PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Direct appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in its Civil Case No. 53072, ordering appellant to pay P1,431.64, plus interest, P200.00 attorneys’ fees and costs.

As consignee of shipment of books and magazines, from New
York to Manila
on board the M/S “EFFIE MAERSK”, the appellee
Philippine Education Co., Inc. filed with the appellant arrastre
operator, Manila Port Service, (a branch of the Manila Railroad Company) a
provisional claim (Exh. G) for
shortage and/or damage, dated June 29,
1960.  The carrying vessel
arrived at the port of Manila
on that same day, June 29, and the last discharge of its cargo was done on June 30, 1960.  A formal claim with full data was filed and
received on October 25; amended claim was submitted later, for P1,431.64.

The Manila Port Service rejected the claim as not filed on time,
and action was begun on June 29, 1961,
in the City Court of Manila, that rendered judgment for the plaintiff.  Appeal was taken to the Court of First
Instance, which also found for the plaintiff, as hereinabove described.

Not satisfied, the arrastre operator
elevated the claim to this Court, alleging that the provisional claim was
insufficient; that the formal claim was made beyond the 15-day period from last
discharge of cargo, and hence, there was non-compliance with paragraph 15 of
the Management Contract, prescribing timely filing of the claim as condition
precedent to recovery; and that the judgment rendered by the Court below was
not in conformity with the said contract that limited recovery to invoice
value, and in no case to exceed P500.00 for each package.

We find the appeal meritorious, for the reason that the
provisional claim, Exhibit G, is evidently premature and speculative and was not in substantial compliance with paragraph 15 of the
Management Contract.  Exhibit G is dated
June 29, 1960, the same day the vessel carrying the cargo arrived in port, and
before it had discharged the cargo.  There
is no showing anywhere in the record that on the day the provisional claim had
been made, the consignee had already discovered, or had been reliably informed,
of a shortage or damage to its goods. 
The claimant was merely speculating on a possibility, and this is shown
by the detail that the provisional claim was for “shortlanded
and/or landed in bad order” cargo, justifying the inference that the
consignee was then still uncertain about the existence or nature of the alleged
damage.

This Court has repeatedly rejected, as insufficient, damage
claims made prior to the discharge of the last package from the vessel:  Shell Co. vs. Compañia
General de Tabacos, L-20230, July 30, 1965; Fireman’s
Fund Ins. Co. vs. Manila Port Service, L-22454, April 29, 1966, 16 S. C. Rep. Anno. p. 795; Domestic Ins. Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
L-24066, Aug. 30, 1967, 20
S. C. Rep. Anno. 1090; Rizal Surety & Ins. Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
L-22409, April
27, 1967, 1967 B PHILD 206.  The last case cited is practically on all
fours with the one before us. No valid claim having been filed within the requisite
period, the damage claim of appellee is barred.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is reversed, and the complaint ordered
dismissed.  Costs
against appellee.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.