Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19485 February 17, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19485. February 17, 1967.]

RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., MANILA PORT SERVICE and C.F. SHARP & CO. INC., Defendants. MANILA RAILROAD PORT SERVICE, Defendants-Appellants.

Macaranas, Enage & Abad, for Defendants-Appellants.

G. R. Carlos & Associates for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT; WHERE LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISPUTED PROVISION THEREOF WOULD BE ILLOGICAL AND OPPRESSIVE; CASE AT BAR. — On December 27, 1959, the carrying vessel completely discharged into the custody of the Manila Port Service all the 454 cases of Hereford corned beef in good order, with the exception of one case, which was damaged. Delivery permit was received by original consignee only on January 18, 1960, while the gate pass was given two days later, or on January 20, 1960. By then it was already impossible to comply with the requirement that the claim for loss, damage, misdelivery and/or non-delivery of goods be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, more than 30 days having elapsed already: HELD: Contractor is not to be considered relieved or released from his liability notwithstanding filing of the claim beyond the fifteen (15) day period provided for in the management contract. Under the circumstances, in literal compliance with the disputed provision of the management contract would be illogical and oppressive. The consignee cannot be charged with negligence or delay in the assertion of her rights, for not only did she file her claim with appellants the day immediately following delivery of the shipment to her, minus the missing cases, but she filed a provisional claim on December 13, 1959, even before the discharge from the vessel was completed. In other words, the consignee did all that she could be expected to do and to require her to do more in order to comply with strict letter of the management contract was entirely unjustified.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


The Manila Railroad Company and the Manila Port Service appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them to pay jointly and severally the sum of P2,815.02, plus P500.00 attorney’s fees and costs, to the plaintiff Rizal Surety & Insurance Company.

The facts are stipulated by the parties. The Manila Port Service is a subsidiary of the Manila Railroad Company and was, at the time material to this case, the operator of the arrastre service at the port of Manila, with authority to receive and deliver cargo discharged or unloaded by vessels into its custody upon presentation of the proper papers. Its liabilities in connection with such work were subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of its management contract with the Bureau of Customs. On or about October 10, 1959 the vessel "SS Dresden," operated by defendant C.F. Sharp & Company, took on board at Buenos Aires, Argentina for shipment to Manila four hundred fifty-four (454) cases of Hereford corned beef consigned to Natividad U. Lim of Manila. Lim insured the shipment for P19,584.29 with appellee Rizal Surety & Insurance Company. The "SS Dresden" arrived in Manila on December 13, 1959. On December 17, 1959 the carrying vessel completely discharged into the custody of the Manila Port Service all the 454 cases of Hereford corned beef in good order, with the exception of one case, which was damaged. Of this shipment appellants delivered to the Rapid Brokerage Inc., Lim’s customs broker, 357 cases on January 20, 1960 and one case on January 29, 1960, or a total of 358 cases. In accordance with the policy issued by appellee, it paid Lim the sum of P2,815.02, the value of the 96 cases which had been lost. On January 21, 1960 a claim was filed with the Manila Port Service for the short delivery. The claim was rejected and this suit was commenced on October 14, 1960 by the insurer, as subrogee of the rights of the consignee.

Defendant C.F. Sharp admitted its liability for P19.77, the C.I.F. value of 33 tins of corned beef missing from the damaged case discharged from the vessel, and it was ordered by the lower court to pay said amount to appellee. On the other hand, the Manila Railroad Company and the Manila Port Service were held liable jointly and severally as aforesaid.

Appellants deny liability on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the period of fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, as required by paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . in any event the Contractor shall be relieved and released from any 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 year from date of the discharge of the goods or from the date when the claim for the value of such goods have been rejected or denied by the contractor, provided that such claims 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

To be sure, Natividad U. Lim, the consignee and appellee’s predecessor-in-interest, had notice of the above-quoted stipulation, having taken delivery of the goods under a "permit to deliver" issued by the Bureau of Customs and the corresponding "gate pass" issued by the Manila Port Service, on each of which the stipulation was duly stamped. The delivery permit, however, was received by her only on January 18, 1960, while the gate pass was given to her two days later, or on January 20, 1960. By then it was already impossible to comply with the requirement that the claim be filed within fifteen (15) days from discharge, more than 30 days having elapsed already.

