G.R. No. L-24826. March 20, 1968
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS?APPEL…
ANGELES, J.:
Plaintiff-appellee, St. Paul Fire &
Marine Insurance Company, was the insurer of a shipment consisting of 218
packages of medicinal and pharmaceutical products consigned to Winthrop
Stearns, Inc., Manila, loaded on the vessel SS Tai Ping, “which arrived in
Manila on August 7, 1960, and discharged unto the custody of the arrastre operator, the Manila Port Service, on August 11,
1960.
For loss and damage
sustained by the abovementioned shipment, the consignee demanded and collected
from the insurer the reasonable value thereof, including other expenses,
amounting to $1,071.58.
The insurance company, as subrogee of
the consignee, filed complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila,
alleging that the subject loss and damage were due to the fault and/or
negligence of the defendants Wilhelm Wilhelmsen
and/or its agents Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. and/or Macondray
& Co., Inc., prior to the delivery thereof to the Manila Port Service, or
in the alternative, that said loss and damage were due to the fault or
negligence of the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company, after
delivery thereof of the goods to the latter.
Answering the complaint, the Manila Port Service and Manila
Railroad Company denied responsibility of the alleged loss and damage on the
ground that the goods have been delivered to the consignee in the same
condition as they were received by them from the carrying vessel. At the same time, they pleaded, in defense,
the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract.
In their answer, the
other defendants, although denying responsibility and liability, for the loss,
alleged that for the purposes of avoiding litigation, they had offered to
settle the plaintiff’s claim in full by paying the c.i.f. value of the lost and
damaged shipment, but the consignee and its subrogee
declined the offer.
After trial and the
submission of the parties’ memoranda, the court found that plaintiff’s claim
had to do with one undelivered carton and damage on six cartons and one drum,
with a total value of P1,109.67; that said shipment of 218 cartons was
discharged from the vessel complete and in good order, with the exception of
one drum and 3 cartons, hence,
any loss or damage thereof are the responsibility of the owner and operator of
the vessel and its agents, while the undelivered carton and any damage on the
remaining three cartons are the responsibility of the arrastre
contractor and its principal company.
The court thus rendered judgment in accordance with these findings; and
to be more specific, it fixed the liability of the first set of defendants, for
the damage on the one drum and three cartons, at P300.00; while that of the second
set of defendants, for the undelivered carton and the damage on the remaining
three cartons, for P809.67, both amounts with legal interest from the filing of
the complaint until fully paid.
The Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company have
appealed.
It is contended in the first place that the complaint should be
dismissed because the provisional claim, for the alleged lost and damaged
goods, was not filed within the fifteen-day period fixed by the Management
Contract for filing such claims. The
contention is meritorious, for the reason that while the carrying vessel
discharged its last package on August
11, 1960, the claim adverted to was filed the day before or on August 10, 1960. This Court has repeatedly held that a
stereo-type provisional claim for “any shortage or damage that may after
examination be found to exist” filed against the arrastre
operator before the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel is
not a compliance with the provision of the said Management Contract entered into
between the consignee of the goods and the arrastre
operator, such claim being premature and speculative.[1]
To allow it would swamp the arrastre service with
advance claims of brokers for all goods consigned to their customers.
Of course, this ruling is
not without any exception. In Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Java Pacific
& Hoegh Lines, et al., G. R. No. L-21760,
April 30, 1966,
a claim filed in advance was held to have constituted substantial
compliance with the provision of Section 15 of the Management Contract. But this, under the conditions that, upon the
examination of the shipment before the discharge of the last package from the
boat, certain shortages were found and that examination took place in the
presence of the representatives of both parties, which conditions do not
appear to obtain here. The bare
allegation of the plaintiff-appellee that claimant
had knowledge of the loss and damage before the boat or vessel had finally
unloaded all its cargo, which allegation is not supported
by the evidence, and without any showing under what circumstances the alleged
knowledge had come about, would not cause Us to deviate from the general
ruling on the matter.
In view of these findings, We need not
go into the other issue raised by appellant, which merely refers to the amount
for which the defendant-appellee would be held liable
should recovery appears to be proper.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. No costs at this instance.
Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.
[1]
Shell Co. vs. Compañia
General de Tabacos, G.R. No. L-20230,
July 30, 1965; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. vs. Manila Port
Service, G.R. No. L-22454, April
29, 1966, 16 S. C. Rep. Anno. p. 795; Domestic Ins. Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No.
L-24066, August 30, 1967, 20 S.C. Rep. Anno. 1090; Rizal
Surety & Ins. Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-22409, April 27, 1967, 1967 B CHILD
206; and Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port
Service, et al., G.R. No. L-24287, January 24, 1968.