The plaintiff claimed for damage to a cargo carried to Panama in four containers under a port to door modality. The containers arrived at the port of Manzanillo, Panama, on 28 September 2000 and were placed in the defendant’s custom premises. On 12 October 2000 these premises were flooded due to heavy rains, causing damage to the cargo. The containers were delivered to the consignee on 28 October 2000.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on 10 September 2001. The defendant argued that the claim was time-barred, as the damages occurred during the land leg portion of the carriage, where, according to the local law, a six-month time bar applied. The argument was rejected because the carriage was contracted under a port to door modality, and the bill of lading provided for the Hague Rules as the applicable law, which states a one-year time bar. The defendant appealed the decision.

Held: The Civil Branch of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, affirmed the decision. The SCJ asserted that, according to the applicable law stated in the paramount clause of the bill of lading, a one-year time bar limitation applies as established by the Hague Rules in art 3.6. The modality of the carriage was port to door, which means that the carrier's responsibility does not end at the moment the containers are discharged at the port, but when they are delivered at the consignee’s premises. Therefore, the time bar started running from 12 October 2000, when the damage occurred. The lawsuit was filed on 10 September 2001 and a certification of presentation of the lawsuit was published in a newspaper on 12 September 2001, in compliance with art 55 of the Code of Maritime Procedure, which establishes such a method to interrupt the time bar. With this act, the SCJ said, the action was timely presented within the one-year limitation period. 

The appellant also alleged that the lower court did not consider an argument regarding the right to limit its liability. The defendant argued that the value of the cargo was not declared, which entitled it to limit its liability. The SCJ stated that it was not that the lower court ignored the argument, but that the defendant could not prove any fact against what was proven by the claimant.