7/26/2019 116. f h Stevens vs Nordeutscher

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. L-17730 September 29, 1962

F. . STE!ENS " CO., #NC.,plaintiff-appellant,vs.NOR$$EUSCER LLO%$,defendant-appellee.Delgado, Floes, Macapagal and Di!on fo plaintiff-appellant.Ross, "elph and Caascoso fo defendant-appellee.

CONCEPC#ON, &.'#his is an appeal fo$ an ode ganting defendant%s $otion to dis$iss and, accodingl&,dis$issing the case 'ithout an& ponounce$ent as to costs.Plaintiff co$$enced this action in the Cout of Fist (nstance of Manila on )une *+,

/. (t alleged in the co$plaint that on Mach *0, 1, it had shipped fo$ 2a$bugto Manila, aboad the 3M" "C24ABEN"#E(N3, a vessel of defendant Noddeusche5lo&d, *,/// pieces of pis$atical the$o$etes valued at 61/7 that on Ma& 1, 1,said vessel aived at Manila7 that on Ma& *, 1, the $aste of said vessel notifiedthe plaintiff, thu its bo8e, of the delive& of said goods7 that, upon e9a$ination of thecase containing the sa$e, it tuned out that ,1+ pieces of said the$o$etes valuedat 6:+*.;+, 'ee $issing and

7/26/2019 116. f h Stevens vs Nordeutscher

2/3

'as filed in the cout of fist instance. (n suppot of this petense, plaintiff invo8es Aticle11 of the Civil Code of the Philipines, eading#he pesciption of actions is inteupted 'hen the& filed befoe the cout, 'hen thee isa 'itten e9ta?udicial co$$and b& the ceditos, and 'hen thee is an& 'ittenac8no'ledged ?udg$ent of the debt b& the debto.

pon $atue delibeation, 'e ae of the opinion, and so hold, that the ode appealedfo$ should be evesed, not onl& because of the opeation of said Aticle 11 of ouCivil Code, but, also, in vie' of the povisions section + of Act No. /, pusuant to'hich(f, in an action co$$enced, in due ti$e, a ?udg$ent fo the plaintiff be evesed, o if theplaintiff fail othe'ise than upon the $eits, and the ti$e li$ited fo the co$$ence$entof such action has, at the date of such evesal o failue, e9pied, the plaintiff, o, if hedie and the cause of action suvive, his epesentatives $a& co$$ence a ne' action'ithin one &ea afte such date, and this povision shall appl& to an& clai$ asseted inan& pleading b& a defendant.#he action co$$enced b& the plaintiff in the Municipal Cout of Manila, on Apil *;,

/, 'as dis$issed )une :, /, o ove t'ent& */ da&s afte the e9piation of thepeiod of one &ea, beginning fo$ Ma& *, 1, 'ithin 'hich plaintiff%s action couldbe bought pusuant to Co$$on'ealth Act No. 1, in elation to the Caiage of oodsb& "ea Act. nde said section of Act No. /, the peiod 'ithin 'hich plaintiff couldinitiate the pesent case 'as ene'ed, theefoe, fo anothe &ea, beginning fo$ )une+, / #olentino itug, : Phil., *7 "$ith vs. McNeal, // .". +*, *; 5. ed. 0.#he case at ba 'as co$$enced on )une *+, /, o 'ithin the peiod last $entioned.#he cases of @iental Co$$ecial Co. vs. )ueidini ; Phil., *1 and Conspecto vs.Futo : Phil., ++, in 'hich it 'as held that. . . Cuando se entabia una accion dento del pla!o de pescipcion & se desiste de elladespues, o se sobesee sin condiciones, po una a!on u ota, no hace =ue la accion=ue se entable $as tade peo &a fuea del peiodo de pescipcion, se puedaconsidea co$o pesentada deto de dicho peiodo po=ue =uiee contase con laaccion entablada con anteioidad. 5a falta de gestion de la ecuente po cu&a causase desesti$aon sus de$andas segunda & tecea, no puede intepetase sino co$ouna enuncia de su pate &, al e?ecita su ulti$a accion no se ha colocado en la $is$asituacion en =ue antes se hallaba al e?ecita sus tes anteioes acciones. Este es el$is$o citeio =ue e9pesa$os cuando se nos pesents una cuestion aniloga en lacausa de Conspecto conta Futo, : )u. Fil 11. E$phasis supplied.1awphl.ntae not in point, fo the dis$issal of the heein plaintiff%s co$plaint in the $unicipal cout'as not due to its desistance o volunta& abandon$ent.(nsofa as inconsistent 'ith the conclusion 'e have thus eached, the vie' adoptedin Chua Gu& vs. Eveett "tea$ship Cop., 5-11:+ Ma& *;, 1: and He8 #ong 5in FieI Maine (nsuance Co. vs. A$eican Pesident 5ines, (nc., 5-/0 Apil :/, 10should be, as it is heeb&, $odified accodingl&.42EREF@RE, the ode appealed fo$ is evesed and this case e$anded to thelo'e cout fo futhe poceedings, 'ith costs of this instance against defendantNoddeusche 5lo&d. (t is so odeed.Beng!on, C.)., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Baea, Paedes, Di!on, Regala andMa8alintal, ))., concu.

7/26/2019 116. f h Stevens vs Nordeutscher

3/3

5abado, )., concus in the esult.Re&es, ).B.5., too8 no pat.