SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY AND MANILA PORT SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The facts are stipulated by the parties.  On March 11, 1961 Laguna Trading imported
from Vancouver, Canada 6,758 bags of “Elefante”
brand Canadian wheat flour, shipped under Bill of Lading No. 538.  The shipment was insured with Switzerland
General Insurance Co., Ltd., herein plain­tiff, a corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Switzerland, authorized to do
busi­ness in the Philippines.

On April 13, 1961 the “SS Sunnyville”
arrived at the port of Manila and subsequently discharged the shipment in
question into the custody of the Manila Port Service, acting as the arrastre operator, a subsidiary of the Manila Rail­road
Company.  On the same day the consignee
filed with the arrastre operator a provisional claim
covering the said ship­ment.  The last
package was discharged from the carrying vessel on April 15, 1961.  The last delivery to the defendants was made
on April 19, 1961.  Of the 6,758 bags
imported, the defendant failed to deliver 248 bags to the consignee.

The plaintiff, as insurer, paid P2,802.11 to the con­signee for
the loss of the goods, and as its subrogee filed on
June 12, 1961 a formal claim in the amount of P1,401.92, followed by a revised
formal claim on July 25, 1961 for P1, 752.40 and finally by another formal
claim on January 5, 1962 for P1,361.74. 
The defendants failed to pay and so the plain­tiff commenced this suit
for collection in the City Court of Manila on September 19, 1961.  Judgment was for the plaintiff, and the
defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance, which, in its decision of
September 30, 1963, likewise held them liable in the sum of P1,361.74, plus interest.

In the present appeal by the defendants, the only issue is
whether or not the provisional claim filed by the consignee two (2) days before
the date of the discharge of the last package satisfied the provisions of the
management contract which reads:

“x x x in
any event, the CONTRACTOR shall be relieved and released of any and all
responsibility or liability for loss, damage, misdelivery
and/or non­delivery of goods, unless suit in the
court of proper jurisdiction is brought within a period of one (1) year from
the date of the discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim for the
value of the goods has been rejected or 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.  x x x“

The question has already been settled in a long line of cases,
where we held that as a general rule a provisional claim for loss or damage
filed before the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel
is not a sub­stantial compliance with the requirement of Section 15 of the
management contract because it is premature and speculative, (Shell Co. of the
Phil. Ltd., vs. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, L-20230, July 30, 1965; Firemen’s
Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al., L-22454, April 29, 1966; Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad
Company and Manila Port Service, L-22409, April 27, 1967; Domestic Insurance
Co. of the Phil. vs. Manila Port Service, L-24066, August 30, 1967).  This rule was however qualified in the case
of New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al., L-20938,
August 9, 1966, where this Court made a distinction between two
situations.  Thus, where the provisional
claim is filed ahead of the date of the discharge of the last pack­age from the
carrying vessel and the consignee has not yet examined or has not been informed
of the condition of the shipment, the provisional claim is held to be
speculative and premature; but where the consignee, although it files the
provisional claim before the date of the discharge of the last package from the
carrying vessel, has in fact discovered or has been informed of a shortage or
damage to the goods before the discharge of the last package, or during the
unloading, then the provisional claim is deemed to have been properly
presented.

The first alternative covers the instant case.  It is not disputed, and so appears in the
stipulation, that the last package was discharged from the carrying vessel on
April 15, 1961 or two days after the provisional claim was presented.  There is no showing, indeed it is not
claimed, that the con­signee or its agents had actual knowledge then of any
shortage.  The provisional claim
therefore was premature and purely speculative.

Wherefore,
the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the complaint dismissed, without
pronounce­ment as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.