MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND MANILA RAILROAD CO., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal upon questions of law taken by the Manila Port Service and
the Manila Railroad Company from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No.
47327 entitled “MA-AO Sugar Central Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port
Service & Manila Railroad Company” of the following tenor:

“IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment sentencing the defendants to pay
jointly and severally the plaintiff the sum of P5,490.34,
with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until
the whole amount is paid, plus the sum of P500.00 as reasonable attorney’s
fees, which the Court deems just and
equitable under the circumstances of this case, and the costs of this action.”

On June 2, 1960,
the UTC/Crane Co. shipped at San Francisco, California,
U.S.A., on board the S/S
President Tyler, 44 cartons of gate and globe valves of various sizes on order
of the Philippine Banking Corporation for appellee
Ma-ao Sugar Central Company, Inc.  Only 40 of the 44 cases were unloaded from
said vessel and delivered to the Manila Port Service on June 25, 1960, the remaining 4 having been over carried by
the vessel and later transferred to the S/S President Pierce which unloaded
them unto the custody of the same appellants mentioned heretofore on July 10,
1960.

On July 5, 1960,
appellee withdrew the shipping documents covering the
44 cartons from the consignee bank and turned them over to its broker, the
Pacific Customs Brokerage Co., Inc.

As notwithstanding painstaking search the goods could not be located at the piers, appellee’s broker filed on July 25, 1960 a provisional claim with the Manila Port Service covering all the 44
cartons of valves.

On August 3, 1960,
however, 11 of the missing cartons were located and delivered to appellee, and on July
10, 1960, 4 additional cartons were discharged and delivered to the
latter, leaving only 29 cartons unaccounted for.

On March 3, 1961,
appellee’s broker filed another claim with the Manila
Port Service for the C&F value of the 33 cartons not delivered up to that
time.  Subsequent­ly, this claim was
reduced to 29 cartons upon receipt of the four additional cartons mentioned
heretofore.

Upon appellants’ failure to satisfy their claim for damages for
the missing goods, appellee filed the present action
against them to recover their value.

Appellants’ defense below was that they are not liable for any
loss or damage to the cargo in question since no claim had been filed within
fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package of the shipment in
question, as provided for in Section 15 of the Manage­ment Contract entered
into by and between the Bureau of Customs and appellant Manila Port Service
governing the management and operation of the arrastre
service.

After due trial, the court rendered the appealed judgment.  Hence the present appeal which, because only
questions of law are involved, was certified to this Court by the Court of
Appeals.

Appellants’ contentions in the first three assignments of errors
submitted in their brief may be
reduced to this:  that the provisional
claim Exhibit P filed by appellee is not the claim for value required by
and defined in Section 15 of the Management Contract and that, at any rate, it
was not filed within the fifteen day period from the date of discharge of the
last package, as required by the afore­said contract.

We find this contention
to be without merit.

As stated heretofore, only forty of the forty-four cartons composing the shipment were discharged
from the S/S President Tyler on June
24, 1960.  On July 10 of the same year four
additional cartons were discharged in Manila
from the S/S President
Pierce.  The computa­tion of the fifteen
day period, therefore, must start not from June 24, 1960 but from July 11, 1960 (the day following the event).  As it appears that it was on July
25, 1960 that
appellee’s broker filed the provi­sional claim
Exhibit P, covering all the 44 cartons, the conclusion must be that the same
was filed within the applicable legal period.  That the claim was entitled
“Provisional” is of no decisive significance as far as the rights of
the parties herein are concerned. 
Indeed, it had to be of that nature considering the possibility that
after its filing, other cartons would
be, as in fact they were found.

Appellants’ last contention is that the lower court erred in
including shipping expenses, margin tax and other charges in determining the invoice value of the missing goods
and that, consequently, it erred in rendering judgment for appellee
in the sum of P5,490.34 with legal interest thereon, plus the sum of
P500.00 for attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 15 of the Management Contract relied upon by the
appellants shows that, thereunder, they are liable to
appellee not only for the invoice value of the goods
they had failed to deliver to the latter but also for the total value thereof, as manifested,
and for all damages suffered by the consignee on account of their loss.

In this case, appellee’s broker had
made manifes­tation to appellants not only of the invoice value of the goods
subject of its claim but also of their total actual landed cost (Exhibit
N).  As ruled in Northern Motors vs.
Prince Lines etc., G. R. No. L-13884, the consignee has in his hands the right to hold the arrastre operator — if he so desires — responsible for the
full value of the merchandise undelivered by speci­fying such value in any of
the documents required of him to claim the merchandise from customs.  Under the Management Contract, therefore, and
under the provisions
of Article 1173 of the New Civil Code, appellants were rightly held
liable for the damages awarded to appellee by the
trial court.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., no part.