This was a petition for review on certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No 65857.

On 25 March 1992, Continental Enterprises Ltd loaded a shipment of soya bean meal on board the M/V Hui Yang at Bedi Bunder, India, for transportation and delivery to Manila, with the respondent, SR Farms Inc, identified as the consignee/notify party. The shipment was said to weigh 1,100 mt and was covered by a bill of lading. The vessel was owned and operated by Conti-Feed & Maritime Pvt Ltd (Conti-Feed), with the petitioner, Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc (Wallem), as its local ship agent. The cargo was part of a shipment in bulk. The shipment was discharged and transferred into the custody of receiving barges. The offloading of the shipment was handled by Ocean Terminal Services Inc. A cargo check revealed a shortage of 80.467 mt of soya bean meal.

The respondent filed a claim for damages against Conti-Feed, RCS Shipping Agencies Inc (RCS), which it thought was the local ship agent of Conti-Feed, Ocean Terminal Services Inc, and Cargo Trade, the customs broker. On 7 June 1993, the respondent filed an amended complaint impleading the petitioner Wallem, alleging that Wallem, and not RCS, had in fact acted as Conti-Feed's ship agent. The regional trial Court dismissed the respondent's complaint, as well as the opposing parties' counterclaims and cross-claims. The respondent appealed to the CA. The CA reversed and set aside the trial Court's decision, ordering Conti-Feed and Wallem to pay the value of the missing cargo.

Wallem appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the claim against it was time-barred.

Held: The petition is partly granted. The decision of the CA is modified by dismissing the complaint against the petitioner. In all other respects, the CA decision is affirmed.

With respect to the prescriptive period involving claims arising from shortage, loss of or damage to cargoes sustained during transit, the law that governs is the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), s 3(6) of which provides:

Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of delivery. ...

In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered; Provided, That, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

Under s 3(6) of COGSA, notice of loss or damages must be filed within three days of delivery. Admittedly, the respondent did not comply with this provision. However, a failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not bar recovery if a suit is nonetheless filed within one year from delivery of the goods, or from the date when the goods should have been delivered. In Loadstar Shipping Co Inc v Court of Appeals, 373 Phil 976, 989 (1999) (CMI1522), this Court ruled that a claim is not barred by prescription as long as the one-year period has not lapsed:

Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) - which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit - may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar.

The vessel carrying the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on 11 April 1992, and the cargo was completely discharged on 15 April 1992. However, the petitioner was not impleaded as a defendant in the original complaint filed on 11 March 1993. The amended complaint impleading the petitioner as a defendant was only filed on 7 June 1993. The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment. It is true that, as an exception, this Court has held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action. That exception, however, would not apply to a party impleaded for the first time in an amended complaint.

The rule on the non-applicability of the curative and retroactive effect of an amended complaint, in so far as newly impleaded defendants are concerned, was established as early as in the case of Aetna Insurance Co v Luzon Stevedoring Corp, GR No L-25266, 15 January 1975, 62 SCRA 11. In that case, the defendant, Barber Lines Far East Service, was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint which was filed after the one-year period of prescription. The order of the lower Court dismissing the amended complaint against the defendant on the ground of prescription was affirmed by this Court.

In this case, the petitioner was only impleaded one year, one month, and 23 days from 15 April 1992, the date when the cargo was fully unloaded from the vessel. Hence, the one-year prescriptive period had already lapsed. Having ruled that the action against the petitioner had already prescribed, this Court no longer finds it necessary to address the other issues raised in the petition.