Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325, (December 7, 1917), 37 PHIL 285-289

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    Roldan contracted with Lim Ponzo & Co. to transport 2,244 packages of sugar by lorcha. The lorcha was wrecked in a river, saving only 1,022 damaged packages. The trial court dismissed the case because Roldan did not make a claim within 24 hours of receiving the packages as required by the Commercial Code. However, the Supreme Court held that the 24-hour claim period only applies when goods are delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee. Since Roldan recovered the 1,022 packages himself from the wreck, the claim period did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325, (December 7, 1917), 37 PHIL 285-289

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    119 views2 pages
    Roldan contracted with Lim Ponzo & Co. to transport 2,244 packages of sugar by lorcha. The lorcha was wrecked in a river, saving only 1,022 damaged packages. The trial court dismissed the case because Roldan did not make a claim within 24 hours of receiving the packages as required by the Commercial Code. However, the Supreme Court held that the 24-hour claim period only applies when goods are delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee. Since Roldan recovered the 1,022 packages himself from the wreck, the claim period did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Original Description:

    Transportation Law Case Digests

    Original Title

    Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325, [December 7, 1917], 37 PHIL 285-289

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roldan contracted with Lim Ponzo & Co. to transport 2,244 packages of sugar by lorcha. The lorcha was wrecked in a river, saving only 1,022 damaged packages. The trial court dismissed the case because Roldan did not make a claim within 24 hours of receiving the packages as required by the Commercial Code. However, the Supreme Court held that the 24-hour claim period only applies when goods are delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee. Since Roldan recovered the 1,022 packages himself from the wreck, the claim period did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    119 views2 pages

    Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325, (December 7, 1917), 37 PHIL 285-289

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    Roldan contracted with Lim Ponzo & Co. to transport 2,244 packages of sugar by lorcha. The lorcha was wrecked in a river, saving only 1,022 damaged packages. The trial court dismissed the case because Roldan did not make a claim within 24 hours of receiving the packages as required by the Commercial Code. However, the Supreme Court held that the 24-hour claim period only applies when goods are delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee. Since Roldan recovered the 1,022 packages himself from the wreck, the claim period did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No.

    L-11325, [December 7, 1917], 37 PHIL 285-289

    FACTS:

    Plaintiff Roldan entered into a contract with Lim Ponzo & Co. for the transportation of 2,244
    packages of sugar from the plaintiff's hacienda to Iloilo. The company's lorcha was wrecked in
    the river Jalaud. Only 1,022 packages were saved in a more or less damaged condition.

    Trial court dismissed the case on the ground of non-compliance with Sec. 366 of the
    Commercial Code which states:

    “Within the twenty-four hours following the receipt of the merchandise a claim may be brought
    against the carrier on account of damage or average found therein on opening the packages,
    provided that the indication of the damage of average giving rise to the claim cannot be case
    said claim would only admitted on the receipt of the packages.

    After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or after the transportation charges have been paid,
    no claim whatsoever shall be admitted against the carrier with regards to the condition in which
    the goods transported were delivered.”

    ISSUE: Is the respondent liable for the loss?


    HELD:

    Article 366 of the Commercial Code is limited to cases of claims for damage 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, not when the goods
    were lost or not delivered.

    In so far as this action is founded on a claim for damages resulting from the wetting of the 1,022
    packages of sugar which were saved from the wreck, it seems clear that if these 1,022 packages
    of sugar were delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee under and in pursuance of
    the terms of the contract, this claim for damages would be defeated by the plaintiff's failure to
    make claim therefor in accordance with the terms of article 366 of the Code.

    We are of opinion, however, that the necessity for making the claim in accordance with that
    article did not arise if, as it is alleged, these 1,022 packages of sugar were recovered from the
    wreck by the plaintiff, himself, in an effort, by his own activities, to save his property from total
    loss. The measures to be taken under the terms of article 367 of the Code when the parties are
    unable to arrive at an amicable settlement of claims for damages set up in accordance with
    article 366, quite clearly indicate that the necessity for the presentation of claims under this
    article arises only in those cases wherein the carrier makes delivery and the consignee receives
    the goods in pursuance of the terms of the contract.
    Judgement is reversed and remanded to trial court.

    You might also like