Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > September 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21412 September 28, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21412. September 28, 1966.]

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

D. F. Macaranas, for Defendants-Appellants.

W. H. Quasha & Associates for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; ARRASTRE CLAIM; EFFECT OF FAILURE OF ARRASTRE CONTRACTOR TO ACT ON CLAIM WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DISCHARGE OF GOODS. — When the arrastre contractor fails to act on a claim within the period of one year from the complete discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel, the claim must be deemed rejected as of the expiry date of the said period, and the action must be filed within one year from such expiry date (Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., G. R. No. L-22208. March 30, 1966; Delgado Brothers, Et Al., v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., G. R. No. L-21781, June 30, 1966).

2. ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION; CASE AT BAR. — The cargo was completely discharged from the carrying vessel on April 28, 1959. One year from this date lapsed on April 28, 1960. Within this period of one year, although a claim had been dub filed by the plaintiff with the defendants, the latter took no action thereon beyond a perfunctory acknowledgment of receipt thereof. Held: One year from April 28, 1960 would bring us to April 28, 1961, the end of the road for whatever right or rights plaintiff could assert against the defendants. Suit was commenced only on June 21, 1961. Applying the formula, we reach this simple but stark conclusion: The action of the plaintiff has prescribed.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


On June 21, 1961 the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company filed a complaint in the municipal court of Manila against the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company to recover the value of one box of telephone switchboard parts short delivered to the consignee, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. The latter’s claim had previously been settled by the plaintiff, as insurer, which was thereby subrogated to the rights of the consignee.

From the decision rendered by the said court in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants to pay "jointly and severally, the sum of P230.81, with legal interest therefrom from the date of the filing of the action, June 21, 1961, to pay also the sum of P50 as and for attorney’s fees, plus costs", the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila.

At the trial in the latter court, and without adducing evidence, the parties adopted the partial stipulation of facts submitted by them to the municipal court. The material portions of the stipulation read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. That the carrying vessel ‘SS President Grant’ arrived in the Port of Manila on April 27, 1959, and made its last cargo discharge on April 28, 1959, among which were the 48 boxes of telephone parts discharged and received into the custody of the Manila Port Service. That out of the 48 boxes, Manila Port Service was able t deliver 47 boxes to the consignee by virtue of a duly authorized delivery permit and various gate passes.

"4. That provisional claim was filed by the consignee through its customs broker on May 4, 1959, or within 15 days from date of last discharge, followed by a formal claim filed on October 15, 1959, and which was acknowledged by Manila Port Service by means of a letter dated October 16, 1959 (copy attached as Exhibit A-Plaintiff).

"5. That on April 4, 1961 the Manila Port Service sent a letter to the claimant advising the latter that ‘your claim has prescribed inasmuch as you did not commence suit against us within one (1) year from April 28, 1959, the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel in accordance with the pertinent provisions of our Management Contract’ (copy of said letter attached as Exhibit B- Plaintiff & Exhibit 2-MPS).

"6. That the only issue tendered here for resolution of this Honorable Court is whether or not under the pertinent provisions of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, the claim of the plaintiff has prescribed, and consequently, defendants are relieved and released from any and all liability or responsibility therefor; For the convenience of this Honorable Court, we quote the applicable clauses of paragraph 15 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘15 . . . in any event the CONTRACTOR shall be relieved and released of any an all responsibility or liability for the loss, damage, misdelivery and/or non-delivery of goods, unless suit in the court of proper jurisdiction is brought within a period of one year from the date of discharge of the goods, or 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 beam filed with the CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel . . .’"

On March 23, 1963, the lower court rendered judgment "for plaintiff Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and orders defendants to pay said plaintiff the amount of P239.81, as well as the sum of P100.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendants have appealed to this Court, contending that the court a quo erred (1) in holding that the action was filed within the prescriptive period of one year provided under section 15 of the management contract; (2) in adjudging the defendants liable to the plaintiff in the sum of P239.81, the amount of P100 as attorney’s fees, and costs; and (3) in not dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action has prescribed.

The sole issue of law tendered in this appeal for resolution is, whether under paragraph 15 of the management contract the action of the plaintiff has prescribed.

It is not disputed that the carrying vessel which arrived in Manila on April 27, 1959 discharged the last cargo on April 28, 1959 into the custody of the Manila Port Service; that the consignee filed a provisional claim, through its customs broker, on May 4, 1959, this followed by a formal claim on October 15, 1959; that this claim was acknowledged by the Manila Port Service in its letter of October 16, 1959 which stated in part that "Your claim is under careful consideration and we shall let you know of our action thereon in due time" ; that on April 4, 1961 the Manila Port Service sent a letter to the plaintiff advising it that "your claim has prescribed inasmuch as you did not commence suit against us within one (1) year from April 28, 1959, the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel in accordance with the pertinent provisions of our Management Contract" ; and that on June 21, 1961 the present suit was filed.

