CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Manila (in Civ. Case No. 44253) ordering the defendants Manila Port
Service and Manila Railroad Company, to pay to plaintiff Caltex (Phil.)
Inc., the sum of P8,028.60, with legal interest thereon from April,
1960, until fully paid.

Plaintiff was the consignee of several shipments of lubricating
grease, paraffin wax, acidless tallow, and other similar products,
carried by the vessel “SS Ferndale” and discharged unto the custody of
the Manila Port Service on March 22, and 23, 1960. Of the goods
received by the Manila Port Service, consigned to Caltex (Phil.), Inc.,
30 drums of acidless tallow oil compound, 1 crate of paraffin wax and 2
pails of lubricating oil could not be located. Thus, a provisional
claim therefor was filed by the consignee with the arrastre operator on
March 25, 1960, followed by formal demands. As no action thereon was
taken, the consignee went to the Court of First Instance of Manila,
demanding from the Manila Port Service the payment, not only of the sum
of P6,422.88, allegedly the value of the missing goods, but also of the
25% marginal fee imposed and paid on that amount by said plaintiff.
Defendant, in its answer, denied liability for the value of the
undelivered articles.

After due trial, decision was rendered granting plaintiff’s claim
and ordering defendants to pay the same. The latter filed the present
appeal.

It is claimed now by appellants that the lower court erred (1) in
not limiting their liability to P500.00, pursuant to Section 15 of the
Management Contract between the Bureau of Customs and defendant Manila
Port Service; and (2) in holding defendants liable to pay to
plaintiff-appellee the sum of P8,029.60.

The first assigned error cannot be sustained. The pertinent portion
of Section 15 of the Management Contract, relied upon by appellants,
reads as follows:

“x x x the CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as
an independent contractor for, and promptly pay to the steamship
company, consignee, consignor, or other interested party or parties the invoice value of each package but in no case shall be more than five hundred pesos (P500.00) for such package unless
the value is otherwise specified or manifested, and the corresponding
arrastre charges had been paid, including all damages that may be
suffered on account of loss, destruction, or damage of any merchandise
while in the custody or under the control of the CONTRACTOR x x x.”
(Underlining supplied.)

It is not disputed that 33 pieces of goods or containers, consigned
to plaintiff-appellee, duly unloaded unto the custody of the
defendant-appellant Manila Port Service, were not delivered. If
appellants’ prayer, that their liability be limited to P500.00 per
missing or undelivered package were granted, the loss of the articles
would have cost appellants much more than the amount awarded by the
lower court. For, as ordinarily understood, and there is no showing
that the term is given any technical meaning, package is a
bundle made up for transportation; a packet; a bale; a parcel; or that
in which anything is packed; a box, case, barrel, crate, etc., in which
goods are packed; a container. ^[1]
The articles in this case were contained in drums, pails and crate. If
appellants’ liability were fixed at P500.00 per container, and there
are 33 of them, they should have been required to pay more than
P8,028.60. And yet, this is only the amount being claimed by
plaintiff-appellee, it being allegedly the invoice value of the missing
goods.

As to the second issue, it appears that the sum of P8,028.60 is broken as follows:

30 drums, acidless tallow……………………………………….	P6,350.82
1 crate, parafin wax (texwax) ………………………………..	38.72
2 5-gal. pails, lube oil (Regal Oil A, R & O) ………………..	33.34
25% margin fee …………………………………………………..	P6,422.88
TOTAL ………………………………………………………………..	P8,028.60

Appellants, however, contest the valuation given to the articles and
the inclusion of the 25% margin fee on the alleged value of the
undelivered articles in Philippine pesos.

The records show that the purchasing price of acidless tallow oil
compound was $ .147 per lb. or $1,755.47 for 11,942 net lbs. (total net
weight of the tallow in 30 drums); the paraffin wax at $12.10 per
crate; and the 5-gallon lube oil at $3.03 per pail or $6.06 for the 2
pails. (Exhs. B and B-1). In short, the total cost to the consignee of
the missing goods was $1,773.63. In preparing its claim,
plaintiff-appellee apparently converted the cost of the tallow at the
rate of P3.005 for every dollar ($1,755.47 to P6,350.82); that of the
paraffin wax (Texwax) at the rate of P3.20 for every dollar ($12.10 to
P38.72), and the cost of lube oil, at the rate of P5.50 for a dollar
(P$6.06 to P33.34). However, evidence was presented that as of April
18, 1960, the conversion rate of foreign exchange is P2.015 for every
dollar (Exh. G). Consequently, the cost of the undelivered goods
($1,773.63) should be only P3,568.86.

Appellants, likewise, dispute the inclusion of the “marginal fee”,
imposed and paid by the consignee on the cost of the importation, in
the amount payable to the latter, the said fee not being part of the
invoice value of the goods. However, it may be pointed out that under
Section 15 of the management contract, the Contractor or arrastre
operator is responsible, not only for the invoice value of the goods in
case of loss or damage thereof, but also for “all damages that may be
suffered on account of loss, destruction, or damage of any merchandise”
while under its custody or control. It is not denied that a marginal
fee corresponding to 25% of the foreign exchange used (imposed on the
converted amount in Philippine currency), was paid by the
plaintiff-appellee in connection with the importation involved herein.
It cannot also be controverted that with the loss of the goods in
question, the marginal fee paid on the foreign exchange used in the
purchase thereof would also be lost. The amount corresponding to this
fee is, therefore, collectible from the defendants as actual damages,
which is allowed under Section 15 of the Management Contract.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is
hereby modified. The defendants-appellants are ordered to pay to the
plaintiff-appellee the sum of P3,568.86, the value of the undelivered
goods, plus the 25% margin fee paid on said sum, amounting to P892.22,
or a total of P4,461.08, with legal interest thereon from April, 1960,
until fully paid. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., on leave, no part.

---

^[1] Webster’s New International Dictionary, second edition p. 1750.