NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In the Municipal Court (now City Court) of Manila,
the New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. sued the Manila Port Service and the Manila
Railroad Company for the recovery of a sum of money.  The defendants were adjudged liable to the
plaintiff.  Upon elevation of the case to
the Court of First Instance, the said defendants were also held liable to the
plaintiff for the amount of P500, with interest thereon at the legal rate from June 15, 1962, until fully paid, and
costs.  Not satisfied, the defendants
have brought the case to Us on questions of law.

The facts that gave rise to the suit appear in the Stipulation of
Facts entered into by the parties before the Court of First Instance,
substantial portions of which are as follows:

“6.  That on or about June 4,
1961, the vessel S/S ‘TENSEI MARU’ took on board at Osaka, Japan, for shipment
to Manila consignment cargoes including eight (8) cases of plain irons Stanley Patt and slim taper in the name of J. R. De Santos and
Company, Inc. of Manila, x x x;

“7.  That the consignee, J.
R. De Santos and Company, Inc. took from Plaintiff an insurance policy for ONE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ($1,530.00) DOLLARS, covering the said shipment
against all risks;

“8.  That vessel S/S ‘TENSEI
MARU’ arrived at the Port of Manila on June 16, 1961 and subsequently
discharged its cargoes including the eight (8) cases of plain irons Stanley Patt and slim taper into the custody of the Defendant,
Manila Port Service, the last package of which was discharged on June 16, 1961;

“9.  That the shipping
documents covering said shipment were endorsed and transmitted to J. R. De
Santos & Company, Inc. thru its custom’s broker, F. N. Sagmaquen,
paid for the same, and being the owner thereof, cleared the documents through
the Defendant, Manila Port Service and Bureau of Customs;

“10.  That of the aforementioned
shipment of eight (8) cases due for delivery to J. R. De Santos & Company,
Inc. only seven (7) cases were actually and in fact delivered to J. R. De Santos
& Company, Inc. thru its customs broker on July 7, 1961 under Gate Pass No.
5508, x x x;

“11.  That the shipment of
eight (8) cases was discharged complete and in good order and condition by
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. into the custody of the Defendant, Manila Port
Serv­ice, and that loss of one (1) case occasioned while the same was in the
possession and custody of defendant, Manila Port Service.

“12.  That the arrastre fees of the ship­ment in question were paid on the
basis of weight or measurement and not on the value thereof since its value was
not manifested nor indicated in the Bill of Lading (Exh.
A) or otherwise specified;

“13.  That by reason of said
loss, Plain­tiff as insurer, paid to the consignee J. R. De Santos &
Company, Inc., the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHT-TWO PESOS & 44/100
(P1,082.44), representing its liability under the insurance contract, x x x;

“14.  That Plaintiff and/or
J. R. De Santos & Company, Inc. the former having been subrogated to the
rights of the latter by virtue of the pay­ment mentioned in the preceding
paragraph im­mediately filed a formal claim in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
FORTY-FOUR & 86/100 (P544.86) Pesos, representing the value of the lost
shipment, x x x;

“15.  That the broker F. N. Sagmaquen, for and in behalf of consignee J. R. De Santos,
filed a provisional written claim with the Ma­nila Port Service on July 12,
1961, x x x;

“16.  That the parties agree
that the only issues to be resolved by this Honorable Court are:

a) Whether Section 15 of the Management Con­tract before-mentioned
is applicable to the in­stant case and if so, whether consignees or its
representative filed the claim as required under Sec. 15 of the
before-mentioned Management Con­tract (Exh.
“3”);

b) In the event defendants are liable, what is the extent of their
liability excluding attor­ney’s fees, if any, that may be granted by this
Honorable Court;

c) Whether or not attorney’s fees as claimed by plaintiff in the
complaint should be granted.”

In this appeal, the defendants claim that it was a mistake for
the lower court not to have declared them relieved and released of any responsibility
for the loss of the goods in question due to the failure of the plain­tiffs to
file their claim therefor within fifteen (15) days
from June 16, 1961, the date of the discharge of the last package from the
carrying vessel, pursuant to Section 15 of the Management Contract.

The general rule, really, is that the claim of the consignee or
its subrogee for loss, damage, misdelivery
and/or nondelivery of goods, must be presented to the
contractor within fifteen days from the date of dis­charge of the last package
from the carrying vessel.  This applies
where, ordinarily, the consignee or claimant has knowledge of the loss, damage,
misdelivery and/or nondelivery
before the expiration of said fifteen-day period.

The rule, however, is different in instances where the claimant
comes to learn of the loss, damage, misdelivery
and/or nondelivery only after the fifteen-day
period.  In such cases, the rule to
follow, as stated in Insurance Company of North America v. Maritime Company
of the Philippines, et al., etc., G. R. No. L-22534, August 9, 1966, is that applied in Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. v. Manila Port Service,^[1]
G. R. No. L-17027, November 29, 1965,
that is, the period of fifteen days within which a claim should be filed should
commence, not from the date of discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel,
but from the date the consignee or claimant learns of the loss, damage, misdelivery and/or nondelivery
for which the claim is made.  This is
because the consignee is in no position to allege such loss, etc. before he
comes to know about.  Before delivery,
the goods are in the care and custody of the arrastre
contractor.

In the case at bar, while the last package was discharged from
the carrying vessel on June 16, 1960, the consignee took delivery of the cargo
on July 7, 1960 and it was only then that it learned that one case of its goods
was missing.  It filed its claim only
five (5) days there­after.  A literal
application of the provision of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract,
therefore, would not serve its purpose in this case.  We thus agree with the trial judge that the
claim was not filed out of time.

As stated in Yu Kimteng Construction
Corporation v. Manila Port Service, supra, with a strict adherence to
the provision of Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, all the arrastre contractor would have to do in order to escape
liability is to withhold knowledge of the loss from the consignee until after the
expiration of fifteen days – a situation unfair to the consignee.

We are not reviewing the finding of the lower court as to the
amount to be recovered as this has not been questioned before Us.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed
in toto. 
Costs against the defendants-appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Citing Chiok v. Compania
Maritima, et al., L-20553, April 30, 1965; Republic v. Manila
Port Service, L-19115, March 31, 1964.