Roldan vs. Lim Ponzo & Co.

Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which requires a consignee to make a claim for damage or average within twenty-four hours of receipt, applies exclusively to cases where the carrier delivers and the consignee receives the goods under the contract of carriage; it does not apply to claims arising from the carrier’s total failure to deliver, nor to goods salvaged by the shipper himself independently of any delivery under the contract.

Plaintiff Monico G. Roldan delivered 2,244 packages of sugar to defendant Lim Ponzo & Co. for transportation by lorcha from his hacienda to Iloilo. During the voyage the lorcha was wrecked in the Jalaud River. Only 1,022 packages were saved, and those were damaged; the remaining 1,222 packages were lost entirely. Plaintiff sued for damages of ₱3,780.12, alleging that the wreck and loss resulted from the negligence and lack of skill of the vessel’s master.

• Contract and Loss: Defendant carrier admitted the contract of carriage, receipt of 2,244 packages (bayones) of sugar, and the loss of a part of the sugar. The lorcha was wrecked in the Jalaud River; 1,222 packages were not delivered, and 1,022 packages were saved in a more or less damaged condition.
• Allegations of Fault: Plaintiff’s evidence at trial tended to show that the wreck and resulting loss were caused by the negligence and lack of skill of the lorcha’s master in managing the vessel.
• Dismissal: After plaintiff completed his evidence, the trial judge dismissed the complaint without hearing defendant’s evidence. The dismissal rested entirely on the alleged failure to comply with Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which requires that a claim for damage or average be made within twenty-four hours of receipt of the goods.
• Uncertainty as to Salvaged Goods: The record did not conclusively establish whether the 1,022 damaged packages were formally delivered by the carrier to the consignee under the contract, or whether the plaintiff himself recovered them from the wreck in an effort to save his property from total loss.

• Non-Applicability of Article 366 to Non-Delivery: Plaintiff-appellant contended that Article 366 applies solely to claims for damage to goods actually delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee, and has no application to a claim based on the carrier’s complete failure to deliver the goods.
• Independent Recovery of Goods: Plaintiff further argued that the necessity of a claim under Article 366 did not arise with respect to the 1,022 damaged packages, because he himself salvaged those packages from the wreck independently and not through delivery pursuant to the contract.

N/A (Defendant-appellee filed no brief and made no appearance on appeal. At trial, defendant admitted the contract and the loss but denied liability, alleging the wreck occurred without fault on the part of the owner, patron, or crew.)

• Coverage of Article 366: Whether Article 366 of the Code of Commerce applies to a claim for damages arising from the carrier’s total failure to deliver the goods entrusted for transportation.
• Application to Salvaged Goods: Whether the claim requirement of Article 366 applies to a claim for damage to goods that the shipper himself recovered from a wreck, without any formal delivery by the carrier under the contract.

• Coverage of Article 366: Article 366 is confined to claims for damage to goods that the carrier actually turns over and the consignee receives. It does not govern claims arising from non-delivery. In cases of non-delivery, the claim is for failure to make delivery, not for damage discovered upon receipt. The object of Article 366 — to enable the carrier to verify damage claims promptly at the time of delivery or within twenty-four hours — has no application where no delivery occurs. The subsequent provision, Article 367, which provides for expert examination and judicial deposit of disputed goods, likewise presupposes delivery and receipt under the contract. Hence, plaintiff’s failure to make a claim under Article 366 did not bar the action for the 1,222 missing packages.
• Application to Salvaged Goods: The necessity of a claim under Article 366 did not arise for the 1,022 damaged packages if, as alleged, they were recovered by the plaintiff himself from the wreck in an attempt to save his property from total loss, rather than received through delivery under the contract. The measures outlined in Article 367 indicate that the claim requirement attaches only when the carrier delivers and the consignee receives the goods pursuant to the contract. Because the record did not definitively establish the circumstances under which plaintiff regained possession of the damaged sugar, the dismissal was premature. A new trial was required to determine the factual conditions of recovery.

• Scope of Article 366, Code of Commerce: The twenty-four-hour claim requirement of Article 366 applies exclusively to actions for damage or average to goods delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee under the contract of carriage. It does not apply to claims based on the carrier’s failure to deliver the goods at all, nor to claims concerning goods the shipper salvaged without formal delivery under the contract. The rationale is to compel prompt demand so that the carrier may verify alleged damage while the matter is fresh; that rationale is absent when no delivery occurs or when the shipper independently retrieves the goods.

• “Article 366 of the Commercial Code is limited to cases of claims for damaged goods actually turned over by the carrier and received by the consignee, whether those damages be apparent from the examination of the packages in which the goods are delivered, or of such a character that the nature and extent of the damage is not apparent until the packages are opened and the contents examined. Clearly it has no application in such cases wherein the goods entrusted to the carrier are not delivered by the carrier to the consignee.”
• “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.”

N/A (The decision rested on a direct interpretation of the Code of Commerce provisions, without reliance on prior jurisprudence.)

• Article 366, Code of Commerce — Requires that a claim for damage or average be brought within twenty-four hours following receipt of the merchandise, or upon opening packages if the damage is not externally visible; failure to do so bars any claim against the carrier regarding the condition in which the goods were delivered. Applied: Inapplicable to claims for non-delivery and to goods recovered by the shipper independently of contractual delivery.
• Article 367, Code of Commerce — Provides that if disputes arise between consignee and carrier regarding the condition of the goods at delivery, the goods shall be examined by experts and, if the parties cannot agree, deposited in a safe warehouse pending resolution of their rights. Applied: Its mechanism reinforced the conclusion that Articles 366 and 367 presuppose delivery and receipt under the contract.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concurred.