G.R. No. L-22687. March 28, 1969
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
An appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
in its Civil Case No. 53840, on a question of law.
Plaintiff Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., a subrogee
of several consignees of goods imported into the Philippines on different
occasions between the period from March to June, 1961, brought in by different
steamers, filed a complaint, on April 4, 1962, in the city court of Manila,
against defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company, for the
recovery of the agggregate sum of P4,154.80 plus
interest. The amount demanded in the
complaint represented the total payment made by plaintiff to said several
consignees under contracts of insurance covering losses and/or damages suffered
by the consignees in connection with the different shipments discharged from
the carrying vessels into the custody of defendant Manila Port Service, which
is a subsidiary of defendant Manila Railroad Company. The city court of Manila rendered judgment in
favor of plaintiff.
The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Manila, reproducing in the latter court the complaint that was filed in the
city court. The complaint contained
eighteen causes of action. It is alleged
in all the causes of action that on account of the inexcusable negligence of
defendant Manila Port Service the shipments were delivered by said defendant
to the consignees either in bad order or condition or were short of the
quantity mentioned in the shipping documents.
In all these causes of action, plaintiff alleged that the consignees,
or their agents, timely filed claims for loss or damage with defendant Manila
Port Service, and that as subrogee of those
consignees it had made formal demands on the defendants for payment of the sums
that it had paid the consignees under the insurance contract for the losses
and/or damages suffered by those consignees.
Defendants, in their answer to the complaint, denied the allegations of
negligence, and made the special defense that no claim for the value of the
shipments in question was filed by the plaintiff or its representative within
fifteen days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel
pursuant to Section 15 of the management contract entered into by and between
the Bureau of Customs and defendant Manila Port Service, such that the claims
of the plaintiff had become time barred and/or had prescribed. The defendants further alleged, as a defense,
that in the remote event that they would be held liable, their liability
should be limited only to the invoice value of the shipments in question, which
in no case should exceed P500.00 per package pursuant to Section 15 of the
management contract.
The parties entered into a stipulation of facts, and on the bases
of said stipulation the Court of First Instance of Manila, on February 28, 1964, rendered a decision. In its decision the lower court declared that
the defendants were not liable under the fourth and tenth causes of action, but
it held that the defendants were liable under all the sixteen other causes of
action. However, the lower court
assessed the liability of the defendants on the basis simply of the invoice
value of the goods that were lost or damaged.
Pertinent portions of the decision of the lower court read as follows:
“Computed on the basis of the invoice value, it would appear
that the total liability of the defendants arrastre
operators would amount to P1,767.24.
“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered sentencing the defendants to
pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,767.24 with interest thereon at the legal rate
from the date of the filing of the complaint until the whole amount is paid
plus P100.00 as reasonable attorney’s fee and the costs of this action.”
The defendants appealed from the above-mentioned decision,
“with respect to the portion of the said decision dealing on the sixth
cause of action of plaintiff’s complaint ordering herein defendants to pay
plaintiff the sum of P461.23, to the Honorable Supreme Court for a review on
pure question of law.”[1]
The facts that are pertinent to the sixth cause of action of the
complaint are as follows: Rosario del
Valle was the consignee of 1,667 bags of wheat flour shipped from Vancouver,
Canada, aboard the S.S.
“Varda” which arrived in Manila
on May 30, 1961. On May 31, 1961, or one day before the
discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel into the custody of
defendant Manila Port Service, the consignee filed a provisional claim with
said defendant. The provisional claim
reads as follows:
“Provisional claim is hereby filed against you for bad
order/non-delivery of goods, kindly make immediate survey to determine their whereabout. As an
acknowledgment sign and return the attached copies of this claim.”[2]
The shipment was actually discharged into the custody of
defendant Manila Port Service on June
1, 1961. When the shipment
was delivered to the consignee, 124 bags with an invoice value of P461.23 were
lacking.
There is no evidence that when the provisional claim was filed
the consignee had already knowledge or notice of any damage or loss regarding
the shipment. What is shown by the
evidence, simply, is that the provisional claim was filed one day before
the discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel into the custody of
defendant Manila Port Service. As a
matter of fact, the lower court in its decision, in connection with the sixth
cause of action, says “….It is however admitted that the provisional
claim was made one day before the cargo was actually discharged.”[3]
It is contended by the defendants in the present appeal that the
provisional claim was not filed within the 15-day period as required in Section
15 of the management contract entered into by and between the Manila Port
Service and the Bureau of Customs, the pertinent provision of which section
reads as follows:
“x x x In any
event the contractor shall be relieved and released of any and all
responsibility or liability for loss, damage, misdelivery
and/or non-delivery of goods, unless suit in the court of proper jurisdiction
is brought within a period of one (1) year from the date of the discharge of
the goods or from the date when the claim for the value of the goods has been
rejected or denied by the contractor, provided that such claim shall have been
filed with the contractor within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge
of the last package from the carrying vessel.x x.