Furthermore, the stipulation of facts shows that the shipment was completely discharged into the custody of appellant, all the 454 cases being in good order except one, which had suffered some damage. The loss, therefore, happened while the merchandise was in appellant’s hands. There is no evidence as to the exact date the loss occurred, and the consignee had no reason to file a claim until she was in a position to know about the loss; and the earliest date she could possibly have discovered it was January 18, 1960, as it was only then that the Bureau of Customs issued the delivery permit, assuming that she could have obtained the necessary "gate pass" and actually taken delivery of the shipment on the same date. Under the circumstances, a literal compliance with the disputed provision of the management contract would be illogical and oppressive. The consignee cannot be charged with negligence or delay in the assertion of her rights, for not only did she file her claim with appellants the day immediately following delivery of the shipment to her, minus the missing cases, but she filed a provisional claim on December 13, 1959, even before the discharge from the vessel was completed. In other words, the consignee did all that she could be expected to do and to require her to do more in order to comply with strict letter of the management contract was entirely unjustified.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, 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






February-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22533 February 9, 1967 - PLACIDO C. RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22729 February 9, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25999 February 9, 1967 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18461 February 10, 1967 - NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL. v. NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19280 February 10, 1967 - EUGENIA CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 February 10, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22568 February 10, 1967 - DIOSCORO V. ASTORGA v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826, L-22937 February 10, 1967 - CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24415 February 10, 1967 - ANDRES MORALES v. MANUEL TUGUINAY

  • G.R. No. L-23895 February 16, 1967 - SEMENIANO TRAJANO v. MATEO B. INCISO

  • G.R. No. L-19485 February 17, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24253 February 17, 1967 - BRIGIDO CRISTINO v. LEON CAVITE

  • G.R. No. L-20525 February 18, 1967 - PETRONILA PINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21039 February 18, 1967 - FLORENTINO PILAR v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21336 February 18, 1967 - VICENTE MENDOZA, ET AL. v. TIBURCIO DUAVE

  • G.R. No. L-22077 February 18, 1967 - ALFREDO K. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22238 February 18, 1967 - CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22780 February 18, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24110 February 18, 1967 - LEONCIO BARRAMEDA v. CARMEN GONTANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25758 February 18, 1967 - JOAQUIN ORTEGA v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-25567 February 20, 1967 - CIRILO M. MANAOIS v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19777 February 20, 1967 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20819 February 21, 1967 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26053 February 21, 1967 - CITY OF MANILA v. GERARDO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21012 February 25, 1967 - GLICERIO TINIO, ET AL. v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20445 February 25, 1967 - ANICIA V. MERCED, ET AL. v. COLUMBINA VDA. DE MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21696 February 25, 1967 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANS. CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24769 February 25, 1967 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21805 February 25, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL TAN

  • A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967 - FLORA QUINGWA v. ARMANDO PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-17215 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CATALINO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18759 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-18707 February 28, 1967 - AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20192 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF CRESENCIO V. MARTIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18930 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21120 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21894 February 28, 1967 - LOPE DESIATA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22465 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. ASCENCION P. OLARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22677 February 28, 1967 - PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, ET AL. v. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23098 February 28, 1967 - DOMINGO T. JACINTO v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23827 February 28, 1967 - SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO v. PEDRO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-24468 February 28, 1967 - ANTONIO K. BISNAR v. BRAULIO LAPASA

  • G.R. No. L-24477 February 28, 1967 - JOSE KATIGBAK v. RICARDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25044 February 28, 1967 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26816 February 28, 1967 - PABLO DE JESUS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 - ADELAIDA TANEGA v. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.