PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. AND TAGUM V. SWEET LINES DOCTRINES: • Issues may accordingly be taken cognizance of by the court even if not inceptively raised as a defense so long as its existence is plainly apparent on the face of relevant pleadings. • Actionable Actionable documents must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the genuineness of which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. • Failure to specifically deny the e xistence of actionable documents amounts to an admission. udicial admissions are conclusive, no evidence being re!uired to prove the same. • "efore an action can properly be commenced all the essential elements of the cause of action must be in existence. • #he right of action does not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to the action and may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, through estoppel, or by other circumstances which do not affect the cause of action. • $erformance or fulfilment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of action d epends must be sufficiently sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit. EMERGENCY RECIT $etitioner #agum $lastics %#A&'(), from *avao, imported polyethylene +basic plastic material from F. -. uellig in America. /o0petitioner $hilippine American &eneral Insurance %$1I2A(&-3) is its insurer. #he shipment has to first arrive in (anila before it can be interisland shipped to *avao. 4espondent 5weet 2ines was hired to ferry said shipment to *avao. 'pon arrival at *avao, it was found that some of the imported plastics were undelivered or damaged. $etitioners filed suit on the basis of the bills of lading. 'nfortunately, 'nfortunately, said bills of lading contain prescriptive periods of sixty %67) days to file for claims of loss8damages. It also re!uired notice to respondent carrier before 9udicial claims may be had. The bills of ladi!" ho#e$e%" #e%e o& fo%'all( )%ese&ed as e$ide*e d+%i! &%ial . #he 4#/ ruled in favor of importer0petitioner, importer0petitioner, but the /A reversed on the basis of prescription. #he 5/ upheld the /A, saying that even though the bills of lading were not formally presented as evidence, the same were sufficiently referred to in the pleadings of both parties. 1ence, it was deemed 9udicially admitted and no evidence was re!uired to prove its existence. ,ACTS: • $etitioners $hilippine American &eneral Insurance /o. %$1I2A(&-3) and #agum $lastics %#A&'() were the insurers and importers, respectively, of an order of polyethylene %the basic material for your common plastics). • #he polyethylenes are to be shipped from F. -. uellig in the 'nited 5tates through an Indian ship, 55 :ishva ;ash, ;ash, and are to be received at (anila. After which, the sub9ect matter is to be shipped to *avao, #A&'( hence it was not shown that a contractual prescriptive period was indicated therein.
• #he #rial /ourt ruled in favor of petitioners $1I2A(&-3 and #A&'(, but the /A reversed on the basis of prescription. 1ence, this petition for review on certiorari. ISSUES: ?. =hether or not the /A correctly ruled on the basis of prescription even without formal evidence of its existence. @. Assuming arguendo that a prescriptive period exists in the contract, on not finding such as null and void for being contrary to public policy as contracts of adhesion. . Assuming further that such is valid and legal, in not finding that petitioners substantially complied therewith. HELD/RATIO: ?. 0ES" ?. 0ES" be*a+se be*a+se s+*h #as s+ffi*ie&l( s+ffi*ie&l( %aised i &he &he )leadi!s. )leadi!s. 4uling on $rescription -:-3 without formal evidence of its existence. • #he litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto. • 4espondent court correctly passed upon the matter of prescription, since that defese #as so *oside%ed ad *o&%o$e%&ed by the parties. • 5ince petitioners are s+i! o &he basis of contractual obligations indicated in the bills of ladi!, ladi! , such bills can be *a&e!o%i1ed as a*&ioable do*+'e&s which do*+'e&s which under the 4ules of /ourt '+s& be )%o)e%l( )leaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the genuineness and d+e e2e*+&io of #hi*h a%e dee'ed ad'i&&ed +less specifically deied +de% oa&h b( &he ad$e%se )a%&(. )a%&(. • Failure to specifically deny the e xistence of the instruments in !uestion amounts to an admission. • 3+di*ial ad'issios, ad'issios , verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case a%e *o*l+si$e" o e$ide*e bei! %e-+i%ed &o )%o$e &he sa'e, sa'e, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. • In the case at bar, prescription as an affirmative defense was seasonably raised by respondent 5weet 2ines in its answer, except that the bills of lading embodying the same were not formally offered in evidence. • $etitioner specifically replied to such defense in respondent
• S+*h li'i&a&io is o& *o&%a%( &o )+bli* )oli*( fo% i& does o& i a( #a( defea& &he %i!h& &o %e*o$e% , but merely re!uires the assertion of that right by action at an earlier period than would be necessary to defeat it through the operation of the ordinary statute of limitations. limitations. • #he fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve the ca rrier from 9ust liability, liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefor. therefor. . NO" be*a+se )e&i&ioe%s ha$e o& s+bs&a&iall( *o')lied #i&h &he *odi&ios )%e*ede& &o &hei% %i!h& of a*&io. Is there substantial compliance by petitioner with regard to the prescriptive periodJ • "efore an action can properly be commenced all &he esse&ial ele'e&s of &he *a+se of a*&io '+s& be i e2is&e*e, e2is&e*e , that is, the cause of action must be complete. All $alid *odi&ios )%e*ede& to the institution of the particular action, particular action, #he&he% )%es*%ibed b( s&a&+&e, s&a&+&e , fi2ed b( a!%ee'e& of the parties o% i')lied b( la# must be performed or complied with before commencing the action, +less the conduct of the adverse party has been such as to prevent or #ai$e #ai$e )e%fo%'a*e o% e2*+se non0performance of the condition • 5tipulations in bills of lading re!uiring notice of claim for loss or damage is a *odi&io *odi&io )%e*ede&. )%e*ede& . #he carrier is not liable if notice is not given in accordance with the stipulation. • #he bills of lading, are reasonable conditions precedent, they are not limitations of action. "eing conditions precedent, &hei% )e%fo%'a*e '+s& )%e*ede a s+i& for s+i& for enforcement and the vesting of the %i!h& &o file s+i& does o& &a4e )la*e +&il &he ha))ei! of &hese *odi&ios .
