Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > November 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17027 November 29, 1965 - YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17027. November 29, 1965.]

YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, and MANILA PORT SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.

Sycip, Salazar Luna & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

D. F. Macaranas for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. ARRASTRE SERVICE; MANAGEMENT CONTRACT; START OF THE FIFTEEN DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE CLAIM. — The period of fifteen (15) days provided in the management contract within which a claim should be filed with the arrastre contractor 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.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Plaintiff sued defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila for compensatory damages. After 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . .; 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, mis-delivery, 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 have 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. . . .."cralaw virtua1aw library

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 purpose 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 mis-delivery for which the claim is made, since obviously he is in no position to allege such loss, damage or mis-delivery 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. v. Manila Port Service, 119 Phil. 884; Chiok Ho v. Compañia Maritima Et. Al., G. R. No. L-20553, April 30, 1965.

In the second of the cases just cited, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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."cralaw virtua1aw library

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 plaintiff, 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.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22697 November 2, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONION TAN Y CUI @ DIONING

  • G.R. No. L-17159 November 23, 1965 - AFAG VETERAN CORPS, INC. v. MARIANO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-20199 November 23, 1965 - COSMOPOLITAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ANGEL B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20715 November 27, 1965 - HENRY TIONG, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20910 November 27, 1965 - YAO LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21138 November 27, 1965 - IN RE: ROBERTO TING TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20915 November 27, 1965 - IN RE: TEOFILO LU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15939 November 29, 1965 - ANGELES UBALDE PUIG, ET AL. v. ESTELA MAGBANUA PEÑAFLORIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16905 November 29, 1965 - ROSARIO OLIVEROS, ET., AL. v. JOSE QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-17027 November 29, 1965 - YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17059 November 29, 1965 - PEDRO MANIQUE, ET AL. v. CEFERINO F. CAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17160 November 29, 1965 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. PRIMATERIA SOCIETE ANONYME POUR

    LE COMMERCE EXTERIEUR: PRIMATERIA (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17294 November 29, 1965 - CU BIE, ET., AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17312 November 29, 1965 - ARTURO R. TANCO, JR. v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17406 November 29, 1965 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17640 November 29, 1965 - VIRGINIA I. VDA. DE LIMJOCO v. DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE

  • G.R. No. L-17884 November 29, 1965 - ADOLFO GASPAR v. LEOPOLDO DORADO

  • G.R. No. L-18669 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: TY BIO GIAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18673 November 29, 1965 - ALEX LO KIONG v. UNITED STATES LINES CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19120 November 29, 1965 - LA MALLORCA v. ARMANDO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-19193 November 29, 1965 - FERNANDO O. PALAROAN v. AURORA A. ANAYA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19585 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON C. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965 - PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ v. VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20160 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: GREGORIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20281 November 29, 1965 - DOMINGO MALOGA v. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20342 November 29, 1965 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20643 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MARCIANO BAYLON, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20764 November 29, 1965 - SANTOS JUAT v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-20799 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: JOSE T. UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20805 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO DESIDERIO

  • G.R. No. L-20819 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20845 November 29, 1965 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. LADISLAO MANALANG

  • G.R. No. L-20850 November 29, 1965 - EDWARD J. NELL COMPANY v. PACIFIC FARMS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20912 November 29, 1965 - LI TONG PEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20980 November 29, 1965 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21017 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: SENECIO DY ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21192 November 29, 1965 - IN RE: JESUS YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21217 November 29, 1965 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21255 November 29, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JAIME R. NUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-21316 November 29, 1965 - CEFERINA V. DAVID v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 November 29, 1965 - JOSE REYES, ET., AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-21453 November 29, 1965 - AURORA VILLAMIN SY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21811 November 29, 1965 - SEE GUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22040 November 29, 1965 - YU CHI HAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22712 November 29, 1965 - CANDIDO UY alias RICARDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22778 November 29, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO B. BUSLON

  • G.R. No. L-24962 November 29, 1965 - VICE MAYOR ANTONIO C. JARO v. ROSARIO P. ISIDERIO, ET., AL.