CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. was a
consignee of various imported articles under four separate bills of lading,
namely:

(1)  
Bill of Lading No. 27 for 200
drums of lubricating oil compound from Pew Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.  The carrying vessel, SS
“Roseville”, discharged the goods in good order to the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, on December 9, 1961
but the latter failed to deliver 2-55 gallon drums thereof worth P929.64.  On February 22, 1962, Caltex
formally filed a claim for the value of the lost cargo with the Manila Port
Service.

(2)  
Bill of lading No. 1 for 72 drums
of lubricating oil and grease from Port Arthur, Texas, U.S.A. on board SS
“Fernbay” which discharged the goods to the
Manila Port Service, as arrastre operator on March
27, 1962.  Manila Port Service failed to
deliver 1-55 gallon drums of Capella oil B valued at
P149.92 for which Caltex filed a provisional claim on
March 30, 1962 and a formal claim on March 31, 1962.

(3)  
Bill of Lading No. 27 for 40 drums
of lubricating oil compound from New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.  On March 27,1962 SS “Fernbay“,
the carrier, discharged the goods to the Manila Port Service as arrastre operator who in turn delivered the goods to Caltex but short by 1-55 gallon drums worth P595.43.  A provisional claim for the loss was filed on
March 30, 1962,
followed by a formal claim on March
31, 1962.

(4)  
Bill of Lading No. 142 of SS
“Nicoline Maersk”
for machinery parts from New York, U.S.A.  Manila Port Service, as arrastre
operator, received the articles from the carrier on December 27, 1961 in good order but made
delivery to Caltex short by one case of power pump
parts marked PH-206-A.^[1] Caltex filed therefor a
provisional claim on January 3, 1962
and a formal claim later.

In view of Manila Port Service’s failure to pay Caltex’s claims, the latter filed suit for their recovery
in the Court of First Instance of Manila where the parties submitted the case
for decision upon a stipulation of facts, on the basis of which the trial court
rendered the following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing con­siderations, the
Court hereby absolves the defendant from the complaint without pronounce­ment
as to costs.”

absolving the Manila Port Service from
all the four claims on the ground that the claims for the sums of P929.64,
P149.92 and P595.43 were filed with the Manila Port Ser­vice beyond the 15-day
period provided for in Section 15 of the Arrastre
Management Contract entered into by and between the Bureau of Customs and the
Manila Port Service; and, that the amount claimed for the non-delivery of one
case of power pump parts marked PH-206-A was not proved.

Caltex moved for reconsideration but
the trial court denied the same.  Hence,
this appeal raising the follow­ing issues:

(1)  
Did Caltex
comply with Section 15 of the Arras­tre Management
Contract?

(2)  
Did the lower court err in
dismissing the claim for the value of one case of power pump parts marked
PH-206-A?

For convenience we quote Section 15 of the Arrastre
Management Contract:

“x x x the
CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an independent contractor for, and
promptly 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, 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 non­-delivery of goods, unless suit in the
court of proper jurisdiction is brought within a period of one (1) year from
date of discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim for the value of
such goods have 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 the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.  x x x“

It is not denied that in regard to the claims for the sums of
P929.64, P149.92 and P595.43 Caltex filed its for­mal
claims with the Manila Port Service more than 15 days from the discharge of the
goods from the carrying vessel.  It was
shown however that Caltex filed with Manila Port Ser­vice,
provisional claims, as follows:

all of which were within the 15-day
period.  Such kind of provisional claims
substantially complies with Section 15 above-quoted.^[2] The
Manila Port Service therefore is lia­ble for he above-mentioned claims.  Since it was admitted by Caltex
in the partial stipulation of facts dated Feb­ruary 1, 1963 that the value of
the shipments covering the aforesaid claims were not declared in the bills of
lading or shipping manifests, liability of the Manila Port Ser­vice is limited
to P500.00 per claim pursuant to Section 15 of the Arrastre
Management Contract.

With respect to the claim for P929.64 representing the value of
2-55 gallon drums of lubricating oil compound, the formal claim therefor was filed on February 22, 1962, that is, more than 15 days from December 9, 1961, the date of
discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel.  Such failure is fatal to this action, altho filed within one year from December 9, 1961.^[3]

The lower court’s conclusion absolving the Manila Port Service
from liability for the claim of P6,027.66 one case power pump parts marked
PH-206-A admittedly lost in the custody of defendant, must be reversed.  According to the records the complaint
alleges the loss of this particular case containing power pump parts as valued
at P6,027.66.  This particular averment
was denied the answer.  However, on this
particular point the supplemental stipulation of facts shows that said case
delivered and turned over to defendants by the carrier on January 20, 1963 but wan not delivered to the
consignee.” (Section 1) And in its Section 3 thereof, it was stipulated
that “defendant’s maximum liability under the management contract shall
not exceed P500.00 in accordance with Section 15 thereof.” Taken as a
whole, from the averment in the complaint, the denial in the answer, the
calculation of fact, there is an express admission by defendant that the case
was received and that it failed to deliver it to the consignee.  The foregoing, therefore, admits
responsibility, but limits the same to an amount not exceeding P500.00.  For defendant Manila Port Service’s
stipulation to the effect that its responsibility should be limited to P500.00
clearly implies, after what it has admitted in paragraph 1 of the stipulation
of fact, that it is liable but not more than P500.00.  In other words, in Section 1 it admits
responsibility and in Section 3 limits the same to only P500.00.  For such reason We believe that the defendant
is liable for said case containing power pump parts marked PH-206-A to the sum
of P500.00.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from it modified.  The Manila Port Service is hereby ordered to
pay to Caltex (Philippines),
Inc. the total sum of P1,149.92.  No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Allegedly valued at P6,027.66 per paragraph V of complaint which was denied in
the answer.

^[2]
Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines
v. Manila Railroad Company and Manila
Port Service, L-24066, Aug. 30, 1967, 1967C PHILD 506, 508.

^[3]
Insurance Company of North America v. Manila Port Service, L-17331, Nov.
29, 1961; Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, L-16789,
Oct. 31, 1962.