G.R. No. L-6957; February 14, 1913
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. INCHAUSTI & CO., defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Government shipped 500 barrels of cement aboard the defendant’s steamer from Manila to Tabaco, Albay. Upon arrival, the consignee issued a receipt stating the property was received in good condition. Later, it was discovered that 42 barrels were broken and half their contents lost, allegedly due to the carrier’s negligence. The complaint, filed on February 18, 1911, did not allege that any claim or protest was made to the carrier within twenty-four hours after delivery or discovery of the damage, as required by Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce. The Government argued these articles were repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 67 of Act No. 1792 . The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer, and the Government appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Articles 366 and 952 of the Code of Commerce, which require a claim or protest to be made within twenty-four hours after delivery of goods as a condition precedent to an action for damages against a carrier, have been repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by Section 67 of Act No. 1792 .

RULING

No. The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed. The first paragraph of clause No. 2, Article 952 (prescriptive period) was repealed by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs prescription of actions. However, Article 366 and the last paragraph of clause No. 2, Article 952, which establish the requirement of a claim or protest within twenty-four hours as a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action, were not repealed. These provisions create a substantive condition that must be fulfilled before suit can be filed. Section 67 of Act No. 1792 pertains to the liability of consignees of government property and the burden of proof on carriers when packages show evidence of tampering; it does not repeal the condition precedent requiring a timely claim. Since the complaint failed to allege compliance with this condition, it was insufficient. The doctrine in Cordoba vs. Warner, Barnes & Co., applying Article 366 to maritime transportation, was upheld.