x”
The lower court held in its decision that “the fact that the
claim for loss or damage was, made one day before the cargo was actually
discharged is a substantial compliance with this particular provision of the
management contract.”[4]
It is the contention of the defendants, however, that the provisional claim was
speculative and was filed prematurely, upon the ground that when it was filed
with the Manila Port Service on May 31, 1961 the shipment of flour in question
was still in the possession of the carrying vessel, as it was not yet
discharged into the custody of the defendant Manila Port Service.
We find merit in the contention of the defendants. The ruling of this Court, speaking through
Mr. Justice Makalintal, in the case of Switzerland
General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Railroad, et al.,[5]
supports the stand of the defendants.
This Court said:
“The question has already been settled in a long line of
cases, where we held that as a general rule a provisional claim for loss or
damage filed before the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying
vessel is not a substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 15 of
the management contract because it is premature and speculative (Shell Co.
of the Phil. Ltd. vs. Compaña General Tabacos de Filipinas, L-20230, July 30, 1965; Firemen’s
Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service et al., L-22454, April 29, 1966; Rizal Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company
and Manila Port Service, L-22409, April 27, 1967; Domestic Insurance Co. of the
Philippines vs. Manila Port Service, L-24066, August 30, 1967). This rule was however qualified in the case
of New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service et al., L-20938,
August 9, 1966, where, this Court made a distinction between two
situations. Thus, where the provisional
claim is filed ahead of the date of the discharge of the last package from the
carrying vessel and the consignee has not yet examined or has not been informed
of the condition of the shipment, the provisional claim is held to be
speculative and premature; but where the consignee, although it files the
provisional claim before the date of the discharge of the last package from the
carrying vessel, has in fact discovered or has been informed of a shortage or
damage to the goods before the discharge of the last package, or during the
unloading, then the provisional claim is deemed to have been properly
presented.” (Underscoring supplied)[6]
The present case falls in the first situation pointed out in the
above-quoted ruling of this Court. It is
not disputed that the consignee filed the provisional claim on May 31, 1961, or one day before the
discharge of the shipment into the custody of defendant Manila Port
Service. In fact the lower court stated
in its decision that it was admitted that the provisional claim was made one
day before the cargo was actually discharged.
In other words, when the provisional claim was filed with defendant
Manila Port Service the shipment of flour in question was still aboard the carrying
vessel, and the arrastre operator was not yet in
possession, much less in control, of even a part of the shipment. The provisional claim that was filed with
defendant Manila Port Service on May 31, 1961 – the wordings of which are
reproduced at the earlier part of this opinion – makes no mention of the actual
number of bags of flour, nor the value of the cargo intended to be covered by
said provisional claim. The provisional
claim simply gives notice of claim against the arrastre
operator for bad order or non-delivery of goods, and asks for immediate survey
to determine their whereabouts. How
could defendant Manila Port Service, as arrastre
operator, survey or examine the shipment of flour on May 31, 1961 when the
shipment was presumably still inside the hatches of the SS “Varga” on that day?
As long as the shipment is still aboard the carrying vessel, the arrastre operator has no obligation to look after, much
less care for, the shipment. There is absolutely
no showing in the record that when the provisional claim was filed with
defendant Manila Port Service on May
31, 1961, the unloading of the shipment of flour had started and
that the consignee had discovered or was informed of a shortage or damage to
the shipment.
We, therefore, uphold the contention of herein defendants-appellants
that the filing of the provisional claim in the present case was premature and
speculative, and was not in accordance with the provision of Section 15 of the
management contract entered into by and between the Bureau of Customs and
defendant Manila Port Service – which management contract is binding on the
consignee. Accordingly, We rule that the
claim of plaintiff in the sixth cause of action in its complaint in the court
below is time-barred.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed in so
far as it refers to the sixth cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint. The sum of P461.23, which is the award under
the sixth cause of action in the decision appealed from, should be deducted
from the total award of P1,767.24 mentioned in said decision. Costs against plaintiff-appellee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
[1]
As quoted from the Notice of Appeal, page 56, Record on Appeal.
[2]
Exhibit 1-MPS, p. 6, Appellants’ brief.
[3]
Record on Appeal, p. 54.
[4]
Record on Appeal, p. 55.
[5]
L-22150, April 22, 1968; 23
SCRA 111, 113.
[6]
See also Insurance Co. of North. America
vs. Manila Port
Service, L-24887, April 22, 1968;
23 SCRA 114.