In support of his allegations, respondent submitted
believing that such employee has breached the trust of his
three official documents22 bearing the signature of Capt.
On May 15, 2000, respondent boarded "MT Aquidneck" and employer would suffice for his dismissal. Proof beyond
Sczepan Kowalewski which is different from the one
performed his functions as Chief Officer. However, on reasonable doubt is not required, only substantial evidence
appearing in Annex E. Thus, it was incumbent upon
September 14, 2000, respondent was relieved of his duties which must establish clearly and convincingly the facts on
petitioners to prove the authenticity of Annex E, which they
and repatriated to the Philippines. Failing to get a satisfactory which the loss of confidence rests.13
failed to do. Likewise, the purported report of Capt.
explanation from petitioners for his relief, respondent filed a Kowalewski dated September 1, 2000 (Annex D), 23 and the
complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of his

Averell B. Abrasaldo – II-Sanchez Roman 2

TRANSPORTATION LAW – V. MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY
Assigned cases for digest
statements of Safety Officer Khaldun Nacem Faridi and board and discharged at Manila 3 as called for in the bill of present the following documents, duly
Chief Officer Josip Milin (Annexes G24 and H25) also cannot lading. By a letter dated November 15, 1962, our client certified by him, to the customs boarding
be given weight for lack of authentication. immediately applied with your Bureau for the appropriate official:.
amendment on an approved customs form to reflect the true
correct description of the shipment and to effect its release
Although technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply to a. The original manifest of all cargo
from the customs house.
labor proceedings, however, in the instant case, destined for the port, to be returned with
authentication of the above-mentioned documents is the indorsement of the boarding official;
necessary because their genuineness is being assailed, and Collector of Customs replied: The records of this Office
since petitioners offered no corroborating evidence. These show that the vesels under your agency have oftentimes
b. Three copies of the same manifest,
documents and their contents have to be duly identified and failed to declare correctly the cargoes they convey as
one of which upon certification by the
authenticated lest an injustice would result from a blind covered by the pertinent bill of lading. Intentionally, or
boarding official as to the correctness of
adoption of such contents.26 Thus, the unauthenticated otherwise, such incorrect preparation of cargo manifests
the copy, shall be returned to the
documents relied upon by petitioners are mere self- cannot be tolerated for it does not only enhance the
master;
serving statements of their own officers and were commission of fraud but also makes smuggling suspicious
correctly disregarded by the Court of Appeals. since it renders difficult tracing of the source of contraband
goods. In passing, it may be stated that your vessels have c. ...
been found committing the same violations despite the
D.BILLS OF LADING warnings heretofore given and which your company has not
Section 1005. Manifest required of
given any concern. As a matter of fact, your vessel have
vessel from foreign port. — Every vessel
Arts. 706–718,353–375 oftentimes been reported committing the same violations,
from a foreign port must have on board
which conduct is tantamount to willful and deliberate
a complete manifest of all her cargo.
defiance of constituted authority.
G.R. No. L-25783 February 25, 1975
All of the cargo intended to be landed at
The fine of P1,000 was paid by herein petitioner under
MACONDRAY AND COMPANY INC., in its capacity as a port, in the Philippines, must be
protest on December 4, 1963.
ship agent of the S/S "TAI PING", petitioner, described in separate manifests for
vs. each port of call therein. Each manifest
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent. Issue: Whether or not the Collector of Customs erred in shall include the port of departure and
imposing a fine on the vessel, S/S TAI PING, for alleged the port of delivery with the marks,
violation of section 1005 in relation to section 2521 of the numbers, quantity and description of the
Facts: On November 2, 1962, the vessel S/S TAI PING", of Tariff and Customs Code for landing unmanifested cargo at packages and the names of the
which petitioner is the local agent, arrived at the port of the port of Manila. consignees thereof. Every vessel from a
Manila from San Francisco, California, U.S.A., conveying foreign port must have on board
various shipments of merchandise, among which was a complete manifests of passengers and
shipment of one (1) coil carbon steel, one (1) bundle carbon Ruling: NO.
their baggage, in the prescribed form,
steel flat and one (1) carton containing carbon tool holders setting forth their destination and all
carbide cutters, ground, all of which appeared in the Bill of Petitioner herein contends that from "the fact the whole particulars required by the immigration
Lading No. 22, consigned to Bogo Medellin Millings Co., Inc. shipment was indicated in the bill of lading, it is clear that the laws; ...
The shipment, except the one (1) coil carbon steel was not deficiency of the original vessel's manifest was adequately
reflected in the Inward Cargo Manifest as required by supplied by the entries of said bill of lading and, therefore, no
Section 1005 in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Section 2521. Failure to supply requisite
violation of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code,
Customs Code of the Philippines. Allied Brokerage manifests. — If any vessel or aircraft
was committed." The Supreme Court disagreed.
Corporation, acting for and in behalf of Bogo Medellin Milling enters or departs from a port of entry
Co. requested petitioner Macondray & Co., agent of the without submitting the proper manifests
vessel S/S TAI PING", to correct the manifest of the steamer Principle: Sections 1004 and 1005, in relation to section to the customs authorities, or shall enter
so that it may take delivery of the goods at Customs House. 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, explicitly provide: or depart conveying unmanifested
Meanwhile, the Collector of Customs required herein cargo other than as stated in the next
petitioner to explain and show cause why no administrative proceeding section hereof, such vessel
Section 1004. Documents to be
fine should be imposed upon said vessel. or aircraft shall be fined in a sum not
produced by master upon entry of a
exceeding ten thousand pesos.
vessel — For the purpose of making
Counsel for petitioner wrote a letter: Upon investigation by entry of a vessel engaged in foreign
our client, it was verified that the vessel actually carried on trade, the master thereof shall

