PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This case is before us on appeal by the defendants Manila
Railroad Company and Manila Port Service from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Manila affirming that of the Municipal (now city) Court and
holding the appellants solidarily liable to the
plaintiff-appellee in the sum of P1,200.00,
with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, and costs.

The facts are stipulated by the parties.  The Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of the
Manila Railroad Company, was the operator of the arrastre
service at the port of Manila,
with authority to receive and deliver cargo discharged or unloaded by vessels
into its custody, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of its
management contract with the Bureau of Customs.

On or about July 10, 1962 the vessel “SS Streefkerk”
took on board at Rotterdam, Holland, for shipment to Manila, 500 bags white
zirconium glaze and 2 bags china clay, consigned to Fil-Hispano
Ceramics, Inc. Manila.  The aforesaid
cargo was insured with plaintiff for P26,815.25.  The “SS Streefkerk”
arrived in Manila on August 5, 1962.  On August
7, 1962 the vessel completely discharged into the custody of the
Manila Port Service all the bags white zirconium glaze and 2 bags china clay in
good order.  Of the shipment of white
zirconium glaze only 490 bags were delivered to the consignee thru its broker,
Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc., and of those delivered 31 bags were in bad order
condition, with contents partly spilled. 
By reason of the loss, the plaintiff as insurer paid to the consignee
the amount of P1,428.00, representing its liability
under the insurance contract.  On August 13, 1962 the plain­tiff and/or
the consignee filed with the defendants a “provisional” claim for the
short delivery and damaged cargo.  This
was subsequently supplemented on January
15, 1963, by a formal claim for the amount of P1,303.21,
but the claim was rejected.  On August 2, 1963 the plaintiff, as subrogee of the rights of the consignee, initiated the
instant suit in the Municipal (now city) Court of Manila.

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not the plaintiff-appellee had complied with the requirements prescribed by
Section 15 of the Management Contract. 
Appel­lants contend that when the formal claim was filed on January 15,
1963, the 15-day period fixed in the said provision of the Management Contract
had already expired, counted from “the date of the last discharge from the
carrying vessel;” that the filing of the provisional claim on August 13,
1962 was not a compliance with the contract, because it contained only an
“advice” that the cargo had been short-landed and/or landed in bad
order, but did not mention the value of the goods missing or damaged; and that
therefore such provisional claim was purely speculative.

The contention is not new and has been consistently overruled in
many cases,^[1]
where this Court held that the presentation of a provisional claim within the
prescribed 15-day period, although such claim does not state the exact value of
the missing or damaged merchandise or is not supported by proper documents,
constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 15 of the
Management Contract, for it affords the arrastre
operator reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the demand while the
facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the
transaction and the pertinent papers are still available.  At any rate, whatever deficiency there was in
the provisional claim filed by the appellee was
supplied by the subsequent formal claim filed January 15, 1963, which stated the value of the goods and
nature of the damage.^[2]

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed with
costs against the appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Dizon,
J., did
not take part.

^[1] Filipro, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al.,
L-25724, Oct. 8, 1968; Yap Tech Suy vs. Manila
Port Service, et al., L-24677, May 29, 1968; Liverpool & London & Globe
In­surance vs. Manila Port Service, L-23338, Nov. 18, 1967; Tabacalera vs. Manila Railroad, L-23636, Oct. 31,
1967; Phil. Education Co. vs. Manila Port Service, L-24091, Sept. 20,
1967; Atlantic Mutual Insurance vs. Manila Port Service, L-21907, April
29, 1966; United Insurance vs. Royal Inter Ocean Lines, L-22688, April
27, 1967; State Bonding Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, L-21833, Feb. 28,
1966; Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. vs. Manila
Railroad Co., L-17027, Nov. 29, 1965; GSIS vs. Manila Railroad
Co., L-20342, Nov. 29, 1965; Bernabe vs.
Delgado Bros., 58 O. G. 1104.

^[2]
Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. vs. Manila
Port Service, et al., L-22576, October 31, 1967.