F.H. Stevens & Co. vs.

Norddeuscher creditors, and when there is any written acknowledged

judgment of the debt by the debtor.
G.R. No. L-17730/September 29, 1962
ISSUE: W/N The action did prescribe? NO

HELD:
FACTS:
1. Stevens had shipped from Hamburg to Manila aboard the MS Section 49 of Act No. 190:
SCHWABENSTEIN (owned by Norddeuscher Lloyd) 2,000
pieces of prismatical thermometers valued at $650. If, in an action commenced, in due time, a judgment for
2. 5/15/59: vessel arrived at Manila the plaintiff be reversed, or if the plaintiff fail otherwise than upon
3. 5/21/59: The master of the vessel notified Stevens thru its broker the merits, and the time limited for the commencement of such
of the delivery of said goods. action has, at the date of such reversal or failure, expired, the
4. It turned out that 1,154 pieces of said thermometers valued at plaintiff, or, if he die and the cause of action survive, his
$342.74 were missing and/or destroyed representatives may commence a new action within one year
5. Stevens immediately filed the corresponding notice of loss and/or after such date, and this provision shall apply to any claim
short delivery followed by the corresponding notice and formal asserted in any pleading by a defendant.
claim for loss and/or short delivery.
6. Norddeuscher had refused and failed to pay said sum of $342.74. The action commenced by the plaintiff in the Municipal Court
7. Stevens also incurred damages in the sums of P1,000 as of Manila on 4/27/60 was dismissed 7/13/60 or over 20
attorney's fees and P664.70 as unrealized profits. days after the expiration of the period of 1 year beginning
8. 4/27/60: An action was instituted in the Municipal Court of Manila from 5/21/59, within which Stevens action could be brought.
for the recovery of the value of said thermometers and the amount
The period within which plaintiff could initiate the present case
of said damages was dismissed by said court without any trial on
was renewed for another year beginning from 7/14/60.
the merits upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject-
The case at bar was commenced on 7/24/60 or within the period.
matter of the case. (INVOLVED EXERCISE OF ADMIRALTY
Stevens complaint in the municipal court was not due to its
AND MARITIME JURISDICTION)
desistance or voluntary abandonment.
9. 7/8/60: Norddeuscher moved to dismiss the complaint upon the
ground that Stevens causes of action had prescribed, it having
been filed more than a year from when it was notified of the
delivery of the case containing the thermometers in question.
(GRANTED: 7/13/60)
10. On Appeal: (Stevens contention)
The period of one year prescribed in Commonwealth Act
No. 65 in relation to Carriage of Goods by Sea Act may be
was suspended by the commencement of the first action
in the municipal court on 4/27/60.
The running of said period was resumed or continued
when said action was dismissed.
Excluding said period, less than 1 year has elapsed from
when this case was filed in the court of first instance
Article 1155 of the Civil Code: The prescription of
actions is interrupted when they filed before the court,
when there is a written extrajudicial command by the