FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY MANILA PORT SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal by the Manila Railroad Company and its subsidiary, Manila
Port Service, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its
Civil Case No. 53510, holding them liable to pay appellee
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company the sum of P3,000.52 – the invoice value of 15
bales of crude natural rubber which appellants failed to deliver to the
consignee thereof.

In a nutshell, the antecedent facts are as follows:  On March 25, 1962, the SS “ZEELAND”
arrived at the port of Manila.  On the
same date, it unloaded unto the custody of the Manila Port Service, subsidiary
of the arrastre operators Manila Railroad Company,
858 bales of crude natural rubber shipped under four(4) se­parate invoices from
the ports of Swettenham and Singa­pore, consigned to B.
F. Goodrich (Phil.), Inc.  Of the
shipment, only 832 bales were thereafter delivered by appellant Manila Port
Service to said consignee thereof who, within 15 days from the discharge of the
last bale or package of the goods from the above-named carrying vessel, filed
with said appellant a “provisional claim” concerning 15 of the total
of 26 bales undelivered.^[1]
About three months later, or on July 23, 1962, the said consignee then
presented a “formal claim” particularly indicating the quantity,
marks, counter-marks and value of its lost merchandise.

Appellee Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company, insurer of the goods, was obliged to pay the value of the lost
merchandise, and was thereby subrogated to the rights of said consignee.  It then commenced action against appellants
in the court a quo to recover the loss, along with claims for
damages and attorney’s fees.  Upon
joining of issues, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts containing
the circumstances already set forth above, on the basis of which, the court, on
December 24, 1964, issued
the decision appealed from; and as earlier stated, the Manila Railroad and its
subsidiary, Manila Port Service, interposed the present appeal.

The lone law question posed for resolution is:  whether or not the so called
“provisional claim” – without any statement of the marks, number of
packages, contents, nor their value^[2]
– is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 15 of the
Management Con­tract providing as follows:

“x x x  in any event the CONTRACTOR shall be released
of any and all responsibility 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(1) year from the date of the discharge of the
goods, or from the date when the claim for 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 discharge
of the  last package from the carrying
vessel.  x x x.”

No elaborate discussion is necessary to show that the instant
appeal cannot prosper.  It is definitely
settled by this Court that upon facts parallel to the present, the so-called
provisional claim is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the
Management Contract above-quoted. 
Suffice it to quote here, for purposes of emphasis, the holding of this
Court in one of the latest of these precedents:^[3]

“It thus appears that the provisional claims in connection
with each one of these seven shipments were filed within 15 days from the
discharge of the last package.  Defendants
maintain, however, that inasmuch as said
period had expired before the filing of the formal claims, plaintiff should be
deemed barred from recovering the corresponding indemnity.  This pretense is predicated upon the theory
that the aforementioned provisional claims are not claims ‘for the value’ of
the goods lost, damaged or not delivered to the plaintiff.

“Such a theory is manifestly untenable, for:  (1) it assumes that the claim must state the
value of said goods, which the above-quoted paragraph 15 does not require; and
(2) a provisional claim may be 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., ‘while the facts are still
fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and while
the pertinent documents are still available.’^[4]

“Thus, in Domestic Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co. (L-24066,
August 30, 1967), We explicitly declared that ‘x x x
The circumstances that the provisional claim did not specify the value of the
loss’ does not detract from the fact that said claim ‘still substantially fulfills
the requirements of the contract aforementioned (State Bonding & Insurance
Co. vs. Manila Port Service, supra), and is not a defense against the claim of the consignee for recovery
after it shall have ascertained later its actual loss or damage.’ x x x.”

It is not pretended by appellants that in the form the
provisional claim was presented said claim did not contain sufficient information
to permit them to identify the goods involved and to determine the facts
relative to said claim.  Very aptly, the
trial court pointed out that the said provisional claim “is a sufficient
notice or warning to the defendant, and affords him the opportunity to check up
the claim for loss.  To require the
consignee to state in detail the description, nature, and value of the goods
missing, or short delivered, would require consignee to do the impossible as it
is a matter of public knowledge that before the goods are released by the
Bureau of Customs, more than 15 days elapsed from the time that they are
delivered to the arrastre service.”

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed, with costs against appellants.

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

Castro and Capistrano,
JJ., did not take part.

^[1]
The consignee failed to file any claim, written or oral, with respect to the
other 11 bales that were not delivered to it, apparently because they were
shipped under a separate invoice.  At any
rate, these 11 bales are not
involved in this case.

^[2]
The goods appear to be identified in the “provisional claim” (pp.
9-10, Appellee’s Brief) by means of the name of the
carrying vessel, Reg. No., and B/L No.

^[3]
Filipro, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service and/or
Manila Railroad Company, L-25724, October 8, 1968, 25 SCRA 457.

^[4]
Id. citing Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance vs.
Manila Port Service, L-23338, Nov. 18, 1967; Tabacalera vs. Manila
Railroad, L-23636, Oct. 31, 1967; Phil. Education Co. vs. Manila Port Service, L-2409, Sept. 20, 1967; Atlantic Mutual
Insurance vs. Manila Port Service, L-21907, April 29, 1966; United Insur­ance
vs. Royal Inter Ocean Lines, L-22688, April 27, 1967; State Bonding Inc.
vs. Manila Port Service, L­21833, Feb. 28, 1966; Yu Kimteng
Construction Corp. vs. Manila Railroad, L-17027, Nov. 29, 1965; GSIS vs.
Manila Railroad, L-20342, Nov. 29, 1965; Bernabe vs.
Delgado Brothers, 58 O. G. 1104.