PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APEILEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

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 the municipal court of Manila – sentencing said
defendants to pay to plaintiff, Phil­ippine Education Company, Inc., the sum of
P1,089.15, with legal interest from the date of the
filing of the complaint, until fully paid as well as P100.00, by way of
attorney’s fees, in addition to the
costs.

Said sum of P1,089.15 represents the
value of thirty-five (35) bundles, forming part of a shipment of 202 bundles of
magazines consigned to the plaintiff and discharged unto the custody of the
Manila Port Service – hereinafter referred to as the MPS – as arrastre operator for said port, pursuant to a Management
Contract with the Manila Railroad Company.  
Paragraph 15 of said contract, which is admittedly binding upon the
plaintiff, pro­vides, inter alia, that
the MPS shall be relieved and released of any and all responsibility or
liability for any loss, damage, misdelivery and/or
non-delivery of goods, unless suit, in the court of proper jurisdiction, is
brought within a specified period, and provided that a claim for the value of
the goods shall have been filed "within fifteen (15) days from the date of
discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel."

It is not disputed that the shipment in question arrived at the
Port of Mania, on board "SS President McKinley", and was discharged therefrom, unto the custody of the MPS, on January 8, 1961;
that, when plaintiff took delivery of the aforementioned shipment, 35 bundles
were missing; that plaintiff filed with "Messrs. American President Lines
Ltd. and/or Manila Port Service," a "provisional claim" on
January 11, 1961; and that the formal claim was filed on August 26, 1961.

Defendants maintain that plaintiff cannot recover from them,
because said provisional claim was insufficient to comply with the requirements
of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, and the formal claim was filed more
than 15 days after the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.

The adequacy of the provisional claim, insofar as defendants
herein are concerned, is impugned upon the ground that it referred to the whole
shipment of 202 bundles, and alleged that the merchandise had been "shortlanded and/or landed in bad order, ex-abovementioned
vessel" (Pres. McKinley).  This
meant that the loss of goods or
the alleged damage thereof took place in the carrying vessel, and before
the shipment was discharged unto the MPS custody.  In other words, it implied that the latter
and the Manila Railroad Company could
not be held accountable or liable therefor; that the
only party against whom the claim would eventually be pressed would be the
operator of the carrying vessel; and that, accordingly, the defendants need not
check the validity of such claim, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to
do so, as regards the alleged loss of 35
bundles, on which the complaint herein is predicated.

As regards the formal claim, it is urged that it was too late, it
having been filed on August 26, 1961,
or more than fifteen (15) days after the discharge of the last package from the
carrying vessel, on January 8, 1961.  It has been held, however, that "the
period of 15 days within which a claim should be filed with the Manila Port Service
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 or misdelivery for which the claim is made," or from the
date on which, with the exercise of due diligence, such information could have
been secured.^[1] Indeed, a consignee can not possibly file
the claim contemplated in said paragraph 15 of the Management Contract before
he receives the shipment or has knowledge, actual or constructive, of said loss
or damage.  And, accordingly, we have
nullified, as "premature and speculative”, provisional claims –
particularly those of a general nature – filed prior thereto,^[2] for such claims do not serve the purpose for
which they are meant – to afford the arrastre
operator a "reasonable opportunity t o check the validity of the claim,
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."^[3]

Thus, the provisional
claim, filed in the case at bar, suggests that plaintiff then had no actual
knowledge of such loss or damage, because, otherwise, it would have included in
its claim, not the entire shipment of
202 bundles, but only the admittedly 35 missing bundles.  The record before us shows, however, neither
the date on which the 167 bundles were delivered to the plaintiff, nor that on
which the latter was notified, either of the arrival of
the goods or of the discharge thereof from the carrying vessel.  Thus, we are not in a position to determine
whether the provisional claim presented on January 11, 1961, or the formal, claim submitted on August
26, 1961, had been
filed within or beyond the period prescribed in said para­graph 15.  In other words, the defense of late filing of
the claim has not been established.

It is next urged that plaintiff’s action is barred
by prescription, the case having been commenced on January 19, 1962, or more than one (1) year from the date of
discharge of the goods, on January 8, 1961.  It
should be noted, however, that, under the aforementioned paragraph 15, the
consignee has, also, one (1) year from the date when the claim for the value of
the goods has been denied or rejected by
the MPS and that, since the latter has neither denied nor rejected plaintiff’s
claim, said denial or rejection must be deemed to have taken place upon the
expiration of one (1) year from the date of discharge of the cargo, or on
January 8, 1962.4 In short, plaintiff could bring
his action up to January 8, 1963,
and his complaint, doc­keted on January
19, 1962, was filed within the prescribed period.

Defendants lastly assail the award of P1,089.15,
plus P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs, upon the ground that their
"liability if any shall not exceed P500." Paragraph 15 of the
Management Con­tract limited said liability, not to P500.00, but "to P500 for
each package." As the lower court has correctly held, a
"bundle" may be considered as a "package," within the
purview of said contract, and the disputed award is not in contravention
thereof, considering that it involves 35 bundles.  Moreover, in the light of the attending
circumstances, we do not feel the Court of First Instance has erred in awarding
attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, affirmed, with costs against the defendants.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal,
Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Yu Kimteng Construction Corporation vs. Manila Port Service, et al., G.R. No. L-17027,
November 29, 1965.  See, also, Resolution of March 3,
1967.

^[2] Shell Co. of the Philippines vs. Compania General de Tabacos de
Filipinas, et al., G.R. No.
L-20230, July 30,
1965; New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al., G.R. No. L-20938, August 9, 1966.

^[3] Consunju vs. Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-15551, November 29, 1960.

4
The Continental Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port
Service, et al., G.R. No. L-22208, March 30, 1966, Delgado Brothers, Inc., et al. vs. Manila Port
Service, et al., G.R. No. L-21781, June 30, 1966; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. vs.. Manila Port
Service, et al., G.R. No. L-21412, September 28, 1966; and the American Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port
Service, et al., G.R. No. L-22780, February 18, 1967.