Averell B. Abrasaldo – II-Sanchez Roman 3

TRANSPORTATION LAW – V. MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY
Assigned cases for digest
The same fine shall be imposed upon any arriving or Facts: On 24 January 1991, Samkyung Chemical Company, Issue: Whether or not the notice of claim was filed within the
departing vessel or aircraft if the master or pilot in command Ltd., based in Ulsan, South Korea, shipped 62.06 metric tons required period?
shall fail to deliver or mail to the Auditor General a true copy of the liquid chemical DIOCTYL PHTHALATE (DOP) on
of the manifest of the incoming or outgoing cargo, as board MT "TACHIBANA" which was valued at US$90,201.57
Ruling: NO (but take not that a telephone call constituted
required by law. under Bill of Lading No. ULS/MNL-1 3 and another 436.70
substantial compliance with the requirement of notice.)
metric tons of DOP valued at US$634,724.89 under Bill of
Lading No. ULS/MNL-24 to the Philippines. The consignee
Application: The inclusion of the unmanifested cargoes
was Plastic Group Phils., Inc. (PGP) in Manila. Principle: Article 366 of the Code of Commerce has
in the Bill of Lading does not satisfy the requirement of
profound application in the case at bar. This provision of law
the aforequoted sections of the Tariff and Customs
imparts:
Code. It is to be noted that nowhere in the said section is the PGP insured the cargo with herein petitioner Philippine
presentation of a Bill of Lading required, but only the Charter Insurance Corporation against all risks. The
presentation of a Manifest containing a true and accurate insurance was under Marine Policies No. MRN-307215 dated Art. 366. Within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the
description of the cargoes. This is for the simple reason that 06 February 1991 for ₱31,757,969.19 and No. MRN- merchandise a claim may be made against the carrier on
while a manifest is a declaration of the entire cargo, a bill of 307226 for ₱4,514,881.00. Marine Endorsement No. account of damage or average found upon opening the
lading is but a declaration of a specific part of the cargo and 27867 dated 11 May 1991 was attached and formed part of packages, provided that the indications of the damage or
is a matter of business convenience based exclusively on a MRN-30721, amending the latter’s insured value to average giving rise to the claim cannot be ascertained from
contract.1 The object of a manifest is to furnish the customs ₱24,667,422.03, and reduced the premium accordingly. the exterior of said packages, in which case said claim shall
officers with a list to check against, to inform our revenue only be admitted at the time of the receipt of the packages.
officers what goods are being brought into the country, and
The ocean tanker MT "TACHIBANA" unloaded the cargo to
to provide a safeguard against goods being brought into this
Tanker Barge LB-1011 of respondent Chemoil Lighterage After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or after the
country on a vessel and then smuggled ashore. 2 In short,
Corporation, which shall transport the same to Del Pan transportation charges have been paid, no claim whatsoever
while a bill of lading is ordinarily merely a convenient
Bridge in Pasig River. Tanker Barge LB-1011 would unload shall be admitted against the carrier with regard to the
commercial instrument designed to protect the importer
the cargo to tanker trucks, also owned by the respondent, condition in which the goods transported were delivered.
or consignee, a manifest of the cargo is absolutely
and haul it by land to PGP’s storage tanks in Calamba,
essential to the exportation or importation of property in
Laguna.
all vessels, the evident intent and object of which is to Application: The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of
impose upon the owners and officers of such vessel an the Court of Appeals, it stated:
imperative obligation to submit lists of the entire loading Upon inspection by PGP, the samples taken from the
of the ship in the prescribed form, to facilitate the labors shipment showed discoloration from yellowish to amber,
of the customs and immigration officers and to defeat We are inclined to sustain the view that a telephone call
demonstrating that it was damaged, as DOP is colorless and
any attempt to make use of such vessels to secure the made to defendant-company could constitute
water clear. PGP then sent a letter to the petitioner dated 18
unlawful entry of persons or things into the substantial compliance with the requirement of notice
February 19918 where it formally made an insurance claim
country.3 Since therefore, the purpose served by the considering that the notice was given to a responsible
for the loss it sustained due to the contamination.
manifest is far different from that of the bill of lading, We official, the Vice-President, who promptly replied that
cannot acceptor place an imprimatur on the contention of she will look into the matter.
The petitioner paid PGP and by virtue of the Subrogation
petitioner that the entries in the bill of lading adequately
receipt, an action for damages was instituted by the
supplied the deficiency of the manifest and cured it of its However, it must be pointed out that compliance with the
petitioner-insurer against respondent-carrier before the RTC.
infirmity. The mandate of the law is clear and We cannot period for filing notice is an essential part of the
settle for less. The law imposes the absolute obligation, requirement, i.e.. immediately if the damage is apparent, or
under penalty for failure, upon every vessel from a foreign Trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner-insurer otherwise within twenty-four hours from receipt of the goods,
port to have "on board complete written or typewritten and ordered the defendant to pay Philippine Charter the clear import being that prompt examination of the goods
manifests of all her cargo, signed by the master". Where the Insurance Corporation’s claim. Aggrieved, the respondent must be made to ascertain damage if this is not immediately
law requires a manifest to be kept or delivered, it is not sought relief with the Court of Appeals where it alleged in the apparent. The Supreme Court then explained that there is
complied with unless the manifest is true and accurate. main that PGP failed to file any notice, claim or protest within no proof of compliance with the required period, which
the period required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, is fatal to the accrual of the right of action against the
which is a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of carrier.27
G.R. No. 136888 June 29, 2005
action against the carrier.17 A telephone call which was
supposedly made by a certain Alfred Chan, an employee of
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE Therefore: Both courts held that, indeed, a telephone call
PGP, to one of the Vice Presidents of the respondent,
CORPORATION, petitioner, was made by Alfredo Chan to Encarnacion Abastillas,
informing the latter of the discoloration, is not the notice
vs. informing the latter of the contamination. However,
required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce.
CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, respondent. nothing in the trial court’s decision stated that the notice
of claim was relayed or filed with the respondent-carrier

