G.R. No. L-19115. March 31, 1964
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANILA POST SERVICE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
REGALA, J.:
The pertinent facts as may be gathered from the record are as follows:
On October 20, 1956, the J.P. Heilbronn Co., Inc. was awarded
contract P10 92-11-029-9-60221 to supply the Bureau of Agricultural
Extension, through the procurement of the National Economic Council, a
government agency, a paper-cutter table. On May 9, 1957, the said item
contained in two cases arrived in Manila via the SS Pioneer Mist, as
per Bill of Lading No. 101 under Customs registry and Entry Nos. 618
and 64820. The U.S. Lines Co., representing the carrier, certified that
the shipment was discharged from the said vessel and received by the
Manila Port Service.
After notification of the arrival of the shipment, the Bureau of
Agricultural Extension, thru the National Economic Council, engaged the
services of one Mariano Almeida, a broker, to take charge of its
discharge. It appears, however, that on July 22, 1957, only one case
was released from the Manila Port Service and turned over to the Bureau
of Agricultural Extension. It is shown in the receipt that one of the
cases was not received.
In view of the shortage, the Manila Port Service, on August 20,
1957, issued a shortlanded certificate stating: “This is to certify
that the merchandise noted below S/S “PIONEER MIST’ Reg. No. 618, B/L
No. 101, arrived Manila on May 9, 1957 has been shortlanded.”
Claim for the missing cargo was then made by the Bureau of
Agricultural Extension. On August 29, 1957, the Manila Port Service
sent a letter to the claimant as follows:
“With reference to your claim on the above-noted shipment, we are
glad to advise that one case is presently remaining inside the bulkhead
of Pier No. 7, which case bears the shipping mark ‘Project:
Agricultural Extension.’
“We believe that this case corresponds to the
shortage in question. We request therefore that you send over your
repressntative to us to verify as to whether this case ig the missing
one.”Pursuant to the aforequotcd advice, the Bureau of
Agricultural Extension sent its representative and broker to Pier 7,
but they were unable to find the missing case, whereupon defendant
asked for more time to locate the same.
On March 12, 1959, the Manila Port Service wrote another letter to
the Bureau of Agricultural Extension, pertinent portion of which reads :
“Referring to your letter of February 12, 1959, concerning1 your shortage of one (1) case oC Paper Cutter, we
have actually verified that this case is presently stored inside the
bulkhead of Pier 7, the same having been mistransferred thereto under
Reg. 722. Please request ycur representative or your broker to see
us personally on this case so that we could pinpoint the exact
location, of the package in question.” (Underscoring ours)
The representative of the Bureau of Agricultural Extension and the
broker once more went to look for the missr ing cargo, but failed again
to locate the seme.
Other subsequent demands were made by the Bureau of Agricultural Extension.
On September 30, 1959, the Manila Port Service finally wrote the Bureau of Agricultural Extension a letter pertinently reading:
“We refer to your letter of September 25, 1959 in connection with your claim on the above shipment.
“The
shortlanded certificate was issued in error by us for the reason that
the two (2) cases comprom’sing the shipment were landed in accordance
with tally receipts. No trace, however, could be found of the missing
case in the piers or anywhere around tho Customs promises, so that as a
last resort, we have rejected your claim on tho ground that the same
was filed bsyond the 15-day limitation period for filing claims
pursuant to the pertinent provisions of our Management Contract.”“We regret, therefore, that we cannot reconsider our stand on this case.”
Feeling aggrieved, the Bureau of Agricultural Extension, represented
by the Solicitor General, filed a complaint with the Court of First
Instance of Manila, praying that defendant Manila Port Service be
ordered to pay the amount of P7,979.00, the value of the missing
merchandise, with costs.
Defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint, alleging as
special defenses: (1) that since no provisional claim was filed by the
consignee, its broker or representative against the defendant within
the 15-day period from the date of the discharge of the last package
from the carrying vessel, and/or suit brought in the court of proper
jurisdiction within one year from the discharge of the last package, or
from the date of rejection of the claim, said defendant is completely
relieved, of any liability arising from the loss, shortage in contents
of, or damage to, cargo in accordance with Section 15 of the Management
Contract entered into by and between the Bureau of Customs and the
Manila Port Service, as arrastre operator for the port of Manila; (2)
that in the remote event that it should be held liable, its liability
would not be more than P500 in accordance with the provisions of the
Management Contract; and (3) that defendant in no way acts as the
ship’s agent for the receipt and delivery of tho cargoes in the piers.
