Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17027 November 29, 1965
YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellees.
Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Associates for plaintiff-appellant.
D. F. Macaranas for defendants-appellees.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Plaintiff sued defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila for compensatory damages. Afer trial the complaint was dismissed and plaintiff brought the case to us on appeal.
The facts are not disputed. Plaintiff purchased in New York reinforced steel bars, which arrived at the port of Manila and were completely unloaded from the carrying vessel in eight (8) lifts on May 31, 1957. They were then delivered to defendant Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of the Manila Railroad Company in charge of the arrastre service. Plaintiff applied for and was given the corresponding delivery permits for the eight (8) lifts of steel bars on May 29, 1957, and on June 16, 1957 was billed by the Manila Port Service for arrastre charges on the entire shipment, in the sum of P348.48. On June 20, 1957 plaintiff's customs broker obtained delivery of only three (3) lifts. The five others were missing. On the same date plaintiff filed three provisional claims with defendant Manila Port Service, subsequently confirming the same on the following July 12, when formal claims were submitted. The total value of the missing steel bars was P5,770.40.
On October 19, 1957 defendant Manila Port Service wrote plaintiff, denying liability on the ground that the claims were "time-barred in accordance with the provisions of the Management Contract, under section 15 thereof ... ." This contract was one between said defendant and the Bureau of Customs concerning the arrastre service, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
...; in any event the CONTRACTOR (the Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of the Manila Railroad Company) shall be relieved and released of any and all responsibility, or liability for loss, damage, misdelivery, and/or non-delivery of goods, unless suit in the court of proper jurisdiction is brought within a period of one (1) year from the date when the claim for the value of such goods has been rejected or denied by the CONTRACTOR, provided that such claim shall have been filed with the CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel. ... .
The trial Court, upholding defendants' position as alleged in their answer to the complaint, held that since the shipment of steel bars was completely discharged from the carrying vessel on May 31, 1957 the filing of the provisional claims on June 20 was beyond the fifteen-day period fixed in the contract, and hence defendants were released from liability. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that there are two alternative time limits for the filing of an action for damages under the provision of the contract aforequoted, namely, (1) one year from the date of discharge, and (2) one year from the date of rejection or denial by the contractor (Manila Port Service) of the claim for the value of the goods, provided that such claim has been filed with the contractor within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel; and that this proviso refers to or modifies only the second alternative. In other words, the fifteen-day limitation applies only for purposes of reckoning the period of one year within which to file suit from the date of rejection or denial of the claim, but not from the date of discharge of the goods.
We do not find it necessary now to decide between these conflicting interpretations of the parties. In several cases similar to the present one we have ruled that the period of fifteen (15) days within which a claim should be filed with the Manila Port Service should commence, not from the date of discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel, but from the date the consignee or claimant learns of the loss, damage or misdelivery for which the claim is made, since obviously he is in no position to allege such loss, damage or misdelivery before he comes to know about it, considering that the goods are in the care and custody of the arrastre contractor. Otherwise, all that the latter would have to do in order to escape liability is to withhold such knowledge from the consignee until after the expiration of fifteen days. (Republic of the Phil. vs. Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-19115, March 31, 1964; Chiok Ho vs. Compañia Maritima, et al., G.R. No. L-20553, April 30, 1965.)
In the second of the cases just cited, we said:
It is not enough that the consignee be notified of the discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel in order that section 15 of the management agreement may be applicable. It is equally important to indicate the date when the shipment was actually delivered to the consignee in order that he may be given the chance to discover if there is something missing or lost in the shipment. Only in this way can he be apprised of the loss and file the necessary claim, not otherwise.
In this case plaintiff took delivery of three lifts of steel bars, out of the total of eight, on June 20, 1957; and it was then that it learned that the other bars were missing. Forthwith it filed provisional claims, thereby complying with the proviso in the contract fixing a period of fifteen days for that purpose.
Concerning the amount of damages recoverable by plaintfff, the trial court found in its decision that the value of the undelivered steel bars was P5,770.40. However, the uncontradicted evidence shows that the said steel bars were replaced by plaintiff with the same quantity purchased by it from local dealers for P7,955.00 (15.91 tons @ P500.00 a ton). This is the measure of the loss suffered. With respect to the claim for attorney's fees and litigation expenses, the sum alleged in the complaint is P1,000.00, which in the stipulation below between the parties was left by defendant to the discretion of the Court. We believe the amount is reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and defendants-appellees are ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P7,955.00 as compensatory damages and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
