MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALFONSO DE LA PAZ, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 30541-R.

Alfonso de la Paz, a Filipino old-timer in the United States who
had worked there as an employee of the Pullman Railroad Company, retired from
his job and decided to come home to the Philippines.  In the United States he bought a Page 7 MP tractor with six different attachments, namely, a plow, row seeder, cultivator, spite
tooth barrow, disc attachments, and a furrower. 
He had the tractor and the attachments crated in one big wooden case and
loaded on board the vessel SS Fernpoint.  The vessel arrived at the Port of Manila on
July 6, 1960, and the shipment
was un­loaded on July 7, 1960.  The Manila Port Service, arrastre operator for the Port of Manila, signed, through
its re­ceiving checker, a bad cargo receipt. 
What was done to the cargo afterwards is unknown; but the evidence shows
that it was left on the dock and was never found again.  De la Paz, through his broker, the Medalla Brokerage, cleared the papers for the release of
the cargo, paid the arrastre charges in the amount of
P15.19, as well as the customs duties, and secured the delivery permit.  However, the Manila Port Service, to which
the delivery permit was presented, could not deliver the cargo.  On July 21, 1960, the broker filed a provisional claim
with the Manila Port Service, which thereafter informed De la Paz that his
claim was under “careful consideration.” Later, on August 16,
1960, a formal claim was filed with the Manila Port Service.  In view of the refusal of the Manila Port
Service to pay his claim, De la Paz, on January 3, 1961, filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a complaint (amended on January 26, 1961) against the Manila Port Service
and/or the Manila Railroad Company, of which the former is a subsidiary,
praying the court to order either or both of the defendants to pay him the sum
of P8,000.00, the alleged value of the lost shipment, P5,500.00 moral damages,
P3,000.00 attorney’s fees, and the costs of the suit.

After trial the court rendered judgment ordering either or both
of the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P4,556.90
as the total manifested actual value of the cargo, with interest thereon at the
legal rate from the date of fil­ing of the complaint, P2,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages, P1,500.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs.

On appeal by the defendants to the Court of Appeals, said court
modified the judgment of the trial court by eliminating the award of P2,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff as moral and exemplary
damages.  Hence this
appeal by the defendants.

The first question we are called upon to resolve is whether a
valid claim had been filed by De la Paz with the Manila Port Service in
accordance with paragraph 15 of the management contract entered into by and
between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, which contract is
conceded by De la Paz to be binding upon him. 
The pertinent portion of said paragraph 15 states:

“* * * [I]n any event the CONTRACTOR
shall be relieved and released from any and all responsibility or liability for
loss, damage, misdelivery, and/or non-delivery of
goods, unless suit in the court of proper jurisdiction is brought within a
period of one year from the date when the claim for the value of such goods has
been denied by the CONTRACTOR provided that such claim shall have been filed
with the CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the
last package from the carrying vessel.  *
* *.”

Petitioners claim that since the cargo was unloaded from the
vessel on July 7, 1960 and
the corresponding claim for its value was filed only on August 16, 1960, no claim for value had been filed
within 15 days from the date of discharge of the cargo from the carrying
vessel.  They contend that the
provisional claim filed on July 21,
1960 was not a “claim for the value” of the goods within the
meaning of paragraph 15 because it did not state the value of the cargo but
merely advised the Manila Port Service that the package had been short landed
or landed in bad order, without stating the nature or ex­tent of the loss.  The contention is unmeritorious.   The provisional claim filed by De la Paz
through his broker contained data showing, among others, the owner and nature
of the shipment, the name of the carrying vessel, the re­gistry number of the
shipment, the number of the bill of lading covering the shipment, and the
consignee’s reason for making the claim. 
In Filipro, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service
and/or Manila Railroad Company, L-25724, October 8, 1968, this Court, resolving a similar question, said that
paragraph 15 of the management contract does not re­quire the value of the
goods to be stated in the claim; and that a provisional claim is sufficient
“even if the value of the goods involved were not stated therein, if it
describes said goods sufficiently to permit its identification by the operator
and the determination by the latter of the facts relevant thereto, such as the
name of the carrying vessel, its date of arrival, the corresponding bill of
lading or other shipping documents in which the value of the goods is set forth,
etc.  * * *.” And in Atlantic Mutual
Insurance Company, et al. vs. Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad
Company, L-21907, April 29, 1966, this Court, resolving the
same question of whether a provisional claim in which the value of the shipment
did not appear and which was not accompanied by supporting papers, filed within
15 days, sufficiently protected the rights of the consignee, ruled in the
affirmative.  It is therefore clear that
the provisional claim filed by De la Paz through his broker was sufficient.

Petitioners next contend that even assuming that a valid claim
was filed by De la Paz, their liability for the lost shipment should be limited
to P500.00 in accordance with paragraph 15 of the management contract, the
perti­nent portion of which reads:

“* * * [T]he CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an
independent contractor for, and promptly to pay to the steamship company, consignee,
consignor or other interested party or parties the invoice value of each
package but which in no case shall be more than five hundred pesos (P500.00)
for each package unless the value is otherwise specified or manifested, and the
corresponding arrastre charges had been paid * *
*.”

The contention is untenable.  The Court of Appeals correctly considered the
phrase “otherwise specified,” appearing in paragraph 15 of the
management contract, as permitting specification of the value in such documents
as the import entry and the internal revenue declaration.  In Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Prince Line, et
al., L-13884, February 29, 1960,
this Court said:

“* * * [T]he
consignee has it in his hands to hold, if he so wishes, the arrastre
operator responsible for the full value of his merchandise by merely
specifying it in any of the various do­cuments required of him (pursuant to
Sections 1267, 1268[b], and 1273
of the Revised
Administrative Code), in clearing the merchandise from the customs.  * * *.”

In Jose Bernabe
& Co., Inc. vs. Delgado Brothers, Inc., L-14360, February 29, 1960, this Court said:

“In answer, it may be stated that appellant could adequately
protect itself, by simply speci­fying or manifesting the actual value of the
imported
cargo in the various documents required of it under the law (import entry [Sec. 1267, Rev. Adm. Code];
written declaration [Sec. 1268-b, in connection with Secs.
1269 and 1271, Rev. Adm.
Code]), and paying the corresponding arrastre charges of the same, pursuant to the provisions of
said Paragraph 15, and the ‘Important Notice’ contained in the Delivery Permit
and Gate Pass which its representative or broker accepts, signs, and utilizes,
upon taking delivery of the imported cargo from appellee
arrastre operator, in which event, the latter
expressly binds itself and undertakes to reimburse appellant the actual value
of the cargo, in case of its damage, destruction, or loss while under its
custody.  If appellant failed to so state
the value of its merchandise in any of those documents required by law before
it cleared its goods, and paid only the arrastre
charge based on a lesser value, it can not in justice now demand the full
undeclared value.”

While it is true that the corresponding
charges should be paid by the consignee to the arrastre
operator, and that in the present case the amount paid by De la Paz to the arrastre operator was only P15.19, which petitioners claim
was based on the volume rather than on the actual value of the cargo, in the
absence of showing that De la Paz was re­quired to pay more but refused to do
so, the Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining respondent’s claim that he
paid only what he was required by the Manila Port Service to pay.  We therefore agree with the trial court and
the Court of Appeals that petitioners are liable to respondent for the amount
of P4,556.90 appearing in the import entry and
internal revenue declaration as the total manifested landed cost of the lost
cargo, and not merely for the amount of P500.00.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment appealed from is
affirmed, with costs against petitioners in this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.

Zaldivar, J., took no part.