PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the lower court, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows: 
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants [Manila
Port Service and Manila Railroad Co.] to pay to plaintiff [Philippine Education
Co.] jointly and severally, the amount of P500.00 with legal interest thereon from the filing
of the complaint until fully paid, and the costs.”^[1]
The facts, as set fort in the aforesaid decision were stipulated.  The lower court summarized them thus:  “[T]hat there was a shortdelivery
of twelve (12) cartons of books and magazines; that the value of the
importation was not specified or manifested in the shipping manifest or Bill of
Lading, and that the arrastre charges were paid on
the basis of measurement and weight and not on the value thereof,” leading
to the conclusion that “defendants’ liability to plaintiff for said shortdelivery should be limited to P500.00 under Section 15
of the Management Contract.”^[2]

After their motion for
reconsiderations to the effect that their liability should be limited to the
invoice value of the undelivered goods the amount of
P383.90 and not P500.00, was denied by the lower court, defendants appealed.

Two errors were assigned
as having been committed by the lower court. 
The first, which would find fault with the lower court for
not dismissing the complaint for the alleged failure of plaintiff to file its
claim for the value of the alleged loss or damaged goods within fifteen (15)
days from the discharge thereof, is obviously without merit.  The second error, which is a reiteration of
their plea in the motion for reconsideration, to the effect that their
liability, if any, should be limited to P383.90 and not P500.00, as set forth
in the judgment, being the invoice value of the loss or damaged goods, deserves
to be further scrutinized.

It was expressly
stipulated that the liability of defendants would be to pay promptly “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, * * *,”^[3] It was further stipulated “Out of 319
cartons manifested in Bill of Lading Nos. 215 and 216 (Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘G’),
Manila Port Service delivered only 307 cartons or a shortdelivery
of 12 cartons (Exhibit ‘C’); That the total CIF value of said 12 cartons is
P543.06 and the total INVOICE VALUE is
P383.90.”^[4]

The error is thus manifest; the lower court being bound by the stipulation of
facts, could not alter the terms thereof. 
Whatever liability must be shouldered by defendants should
be limited to the invoice value in accordance with the specific provision of the
management contract.  There being a
statement in the stipulation of facts as to the precise amount thereof, the decision could not validly subject defendants to the payment of a
different and greater sum.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified
ordering defendants to pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of
P383.90, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until
fully paid.  No special pronouncement as
to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, and
Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision, Record on
Appeal. p. 18.

^[2]
Ibid, pp. 17-18.

^[3]
Ibid, p. 4.

^[4]
Ibid, p. 5.