PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, DOING ARRASTRE BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND S…

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, sentencing
defendant-appellant Manila Railroad Co., to pay to plaintiff Parsons Hardware
Co., Inc., the sum of P1,509.91, with interest thereon, at the legal rate, from
the date of the filing of the complaint herein (March 25, 1953), aside from P500
as attorney’s fees, and the costs, and dismissing the complaint as regards
defendant De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., without special pronouncement as to
costs.

It appears that plaintiff had ordered from Seiberling Rubber Export Company
of Ohio, U.S.A., 302 rubber pneumatic tires and ten (10) boxes of rubber
pneumatic tire tubes and that these goods were shipped to the Philippines aboard
the SS “Maron”, which arrived at the Port of Manila in April, 1927.
Having failed to receive twelve (12) of the aforementioned pneumatic tires,
valued P1,509.91, plaintiff brought this action against the De la Rama Steamship
Co., Inc.—hereinafter referred to as the Steamship Company—as agent in the
Philippines of the SS “Maron”, and the Manila Railroad Co.—hereinafter
referred to as appellant—as operator of the arrastre service in the Port of
Manila, doing business under the name and style of Manila Port Service.

The Steamship Company denied liability for the missing tires upon the ground
that the shipment aforementioned had been fully discharged from the SS
“Maron” and that plaintiff had not filed, within ten (10) days from said
discharge, the notice of shortage required in section 29 of the corresponding
bill of lading. Upon the other hand, appellant maintained that it had not
received the missing pneumatic tires and that, under section 15 of its
Management Contract with the Bureau of Customs, covering the operation of the
arrastre service for the Port of Manila, it was completely relieved and released
from any liability for loss or non-delivery of said tires, no claim having been
filed therefor “within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last
package from the carrying vessel”, which took place on April 9, 1957.

Judging from the language of the decision appealed from, the lower court was
under the impression that the only issue in this case is whether the loss in
question took place in the SS “Maron”, before the unloading of the goods,
or after the same had been placed under the custody of appellant, through its
agent the Manila Port Service. Hence, after analyzing the evidence of records,
His Honor, the Trial Judge concluded that the delivery to appellant of the
entire shipment of 302 pneumatic tires and ten (10) boxes of rubber pneumatic
tire tubes had been duly established, and that, accordingly, the loss took place
in its possession, whereupon appellant was sentenced to pay the sums stated at
the beginning of this decision. Appellant maintains, therefore, that the lower
court had erred in completely disregarding, and making no pronouncement on, the
special defense, set up in its (appellant’s) amended answer, of release based
upon plaintiff’s alleged failure to file a claim for loss or non-delivery within
the period of fifteen (15) days fixed in section 15 of its aforementioned
Management Contract.

We agree with appellant that the lower court should have made a finding
thereon. It appears, however, from the documentary evidence introduced in this
case (Exhibits 6 and 6-A to 6-DD), that the last package was discharged from the
SS “Maron” and placed under appellant’s custody on April 9, 1957; that
the tires, except those missing, were delivered to plaintiff from April 12 to
April 15, 1957 (Exhibits J, 2-MPS, and 2-A MPS to 2-C MPS); and that, on the
date last mentioned, plaintiff, acting through its customs broker, filed the
“notice of missing or unlocated cargoes”, Exhibit K, advising the Wharfinger and
appellant’s agent, the Manila Port Service—which received it on the same date
(April 15, 1957)—that the twelve (12) rubber pneumatic tires in question “could
not be located in the pier, supposedly shortlanded or misplaced”. Although the
formal claim for said tires, dated April 25, 1957, was received by the Manila
Port Service on April 26, 1957, the aforementioned “notice of missing or
unlocated cargoes” filed on April 15, 1957—or within fifteen (15) days from
April 9, 1957—was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 15 of
the Management Contract, requiring the filing of a claim, within fifteen (15)
days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, as a
condition for the demandability of appellant’s liability for loss, damage,
misdelivery or non-delivery of the goods placed under its custody.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against
the defendant-appellant, Manila Railroad Company. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.