ANG CHING GI, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME ANGI TRADING CO., PETITIONER, VS. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Lawrence Export Company of New York, upon the importation order
of Ang Ching Gi, shipped in 1954 thru M/S “Trafalgar” three
cases of Carter’s Writing Ink and one case of Gas mantle fabric, with a total
of $8,492.  In July 1954, the carrier
delivered the cargo to Delgado Brothers, Inc., as arrastre
operator of Manila.  After Ang Ching Gi’s broker paid the
advance sales tax and arrastre fees, said broker
claimed the cargo from Delgada Brothers, Inc. but was
told that all the four cases had been transferred to the possession of A.C. Esguerra & Company, the operator of a customs bonded
warehouse in­side the customs zone, by virtue of a contract with the Bureau of
Customs.  Upon claim by the same broker
against A.C. Esguerra & Co., however, the latter
replied that of the four cases, only two cases of Carter’s Writing Ink were
transferred to it, erroneously at that, without any record or supporting papers
and these were later stored in the Chinese Baggage Room.

Ang Ching Gi’s broker thereupon wrote the Acting Collector of Customs
on April 26, 1955 requesting for the immediate release of the two cases.  The investigation conducted by the Bureau of
Customs showed the two cases to have been tampered and with shortage.  As per request, the goods were released after
the broker filed a surety bond of P5,020.31.

On January 28, 1956 having been denied recovery of the loss by
Delgado Brothers, Inc., Ang Ching
Gi filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila
the present, action against Delgado Brothers, Inc., for the recovery of
P19,683.02 – the alleged value of the undelivered car­go plus the shortage –
plus 30% unrealized profits, P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorney’s fees and
costs.  Answering, Delgado Brothers, Inc.
denied liability and alleged prescription because Ang
Ching Gi did not file his
claim within 15 days from the discharge of the cargo from the vessel nor file
the action in court within one year from the date of arrival or the cargo at
the port.  Defendant Delgado Brothers,
Inc., then filed a third par­ty complaint against A.C. Esguerra
& Co., alleging liabi­lity on the latter because the goods had been
transferred to it, as a customs warehouse to which all cargoes beyond the free,
storage period are delivered.  Likewise,
A.C. Esguerra Co. disclaimed responsibility on the
ground that the cargo was never properly or legally delivered to it, the truth
being that the two cases wore erroneously delivered without the necessary
supporting papers and that upon receipt thereof it merely sent the goods to the
Chinese Baggage Room as required by customs regulations.

After trial on the merits, the Court of First Ins­tance absolved
A.C. Esguerra & Co. and found Delgado Bro­thers,
Inc. liable on the grounds that the alleged transfer of the goods to A.C. Esguerra & Co., was not proved – the transfer slip was
signed by the customs guard and Del­gado’s checker but not Esguerra’s
checker and the gate inspector, whose signatures are necessary for the trans­fer;
the two cases were tampered while in Delgado Brothers, Inc.’s possession; the
prescriptive period does not apply because plaintiff was not bound by the
management contract between the Bureau of Customs and Delgado Brothers,
Inc.  Delgado Brothers, Inc. was ordered
to pay Ang Ching Gi P19,683.02 for the value of the lost cargo but the court
did not grant award for unrealized profits or moral da­mages and attorney’s
fees, for lack of showing of gross bad faith on the part of Delgado Brothers,
Inc.  From this judgment both parties
appealed to the Court of Appeals.  Acting
subsequently, the Appellate Court, while holding that there was gross
negligence if not bad faith on the part of Delgado Brothers, Inc., dismissed
the case on the ground that Ang Ching
Gi, who was bound by the management contract, did not
file his claim within the required period, allowing the same to prescribe.

After denial of his two motions for reconsideration, Ang Ching Gi
appealed to Us by way of certiorari, setting forth as issues the prescription
of the claim and his right to recover the value of the goods plus damages, unrealized
profits and attorney’s fees.

The management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the arrastre operator, particularly the provision li­miting the
liability of the operator to claims filed within 15 days from discharge of the
cargo into its custody or a suit in court within one year from the date of ar­rival
of the cargo at the port, is binding upon consignees or third persons not
signatories thereto, as long as the latter is shown, by sane act or
transaction, to have known and accepted that limitation of liability.  To successfully invoke the provisions of the
contract, the beneficiary is bound to prove such knowledge and agreement on the
part of the importer.^[1]  So far, the issuance of delivery per­mits and
gate passes on the back of which are stamped this provision of limitation of
liability, have been considered by Us as instances where there was such
knowledge and acceptance.^[2]  The Court of Appeals, apparently relying on
this principle, enunciated as far back as the case of Tomas Grocery v. Delgado
Brothers, L-11154, April 29, 1959, held the case at bar to be no different from
the Tomas Grocery case. 
Petitioner argues that unlike in the case cited by the Court of Appeals
there was never a delivery permit nor a gate pass issued by Delgado Brothers,
Inc. for the withdrawal of the goods. 
This fact is even admitted by respondent Delgado Brothers, Inc.  This, petitioner claims, makes the period of
prescription in the management contract inapplicable.  Instead, Article 1149 of the Civil Code
providing for 5 years for actions whose period are not fixed, should apply.

At first glance, the argument of petitioner would seem tenable.

 Analysis however shows
otherwise.  On April 26, 1955, Ang Ching Gi,
thru his broker requested the Acting Collec­tor of Customs for the release of
the two cases of goods.  After
investigation, the goods were ordered released and Ang
Ching Gi, after posting the
necessary bond, took possession of the same. 
Barring the smuggling of goods outside of the customs zone, all cargoes
ordered released whether bonded or not cannot be taken out of the customs zone
without a delivery permit issued by the customs authorities and the
corresponding gate pass on both of which would be stamped the terms of the
management contract.  Withdrawal of goods
from A.C. Esguerra & Co., especially because it
is inside the customs zone, would not be any exception.  It would then be upon the date of issuance of
either the de­livery permit or the gate pass that petitioner in the ins­tant
case, would be bound by the term of the management contract and from which the
15-day period to file the claim for loss or shortage would commence to
run.  It is Indisputable that no such
claim within the aforementioned period had been filed at all.  Thus, though arguably, the court action filed
on January 28, 1956 was within the one-year period as provided in the
management contract (even if counted from April 26, 1955, the date of request
for the release of the two cases), petitioner’s claim must fail for
non-compliance with the 15-day period requirement.  It is settled that before the one-year period
to file court action may be availed of, the 15-day period must first be
complied with.^[3]

As regards unrealized profits as to which petitioner alleges he
could have recovered at least 30% of the loss, there is no sufficient proof of
the same.

Finally, there is no merit in petitioner’s claim for moral
damages, for the same are not recoverable in the absence of had faith in damage
actions predicated on a breach of contract of carriage as in this case.^[4]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby af­firmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1] Lexal Pure Drug Laboratories v. MRR, L-20155, April 30, 1966.

^[2] Lexal Pure Drug Laboratories v. MRR, supra;
Shell Co. v. Compañia de Tabacos
de Filipinas, L-20230, July 30, 1965; Insurance Co. of North America v.
U.S. Lines, L-17032, March 31, 1964.

^[3]
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. MPS, L-16789, Oct. 31, 1962; Insurance
Co of North America v. MPS, L­17331, Nov. 29, 1961.

^[4] Verzosa v. Baytan, et al.,
L-14092, April 29, 1960, cit­ing Fores v.
Miranda, L-12163, March 4, 1959.