Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > September 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24092 September 13, 1967 - GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24092. September 13, 1967.]

GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellant.

Alafriz Law Office for plaintiff-plaintiff.

D.F. Macarañas and C. Dizon, Jr., for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. ARRASTRE SERVICE; CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT; CASE AT BAR. — Pursuant to Section 15 of the Management Contract, the arrastre operator can not be sued by the consignee except within one (1) year, either from the date when the claim for the value thereof shall have been rejected or denied by the arrastre operator. In the case at bar, the goods were discharged from the carrying vessel — assuming only for the purpose of argument, that this is the discharge alluded to in the Contract — unto the custody of the operator on August 15, 1962, or more than a year prior to the filing of the complaint, on October 21, 1963. Plaintiff claims, however, the benefit of the second alternative given thereto in the above quoted section 15 of the Management Contract, namely: the right to file suit within one year from the date when the claim of the consignee shall have been rejected or denied by the arrastre operator; but the defendants argue that this alternative cannot be availed of in the present case, because the arrastre operator has neither rejected nor denied plaintiff’s claim. HELD: Inasmuch as said operator cannot, by inaction, deprive the consignee of its right to the aforementioned alternative, this Court has held that, when the arrastre operator fails to deny or reject the claim of the consignee, the term for the exercise of the latter’s right of action shall begin to run upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of discharge of the last package upon the custody of said operator. Such date, in the case at ban was August 15, 1963 within which to commence the present action. Since the same was begun on Oct. 21, 1963, it is obvious that defendants’ contention cannot be sustained.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Direct appeal, on questions purely of law, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company — hereinafter referred to collectively as defendants — to pay to Genato Commercial Corporation — hereinafter referred to as plaintiff — the sum of P428.32, with interest thereon, from October 21, 1963, until fully paid, and the costs.

On the date last mentioned, plaintiff filed with the Municipal Court of Manila a complaint against herein defendants for the recovery of the sums of P586.19 and P379.02, representing, respectively, the value of 16-1/3 cartons of Royal Corned Beef and that of 18 pieces of propeller shafts, which defendants — as arrastre operators for the port of Manila unto whose custody said goods, together with others, has been discharged by carrying vessels — had allegedly failed to deliver to plaintiff, as cogsignee of said goods. Subsequently, however, plaintiff withdrew its second cause of action (relative to the propeller shafts), and, in due course, thereafter, the municipal court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, under the firs cause of action, but for the reduced sum of P428.32, with interest thereon, at the legal rate, from the date adverted to above, plus P50.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs. On appeal therefrom, taken by the defendants, the Court of First Instance of Manila affirmed said judgment, except as regards the award for attorney’s fees, which was eliminated.

The case is now before us on appeal taken by the defendants, who maintain that plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed, upon the ground that the present action has not been commenced within the period prescribed in section 15 of the Management Contract between the defendants, which admittedly binds plaintiff herein, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . in any event the contractor shall be relieved and released of any and all responsibility 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 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 claim shall have been filed with the Contractor within fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to this section, the arrastre operator can not be sued by the consignee except within one (1) year, either from the date of the discharge of the goods, or from the date when the claim for the value thereof shall have been rejected or denied by the arrastre operator. In the case at bar, the goods were discharged from the carrying vessel — assuming, only for the purpose of argument, that this is the discharge alluded to in the Contract — unto the custody of the operator on August 15, 1962, or more than a year prior to the filing of the complaint, on October 21, 1963. Plaintiff claims, however, the benefit of the second alternative given thereto in the above quoted section 15 of the Management Contract, namely: the right to file suit within one year from the date when the claim of the consignee shall have been rejected or denied by the arrastre operator; but, the defendants argue that this alternative cannot be availed of in the present case, because the arrastre operator has neither rejected nor denied plaintiff s claim. Inasmuch as said operator cannot, by inaction, deprive the consignee of its right to the aforementioned alternative, this Court has held 1 that, when the arrastre operator fails to deny or reject the claim of the consignee, the term for the exercise of the latter’s right of action shall begin to run upon expiration of one (1) year from the date of discharge of the last package upon the custody of said operator. Such date, in the case at bar, was August 15, 1962 so that plaintiff had one year from August 15, 1963 within which to commence the present action. Since the same was begun on October 21, 1963, it is obvious that defendants’ contention can not be sustained.