There being no dispute as to the facts, the case was submitted for decision with the documentary evidence presented.
The lower court found for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant
is liable for the shortage of the cargo landed, but only for the amount
of P500, since the plaintiff failed to declare the value of the missing
case either in the vessel’s manifesto or in the bill of lading.
Only the defendant appealed, disclaiming liability due to
plaintiff’s failure to file its claim within the 15-day period
mentioned in the Management Contract.
The appeal is without merit.
Pertinent portions of section 15 of the Management Contract in question read:
“15. It is further understood and strictly agreed
that the CONTRACTOR shall at its own expense handle all merchandise
upon or over said piers, wharves and other designated places, and at
its own expense perform all work undertaken by it hereunder diligently
and in a skillful workmanlike and efficient manner; and the CONTRACTOR
shall be solely responsible as an independent contractor for, and
promptly pay 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 (P500.00) for each package unless the value is otherwise specified or manifested,
and the corresponding arrastrc charges had been paid, including all
damages that may be suffered on account of loss, destruction, or damage
of any merchandise while in the custody or under the control of the
CONTRACTOR upon any pier, wharf or other designated place under the
supervision of the BUREAU, x x x; in any event the CONTRACTOR 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 a period of one (1)
year from the date of the discharge of the goods, or from the date when
the claim for the 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) dlays from the date of discharge of the
last package from, the carrying vessel, x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
On the question of whether or not the plaintiff-appellee’s action
has been barred by prescription, it is to be noted from the
above-quoted provision of the contract that the fifteen days period is
counted from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.
While it does not appear clearly when the cargo was discharged from the
SS “Pioneer Mist” it must have been discharged on or shortly after the
arrival of said vessel on May 9, 1957. But it certainly appears from
the record that the “Permit to Deliver Imported Goods” was issued by
the Bureau of Customs to the broker only as late as’ June 28, 1957,
that is about fifty (50) days after the arrival of the vessel. And the
goods were actually delivered to the consignee only on July 22, 1957.
It is, therefore, difficult to see how the said consignee could have
filed its claim within fifteen days after the discharge of the cargo
from the vessel, when it was able to take hold of the said shipment
only about two and a half months after the arrival of the vessel and
its subsequent discharge therefrom.
Even if the 15-day limitation period provided for in the Management
Contract should apply strictly, notwithstanding the fact that the
consignee Bureau of Agricultural Extension had received the cargo
beyond fifteen days after its discharge from the vessel, it is Our
opinion that, in the instant case, the defendant-appellant Manila Port
Service cannot anymore invoke the said provision. In connection with
the purpose of filing the claim for the rest of the shortlanded cargo,
this Court has held in the case of David Consunji, et al v. Manila Port
Service, G.R. No. L-15551, that “such requirement is to afford the
carrier a reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claims
while the facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took
part in the transaction and documents are still available.”It will be
recalled that, as already stated, the defendant-appellant had issued a
shortlanded certificate, which is an admission of the missing cargo.
And this admission was reiterated in a letter dated October 29, 1957
and another dated March 12, 1959. In line with the purpose of the
15-day limitation, these admissions would preclude the
defendant-appellant from invoking the said limitation, since the
purpose for which it was provided had already been served.
Of course, the situation would bs different had the
defendant-appellant invoked the defense of prescription the first time
tJle claim was filed. But the said defendant-appellant had entertained
the said claim for a period of almost two years. In fact, the latest
letter of tho appellant admitting the existence of the cargo in its
custody was as late as March 12, 1959. Hence, defendant cannot just now
turn around and say that “as a last resort” tho claim should be denied
on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day period. As aptly
stated by the learned trial judge, under the circumstances, it would bo
unfair to release the defendant-anpsllant from the liability on the
technical ground that plaintiff did not file a provisional claim within
the 15-day period stated in the Management Contract.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all respects. Costs against the defendant-appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Labrador, JJ., took no part.