The court a quo, upon cogent reasons, held that the action has not yet prescribed, because the one-year prescriptive period provided in paragraph 15 of the management contract may be counted either from the date of discharge of the goods, or from the date when the claim for the value of such goods is denied or rejected by the contractor; that the defendants’ letter of April 4, 1961 advising the claimant that the latter’s "claim" had prescribed "is an indirect, but nevertheless, an unequivocal rejection, at least in effect, of the claim" ; and that "the period of one year from said date of rejection or denial had not yet expired when the present action was filed on June 21, 1961, which is even less than three months thereafter."cralaw virtua1aw library

In our view, the resolution of the issue herein tendered depends on the inter-relation of the prescriptive periods provided in paragraph 15 of the management contract and the proper application thereof to the undisputed facts.

In their briefs the parties have somewhat belabored the issue of whether the defendants’ letter of April 4, 1961 amounts to a rejection or denial of the claim of the plaintiff. Perhaps in a totally different setting and under more auspicious circumstances, the issue could prove to be of some consequence, and might elicit the extended attention of this Court. But in the light of the uncontroverted facts obtaining, the issue need not give us pause, because we can derive a direct and authoritative solution from a formula laid down by this Court only six months ago.

In Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-22208, promulgated March 30, 1966, this Court held that when the arrastre contractor fails to act on a claim within the period of one year from the complete discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel, the claim must be deemed rejected as of the expiry date of the said period, and the action must be filed within one year from such expiry date. This ruling was reiterated in Delgado Brothers, Et. Al. v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-21781, promulgated June 30, 1966. 1

We have, in this case before us, the requisite facts for the application of the formula. The cargo was completely discharged from the carrying vessel on April 28, 1959. One year from this date lapsed on April 28, 1960. Within this period of one year, although a claim had been duly filed by the plaintiff with the defendants, the latter book no action thereon beyond a perfunctory acknowledgment of receipt thereof. One year from April 28, 1960 would bring us to April 28, 1961, the end of the road for whatever right or rights the plaintiff could assert against the defendants. Suit was commenced only on June 21, 1961. Applying the formula, we reach this simple but stark conclusion: the action of the plaintiff has prescribed.

Accordingly, the judgment a quo is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Obviously the learned judge a quo, Hon. Manuel Barcelona, when he rendered judgment on March 23, 1963, did not and could not have any foreknowledge of the ruling enunciated in the two decisions cited which were promulgated three years later.




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






September-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20745 September 2, 1966 DOLORES GRANADA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20867 September 3, 1966 SALVADOR APRUEBA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON

  • G.R. No. L-23681 September 3, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORATO GENILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20851 September 3, 1966 JESUS AGUIRRE v. VICTOR S. PHENG

  • G.R. No. L-17009 September 13, 1966 BRITISH-AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19961 September 14, 1966 PILAR REYES v. JOSE M. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-19798 September 20, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALOD MANOBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20645 September 22, 1966 GO TIAN CHAI v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22797 September 22, 1966 MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL. v. FLORA BLAS DE BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-19259 September 23, 1966 GENERAL TRAVEL SERVICE, LTD. v. EDILBERTO Y. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-20946 September 23, 1966 EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO v. AUREA S. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21212 September 23, 1966 CITIZENS LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS

  • G.R. No. L-21413 September 23, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21697 September 23, 1966 FRED ENRIQUEZ v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-22170 September 23, 1966 IN RE: BERTHA ANN RIVERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22531 September 23, 1966 REMEGIA RIEGO, ET AL. v. PABLO RIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24702 and L-26357 September 23, 1966 FABIAN GARCIA, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24873 September 23, 1966 BASILISA ROQUE, ET AL. v. ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20988 September 27, 1966 JACINTO DECENA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21871 September 27, 1966 PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. RODOLFO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26387 September 27, 1966 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ADRIANO V. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21875 September 27, 1966 MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24736 September 27, 1966 FRANCISCO MALVAR, ET AL. v. PABLO PALLINGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20438 September 27, 1966 NEW MANILA LUMBER CO., INC. v. FERMIN CENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21224 September 27, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN PLANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21170 September 27, 1966 LEONARDO CABUDOL, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22031 September 28, 1966 CHAN SHU LOU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-21412 September 28, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966 AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21571 September 29, 1966 MERCY’S INCORPORATED v. HERMINIA VERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21282 September 29, 1946

    CONSOLACION INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-19082 September 29, 1966 IN RE: CASIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19808 September 29, 966

    ELDO J. CARIÑO, ET AL. v. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20609 September 29, 1966 JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS

  • G.R. No. L-21419 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO DE GRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21609 September 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. KER & COMPANY, LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-21967 September 29, 1966 EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20149 September 29, 1966 IN RE: MANUEL SPIRIG LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23140 September 29, 1966 MARTA MENDOZA, ET AL. v. FELISA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18760 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. KAMAD AKIRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-20483 September 30, 1966 IN RE: YONG SAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20657 September 30, 1966 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BERNARDO P. LANDETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21193 September 30, 1966 IN RE: ANACLETO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21475 September 30, 1966 AMANCIO BALITE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21766 September 30, 1966 FELICISIMA BALLECER, ET AL. v. JOSE BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-21988 September 30, 1968

    ALICIA S. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER