FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Direct appeal on a question of law from the decision, in Civil Case
No. 50847, of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing
appellant’s action to recover from the defendant, Manila Port Service,
the sum of P6,374.42. The amount represents the value of merchandise
landed from the vessel “SS Pioneer Ming” in the port of Manila and
received by the Manila Port Service, as arrastre operator; the goods
were consigned to Getz Bros & Company and insured by the
plaintiff-appellant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. In the course of
the pendency of the case in the court a quo, the claim was reduced to P1,500.00, value of non-delivered goods.

The aforesaid vessel arrived at Manila or 4 July 1961, and the
consigned merchandise was discharged on 7 July 1961 and received by the
Manila Port Service on July 1961 in good order. One day before the
goods were discharged, the broker of the consignee filed a provisional
claim, bearing date of 3 July 1961, with the defendant
arrastre-operator covering the entire consignment of 15 cases of nylon
piece goods. Within fifteen (15) days from the said discharge of the
last package from the carrying vessel, the defendant, upon demand,
delivered 12 of the 15 cases to the consignee; and also within the said
fifteen day period, that is, on 20 July 1961, the consignee’s broker
requested for a bad order examination. Defendant’s bad order inspector
certified that the three (3) remaining cartons were empty of contents.
Formal claim was filed upon the defendant on 15 August 1961.

The insurer of the shipment, herein plaintiff-appellant, upon demand
made by the consignee, paid the value of the lost cargo and thus became
subrogated into the rights of the consignee. The defendant-appellee,
Manila Port Service, however, refused to pay the insurer; hence, the
latter instituted suit against the former.

The defendant-appellee refused payment for the lost goods on the
ground that no formal claim was filed with it within fifteen (15) days
from the discharge of the last package from the carrier, as provided
for in section 15 of the arrastre management contract between it and
the Bureau of Customs.

The lower court sustained the stand of the arrastre-operator, and
observed that the provisional claim, filed one (1) day before the goods
were landed, was not the claim contemplated in the contract, and that
its allowance would swamp the arrastre service with advance claims of
brokers for all goods consigned to their customers. Thus, the case was
dismissed. Not satisfied with the decision, the defeated plaintiff
appealed to this Court.

The lower court correctly ruled that the provisional claim, which
was filed before the discharge of the last package from the carrying
vessel, was not a compliance of the required condition for filing
claims. In the case of Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. vs.
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, L-20230, promulgated on 30
July 1965, this Court held that a provisional claim filed before the goods were landed did not comply with section 15 of the arrastre contract, the claim being premature and speculative.

However, the trial court has overlooked the significance of the
request for, and the result of, the bad order examination, which were
filed and done within fifteen days from the haulage of the goods from
the vessel. Said request and result, in effect, served the purpose of a
claim, which is—

“to afford the carrier or depositary reasonable
opportunity and facilities to check the validity or claims while facts
are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the
transaction and the documents are still available.” (Consunji vs. Manila Port Service, 110 Phil. 231.)

Indeed, the examination undertaken by the defendant’s own inspector
not only gave the defendant an opportunity to check the goods but is
itself a verification of its own liability (cf. Parsons Hardware vs. Manila Railroad Co., L-15173, May 30, 1961).

For the foregoing reason,  the appealed decision is
hereby reversed, and another judgment entered, ordering the
defendants-appellees to pay the plaintiff-appellant, Fireman’s Fund
Insurance Company, the sum of P1,500.00. Costs against the said
defendants-appellees.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.