Averell B. Abrasaldo – II-Sanchez Roman 4

TRANSPORTATION LAW – V. MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY
Assigned cases for digest
immediately or within a period of twenty-four hours from Application: In this case, there is no question that the
the time the goods were received. The Court of Appeals transportation charges have been paid, as admitted by the
made the same finding. Having examined the entire records petitioner, and the corresponding official receipt32 duly
of the case, we cannot find a shred of evidence that will issued. But the petitioner is of the view that the payment for
precisely and ultimately point to the conclusion that the services does not invalidate its claim. It contends that under
notice of claim was timely relayed or filed. the second paragraph of Article 366 of the Code of
Commerce, it is clear that if notice or protest has been made
prior to payment of services, claim against the bad order
Principle #2: The object sought to be attained by the
condition of the cargo is allowed.
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 We do not believe so. As discussed at length above, there
damages suffered by the goods while in transport, so that the is no evidence to confirm that the notice of claim was
carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims at the time of filed within the period provided for under Article 366 of
delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, and if the Code of Commerce. Petitioner’s contention
necessary fix responsibility and secure evidence as to the proceeds from a false presupposition that the notice of
nature and extent of the alleged damages to the goods while claim was timely filed.
the matter is still fresh in the minds of the parties. (Roldan v.
Ponzo)
Considering that we have resolved the first issue in the
negative, it is therefore unnecessary to make a resolution on
More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a the second issue.
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

The second paragraph of Article 366 of the Code of

Commerce is also edifying. It is not only when the period to
make a claim has elapsed that no claim whatsoever shall be
admitted, as no claim may similarly be admitted after the
transportation charges have been paid.

Averell B. Abrasaldo – II-Sanchez Roman 5