JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MANILA PORT SERVICE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the Manila Port Service from a judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 33917),
ordering it to pay plaintiff Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., the sum of
P800.31, with legal interest, and the sum of P200.00, as attorney’s
fees.

Plaintiff-appellee’s complaint is based on
defendant-appellant’s failure to deliver to plaintiff a shipment of
copper tubings consigned to plaintiff, which arrived and was discharged
in Manila into the custody of defendant as arrestre contractor, on
December 26, 1956. The main defense of defendant is that it is relieved
of responsibility because no claim for such non-delivery was made within
15 days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying
vessel, as provided in Section 15 of the Management Contract with the
Bureau of Customs. Plaintiff countered that it was not bound by said
Management Contract, as it was not a party thereto.

The trial court, after finding that the loss of the Copper
tubings occurred after their discharge from the carrying vessel,
absolved the shipping company and held the defendant-appellant liable,
holding that the Management Contract was not binding on the plaintiff,
its provisions not being in the nature of stipulations pour autrui,
but precisely prejudicial to plaintiff, in that the Contract limits its
rights. Furthermore, the trial court reasoned out, the said stipulation
(the 15-day limit) is unreasonable and oppressive, because the date of
the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, cannot
ordinarily be known to the consignee of the shipment, and the latter may
not be able to take delivery of the goods, until after the lapse of
said 15 days, in view of the delay in the arrival of the shipping
documents from abroad, congestion in the piers, and delay in the
issuance of tax exemption certificates from the Department of Finance,
and in the clearing of the documents in the Bureau of Customs. Based
solely on the legal conclusion adopted by the trial judge that the
Management Contract is not binding on plaintiff, and on the speculation
of the possible contingencies mentioned in the decision that might
justify delay in the filing of a claim beyond the 15-day period, but
without making any finding as to the factual presence or not of any of
them in the cause before it, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff
as above indicated.

In previous cases^[1]
already decided by this Court, we held that where the third party is
duly notified, and acts with knowledge of the provisions of the
Management Contract, such party would be bound by the Contract. In the
case of Tomas Grocery v. Delgado Brothers, Inc. (G.R. No. L-11154, prom.
April 29, 1959), we likewise held that under the fact therein found,
the 15-day period provision was binding. In other words, it cannot be
said that the Management Contract is, or is not binding on third
parties, without regard to the facts of each particular case. And, since
the appealed decision now before us, does not contain enough findings
of fact upon which to resolve with justice the rights of the parties
hereto, we decide to give them further opportunity to fully prove their
respective contentions.

Wherefore, this case is ordered remanded to the court of origin
for further proceedings, without costs.

So ordered.

Paras, C .J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., on leave, took no part.

---

^[1] Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince
Line, et al., G.R. No. L-13884, prom. February 29, 1960; and Jose
Bernabe & Co., Inc. v. Delgado Brothers, Inc., G.R. No. L-14360,
prom. February 29, 1960.