The answer is no. And this is the story of the damaged goods via seafreight.
On 18 December 2000, Nova Consumer Products [NOVA] imported from Jinsa Trading [JINSA] of South Korea 19-pallets of laminated packaging materials. JINSA engaged the services of Proton Logistics [PROTON], a freight forwarder also based in South Korea. PROTON shipped the cargo via MV “HEROS” (V-019) which is owned and operated by Hero Shipping Corporation of South Korea [HERO].
The MV “HEROS” arrived at the Port of Manila (South Harbor) on 27 December 2000. And the shipment reached NOVA’s premises on 5 January 2001. After opening the container, the goods were found to be damaged/wet and damp. And the goods were declared as totally damaged by NOVA.
NOVA demanded indemnification from PROTON and HERO for the damaged shipment. PROTON and HERO contended that NOVA is barred from filing any claim for indemnification because it failed to file the same within 15-days from receipt of the shipment.
PROTON and HERO refused to heed the demand of NOVA. Hence, NOVA filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court [RTC] on 4 June 2001.
The RTC ruled in favor of NOVA finding PROTON and HERO solidarily liable to the former.
The Court of Appeals [CA] affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA rejected PROTON and HERO’s argument that a claim must be made against the carrier within 24-hours from receipt of the merchandise because such a provision applies only to inter-island shipments within the Philippines. And after the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, PROTON and HERO appealed to the Supreme Court [SC].
And the SC ruled in the following tenor:
“ x x x.
Consonant with the ruling in the recent case of ___________, the prescriptive period for filing an action for lost/damaged goods governed by contracts of carriage by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade is governed by paragraph 6, Section 3 of the COGSA which states:
x x x
The consignee NOVA, received the subject shipment on 5 January 2001, it filed a case against PROTON and HERO on 4 June 2001 or within the one-year prescriptive period. Verily then, despite NOVA’s failure to comply with the three-day notice rule notice requirement, it is not barred from seeking payment. x x x.”
I wish to stress that the failure to comply with the notice requirement (under the COGSA) shall not affect or prejudice the right of the consignee to bring suit within one year after delivery of the goods.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS COLUMN: Should A Seaman Submit to a Post-Employment Medical Exam Upon Return to PH?
