Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20155. April 30, 1966.]

LEXAL PURE DRUG LABORATORIES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA POST SERVICE, Defendants-Appellants.

Macarana, Enage & Gonzales for defendants and appellants.

Ruperto V. Suñga for plaintiff and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ARRASTRE SERVICE; MANAGEMENT CONTRACT; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLAUSE, WHEN BINDING ON PARTIES NOT SIGNATORIES THERETO. — The provision in Section 15 of the Management Contract limiting the liability of the arrastre contractor to claims filed within 15 days from the discharge unto its custody of the goods lost, destroyed or undelivered and for an amount not exceeding P500.00, unless the actual value thereof is given and the corresponding charges thereon paid, is binding upon consignees or third persons who are not signatories thereto, as long as the latter have knowledge of that limitation of liability or have taken delivery of the goods upon presentation of a gate pass and delivery permit wherein the provision of said Section 15 was stamped and constituted as one of the conditions for the issuance thereof. In the case at bar, not only does the plaintiff vehemently disclaim knowledge of this limitation, but also the record discloses circumstances that indicate the plaintiff had no occasion to have in its possession document containing the provision in question. Since the plaintiff-consignee is not bound by Section 15 of the Management Contract, the filing of its provisional claim 20 days after the release of the articles was not barred by any period of limitation.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 46269), ordering it to pay to the Lexal Drug Laboratories, the value of the undelivered articles belonging to the latter, the Manila Port Service filed the present appeal, mainly on the issue of whether or not the appellee-consignee of the undelivered goods is bound by Section 15 of the Management Contract between the appellant and the Bureau of Customs, fixing a prescriptive period of 15 days from the filing of claims in case of loss, damage, misdelivery or non-delivery of goods, and limiting appellant’s liability to P500.00 in case of undeclared value of the merchandise.

The case was originally instituted by the Lexal Drug Laboratories in the Municipal Court of Manila, for recovery of the sum of P1,818.61, the value of 100 kilos of Methyl Cellulose of special grade type MC-6,000, discharged to the defendant Manila Port Service on November 11, 1959, but which goods were never located. Upon a favorable decision to the plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Here the stipulation of facts submitted in the municipal court was reproduced, later supplemented by an additional stipulation of facts which, together, establish the basis of each party’s respective contention, admitting for the plaintiff, the fact of discharge and receipt of the goods in Manila, their value at P1,818.61, and their non-delivery to the plaintiff; and for the defendant, the existence and due execution of the Management Contract between the defendant Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs for the operation of the arrastre service in the Port of Manila in the execution of which, plaintiff did not participate; the fact that claim for the value of the goods was filed more than 15 days from the date of discharge of the last cargo from the carrying vessel. An attempt was made to include in the additional stipulation of fact a statement that the provision of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract enjoining the presentation of claim within 15 days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel, was stamped at the dorsal portion of the original of the Delivery Permit issued in the name of plaintiffs broker, but plaintiff objected contending it or its broker had no knowledge of such a fact. In view of this opposition, paragraph 3 of the additional stipulation was ordered deleted, but the defendant was authorized to present evidence in support of its contention.

The pertinent provisions of the questioned paragraph 15 of the Management Contract read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . and the Contractor shall be solely responsible as an independent contractor for, and promptly pay to the steamship company, consignee, consignor, or other interested party or parties the invoice value of each package but which in no case shall be more than five hundred pesos (P500.00) for each package unless the value is otherwise specified or manifested, and the corresponding arrastre charges had been paid, including all damages that may be suffered on account of loss, destruction, or damage of any merchandise while in the custody or under the control of the contractor upon any pier, wharf or other designated place under the supervision of the Bureau, . . . In any event the Contractor 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 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 (15) days from the date of discharge from the carrying vessel. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

After due hearing, the court rendered the decision now on appeal, holding that plaintiff is not bound by the aforequoted Section of the Management Contract, and ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff-importer the value of the undelivered goods in the sum of P1,818.61, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, plus the sum of P1,000.00, as attorney’s fees.

There is no controversy as to the fact that the goods discharged from the vessel to the custody of the appellant were never located. There can also be no question as to the validity of Section 15 of the Management Contract between the Bureau of Customs and the arrastre contractor, the Manila Port Service. It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the provision limiting the liability of the arrastre contractor to claims filed within 15 days from the discharge unto its custody of the goods lost, destroyed or misdelivered, and for an amount not exceeding P500.00 unless the actual value thereof is given and the corresponding charges thereon paid, is binding upon consignees or third persons who are not signatories thereto, as long as the latter have knowledge of that limitation of liability. 1 Thus, we have held that the management contract is binding upon the consignee who is not a party thereto, but who has taken delivery of the goods upon presentation of a gate pass and delivery permit wherein the provision of Section 15 was stamped and constituted as one of the conditions for the issuance thereof. 2 In other words, knowledge and acceptance, even tacit, by the importer or his agent of the provisions of paragraph 15 oft-cited, is essential to bind the importer. This is as it should be because, firstly the contract, contrary to ordinary rule, is sought to bind a party who did not participate in its execution, and secondly, it is intended to limit the liability of one of the contracting parties, the arrastre contractor. To successfully invoke its protective provisions, the beneficiary, (the arrastre contractor) must discharge its duty to prove such knowledge on the part of the importer.

In the case at bar, not only does the plaintiff vehemently disclaim knowledge of this limitation, but also the record discloses circumstances that indicate the plaintiff had no occasion to have in its possession any document containing the provision in question. It is true that the delivery permit presented by plaintiff’s broker to the defendant now contains stamped on its dorsal portion, the provision in question. However, plaintiff’s broker insists that when it secured the official form 3 from the Bureau of Customs for presentation to the Manila Port Service, no such stamped provision appeared thereon. This is corroborated by the testimony of witness Vicente Borres of the Manila Port Service to the effect that the stamping of the questioned provision on the delivery permit was done at the office of the defendant after the same has been presented by the consignee for processing. 4 Since this delivery permit has never been returned to the plaintiff because the goods were never located, (in fact the same was produced and presented as evidence by the defendant), it can not be said that plaintiff learned about the incorporation of the notice of limitation of liability. Nor has there been any gate pass (usually containing the same provision) given to the plaintiff for the reason that the goods were never delivered to the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff-consignee is not bound by Section 15 of the Management Contract, the filing of its provisional claim 20 days after the release of the articles was not barred by any period of limitation. Considering further that the value of the articles lost was admitted to be P1,818.61, and as the limitation on the arrastre operator’s liability to only P500.00 is not binding on the herein consignee, the appellant must be held liable to the full value of the amount being claimed by appellee.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Insurance Company of North America v. Manila Port Service, 113 Phil. 553, and cases cited therein.

2. Insurance Company of North America v. United States Lines, Co., 119 Phil. 783.

3. The printed official form is in the nature of a communication addressed to the Manila Port Service from the Bureau of Customs authorizing the delivery of the goods upon payment of arrastre charges (see Exh. 3).

4. pp. 28-30, t.s.n. Regala.




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






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.