Defendants further assail the decision appealed from, upon the theory that 5 cartons of the shipment in question were already damaged, or in bad order condition, when they were discharged from the carrying vessel, and that the value of said 5 cartons should be deducted from the award made in favor of the plaintiffs. It should be noted, however, that plaintiff’s claim is predicated, not upon any damage sustained by the goods consigned thereto, but upon non-delivery of 16-1/3 cartons of "Royal" Corned Beef. Whether or not the 5 cartons allegedly damaged on board the carrying vessel were among those lost is a question of fact which can not be taken up in this appeal, the same having been brought to this Court directly from the Court of First Instance "on pure questions of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendants. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The Continental Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-22208, March 30, 1966; Delgado Brothers, Inc., Et. Al. v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-21781, June 30, 1966; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-21412, September 28, 1966; and The American Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service, Et Al., L-22780, February 18, 1967.




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-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 492 September 5, 1967 - OLEGARIA BLANZA, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN ARCANGEL

  • G.R. No. L-19831 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BUCO

  • G.R. No. L-21184 September 5, 1967 - SIMEON CORDOVIS, ET AL. v. BASILISA A. DE OBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22146 September 5, 1967 - SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING v. QUA CHEE GAN

  • G.R. No. L-22492 September 5, 1967 - BASILAN ESTATES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26703 September 5, 1967 - IN RE: MARMOLITO R. CATELO v. CHIEF OF THE CITY JAIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26734 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO PADERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 5, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26090 September 6, 1967 - ISIDRO B. RAMOS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26951 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-23936 September 13, 1967 - IN RE: HAO GUAN SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24092 September 13, 1967 - GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24836 September 13, 1967 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18722 September 14, 1967 - CATALINA M. DE LEON, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19570 September 14, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA

  • A.C. No. 540 September 15, 1967 - PEDRO C. RELATIVO v. MARIANO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21504 September 15, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22734 September 15, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANUEL B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-27125 September 15, 1967 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21166 September 15, 1967 - BONIFACIO GESTOSANI, ET AL. v. INSULAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 15, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21691 September 15, 1967 - RAMON V. MITRA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19713 September 18, 1967 - IN RE: BONIFACIO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22645 September 18, 1967 - CARLOS CALUBAYAN, ET AL. v. CIRILO PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-23174 September 18, 1967 - CONCEPCION MACABINGKIL v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27934 September 18, 1967 - CONSTANTE PIMENTEL v. ANGELINO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-23927 September 19, 1967 - TALLER BISAYAS EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. PANAY ALLIED WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23716 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24091 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20812 September 22, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO PO CHU SAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20942 September 22, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. D. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. L-19892 September 25, 1967 - GERONIMO GATMAITAN v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20706 September 25, 1967 - MARIANO LAPINA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21804 September 25, 1967 - TERESA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20055 September 27, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 500 September 27, 1967 - TAHIMIK RAMIREZ v. JAIME S. NER

  • G.R. No. L-21209 September 27, 1967 - CHIENG HUNG v. TAM TEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22456 September 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO SALUNGA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20303 October 31, 1967 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23233 September 28, 1967 - LUIS ENGUERRA v. ANTONIO DOLOSA

  • G.R. No. L-24384 September 28, 1967 - MARGARITA IÑIGO v. ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23463 September 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS CLEMENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20827 September 29, 1967 - ADELA C. SALAS-GATLIN v. CORAZON AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21749 September 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-21879 September 29, 1967 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

  • G.R. No. L-21876 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISES INC. v. SOLEDAD NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21985 September 29, 1967 - AMPARO CRUZ v. ROSA HERNANDEZ NALDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22261 September 29, 1967 - ENRIQUE BALDISIMO v. CFI OF CAPIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967 - REYNALDO C. VILLASEÑOR v. MAXIMO ABAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23666 September 29, 1967 - EUSTAQUIO AMOREN, ET AL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24591 September 29, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27266 September 29, 1967 - FEDERICO G. REAL, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19978 September 29, 1967 - CECILIO RAFAEL v. EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND INSPECTION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20940 September 29, 1967 - BERNARDO LONARIA v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. HOBART DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21979 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. ATLAS TRADING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22096 September 29, 1967 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22119 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. MELANIO SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967 - IN RE: EDWIN M. VILLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22621 September 29, 1967 - JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ v. JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27420 September 29, 1967 - RENATO L. AMPONIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21655 September 29, 1967 - FERNANDO CORPUZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22107 September 30, 1967 - CONSTANTINO TIRONA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23655 September 30, 1967 - EMILIA GABON, ET AL. v. NICANOR G. JORGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27535 September 30, 1967 - FELIX LOMUGDANG v. PATERNO JAVIER