FILIPRO, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Direct appeal, by defendants Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad
Company, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila – on appeal
from an adverse decision of the municipal court of Manila – sentencing them to
pay, jointly and severally, to plaintiff, Filipro,
Inc., the aggregate sum of P960.54, plus P100, as and for attorney’s fees, in
addition to the costs.

The pertinent facts are not disputed, the case having been
submitted for decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila upon a
stipulation of facts.

This is an action to recover the value of imported goods
discharged, at the port of Manila,
unto the custody of the defend­ants, as operators of the arrastre
service in that port, and not delivered, or delivered in bad order and
condition, to the plain­tiff, as consignee or owner of said goods.  There is no issue as to the amount of goods
lost or damaged, and the extent of defend­ants’ liability, if any, therefor.  The points
in controversy are: (1) whether plaintiff’s claims had been filed within the
time pres­cribed in paragraph 15 of the management contract between the
defendants, which is, admittedly, binding upon the plaintiff; and (2) whether
the present action has been commenced within the periods specified in said
paragraph, the pertinent part of which reads:

“x x x in
any event the CONTRACTOR^[1]
shall be relieved and released of any and all responsibility or liability for
loss, damage, misdelivery, and/or non-delivery of
goods, unless suit in the court of proper jurisdiction is brought within x x x one (1) year from the date of
discharge of the goods, or from the date when the claim for the value of such
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.”

In order to hold the arrastre operator
liable for goods lost or damaged, the claimant should, pursuant to this
provision, take two (2) steps, namely: 1) he must file with the operator a
claim for the value of said goods “within fifteen (15) days from the date
of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel”^[2];
and 2) suit should be brought, in the court of proper jurisdiction,
“within x x x one (1)
year from the date of discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim
for the value of such goods has been rejected or denied. “

The present action involves seven (7) shipments of condensed milk
and infant food.^[3]
The last package of the first shipment was discharged from the carrying vessel
on January 15, 1962.  Plaintiff filed a provisional claim on January 19, 1962 and a formal claim
on March 16, 1962.

The last package of the second shipment was discharged on January 22, 1962.  Plaintiff filed a provisional claim on February 2, 1962 and a formal claim on
February 23, 1962.

The last packages of the third and fourth shipments were dis­charged
on February 1 and 5, 1962, respectively. 
Plaintiff filed provisional claims on February 13, 1962 and formal claims on Fe­bruary 23, 1962.

The last packages of the fifth and sixth shipments were dis­charged
on March 8 and 9, 1962, respectively. 
Plaintiff filed pro­visional claims on March 15, 1962 and formal claims on April 3, 1962.

The last package of the seventh and last shipment was dis­charged
on March 13, 1962.  Plaintiff filed a provisional claim on March 20, 1962 and a formal claim on April 10, 1962.

It thus appears that the provisional claims in connection
with each one of these seven (7) 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 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. v. Manila Railroad Co.,^[5]
we explicitly declared that “x x x The circumstance 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 . “

With respect to the question whether the present action has been
seasonably filed, it should be noted that, pursuant to the aforementioned
paragraph 15, the suit should be brought “within one year from the date of
discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim for the value of such
goods has been rejected or denied” by the arrastre
operator.  The complaint in this case was
filed on October 7, 1963,
or over one (1) year from the dates of discharge of the goods involved therein
– from January 15 to March 13, 1962.  The issue thus narrows down to whether the
case has been commenced within one (1) year from the date when plaintiff’s
claims have been “rejected or denied” by the contractor.

Considering, however, that said claims have not been ex­pressly
rejected or denied by the defendants, the latter argue that the period for the
filing of plaintiff’s complaint should be computed solely from the date
of discharge from the carrying vessel. 
This pretense is untenable for it conveniently overlooks the fact that
plaintiff has, under the management contract, two (2) periods within
which to file its action, namely: (a) one (1) year from the date of discharge
of the goods; and (b) one (1) year from the rejection or denial of its
claim for the value thereof.^[6]
Obviously, defendants cannot, by not acting on plaintiff’s claims, one way or
another, deprive the plaintiff of one of these alternatives.  And, such would be the result, were we to
accept defendants’ contention.

Upon the other hand, in the absence of any act or omission
clearly indicating the rejection or denial of said claims by the de­fendants,
the right of the plaintiff to sue them might be questionable.  Hence, it has been repeatedly held, that, in
case of inaction on the part of the arrastre
operator, he shall be deemed to have rejected or denied the importer’s
provisional or formal claim upon expiration of one (1) year from the
date when the last package was discharged and that the period within which to
file suit shall then begin to run.^[7]

Inasmuch as the shipments under consideration were discharged
from January 15 to March 13, 1962, the claims therefor
should not be considered denied or rejected until January 15 to March 13,
1963, so that plaintiff had one (1) year from these dates within
which to file suit.  The present action
was instituted within said period.

WHEREFORE,
the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs
against defendants-appellants, Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Co.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

^[1] The arrastre operator.

^[2]
Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. MPS, L-16789, October 31, 1962; Insurance Co. of North
America v. MPS, L-17331, November 29, 1961.

^[3] Pelargon and Lactogen.

^[4] Liverpool
& London & Globe Insurance v.
Manila Port Service, L-23338, Nov. 18, 1967; Tabacalera
v. Manila Railroad, L23636, Oct. 31,
1967; Phil. Education Co. v. Manila
Port Service, L-24091, September 20, 1967; Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Manila Port Service, L-21907, April
29, 1966; United Insurance v. Royal InterOcean Lines, L-22688, April 27, 1967; State Bonding
Inc. v. Manila Port Service, L-21833,
Feb. 28, 1966; Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. v. Manila Railroad, L-17027, Nov. 29,
1965; GSIS v. Manila Railroad,
L-20342, Nov. 29, 1965; Bernabe v. Delgado Brothers, 58 O.G. 1104.

^[5] L-24066,
Aug. 30, 1967.

^[6] Consunji v. Manila
Port Service, L-15551, Nov. 29, 1960; Delgado Brothers v. Manila
Port Service, L-21781, June 30, 1966.

^[7] Villaruel v.
Manila Port Service, L-22535, March 28, 1968; Ang Ching Gi v. Delgado Brothers, L-22138, Feb. 17, 1968; Genato
Commercial Corp. v. Manila Port
Service, L-24092, Sept. 13, 1967; Yok Tong Lin Fire
Ins. Co. v. Manila Port Service,
L-24836, Sept. 13, 1967; American Insurance v.
Manila Port Service, L-22780, Feb. 18, 1967; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, L-21412, Sept.
28, 1966; Delgado Brothers v. Manila
Port Service, L-21781, June 30, 1966; Continental Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, L-22208, March
30, 1966; Consunji v. Manila Port Service, L-15551, Nov. 29, 1960.