COMMUNICATIONS INS. CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AS SUBSIDIARY OF MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
in Civil Case No. 53461 the dispositive part of which is of the following tenor:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering, the
defendant to pay the plaintiff the following sums; with interest at the legal
rate from March 20, 1963,
until full payment:

(a)                 
On the first cause of action, the
sum of $148.60 converted into pesos at the
prevailing rate of exchange on November
3, 1961;

(b)                 
On the second cause of action, the
sum of $247.50 converted into pesos at the prevailing rate of exchange on January 23, 1962, not to exceed
P500.00;

(c)                 
On the third cause of action, the
sum of $28.72 converted into pesos at the prevailing rate of exchange on May 12,
1962;

(d)                 
On the fourth cause of action, the
sum of $51.60 converted into pesos at the prevailing rate of exchange on April 15, 1962;

(e)                 
On the fifth cause of action, the
sum of $31.35 converted into pesos at the prevailing rate of exchange on April 14, 1962; and

(f)                   
On the sixth cause of action, the sum of $26.40 converted into pesos at
the prevailing rate of exchange on December 29, 1961.

The defendant shall pay the costs.”

It appears that on November
23, 1962, plaintiff-appellee commenced an
action against the defendant-appellant in the Municipal Court of Manila, praying
that judgment be rendered against the latter as follows:

“1.  Pay the plaintiff the aggregate sum of
P3,245.11 as representing the value of goods lost and/or pilfered while in the
custody of and due to the inexcusable negligence of defendant, with legal
interest from dates of their first demands until full payment;

 2.   Pay
the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and

 3.   Pay
costs.”

Judgment in favor of appellee having
been rendered in said court, appellant appealed to the Court of First Instance
of Manila who, after due trial, rendered the appealed judgment.

The total amount appellee sought to
recover represents the value of goods either lost or pilfered while under
appellant’s custody.  Said goods came in
six different shipments from the United States
and Japan
destined for the Port of Manila
where appellant – a subsidiary of the Manila Railroad Company – was the arrastre contractor. 
Upon arrival of the vessels at said port, the cargoes were discharged
unto appellant’s custody.  Upon their
delivery to the respective consignees, the latter found that some of the goods
were either in damaged condition or short of the quantity manifested in the
corresponding bills of lading.  The
losses thus sustained by the consignees were, upon demand, paid by herein appellee, their insurer, who later filed the necessary suit
to recover from appellant the amounts it had paid to the consignees.

The short-deliveries and the damage to some of the goods
delivered are admitted to have taken place while the cargoes were under
appellant’s custody.  The latter,
however, invoking the provisions of Section 15 of the Management Contract,
disclaims liability therefor upon the ground that the
consignees of the shipments had failed to file the requisite claim within 15
days from the date of the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.  Appellant
further claims that, if liable at all, its liability was for sums much less than
those claimed by appellee.

It is an established fact, however, that
appellee filed provisional claims in connection with
the missing or damaged goods after the discharge of several of the
packages although before the discharge of the last package from the respective carrying vessels.  These provisional claims – appellant contends
– are ineffective in law because they were not in accordance with the provision
of the Management Contract mentioned heretofore.

We are unable to accept the view that the contractual provision relied upon does not allow a
consignee of goods discharged from a vessel to file a claim based on damage or
short-landing until after the discharge
of the last package from the carrying vessel.  While We agree that a
claim filed before the actual commencement of the
discharge of goods carried by a vessel is legally ineffective under the
provision of the Management Contract relied upon, because it would be a pure­ly
speculative claim (Universal Insurance etc., vs. Manila Railroad Company, L-24600, April 27, 1970, 32 SCRA
364), We see no cogent reason to outlaw a claim similar to the ones involved in
this case filed after the discharge
of several or a majority of the packages carried by the vessel, belonging to the same consignee.  We have heretofore upheld this view in
Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Manila Port Service et al., L-22687, March 28,
1969; Switzerland etc. vs. Manila Railroad etc. et al., L-22150, April 22,
1968; Insurance Company etc. vs. Manila Port Service, L-24887, April 22, 1968, 23
SCRA 114.

We have held heretofore that some features of Section 15 of the
Management Contract mentioned heretofore appear to be harsh and unreasonable
(Sun Bros. Co. vs. Manila Port Service, G. R. No. L-13500, April 29, 1960). 
It is, therefore, our duty to tone them down and give them a reasonable
and humane interpretation.

As regards the value of the goods short-landed or damaged, We are satisfied that the finding of both lower courts is
sufficiently sustained by the evidence.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from being in accordance
with law, the same is hereby
affirmed.

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

Ruiz Castro, J., no part.