Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24677. May 29, 1968.]

YAP TECK SUY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL., MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

L. L. Reyes for Plaintiff-Appellee.

D. F. Macaranas & A. G. Holgado, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT; CLAIM FOR LOSS; CLAIM NOT STATING EXACT VALUE CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. — The presentation of a provisional claim within the required 15-day period, although such claim does not state the exact value of the missing or damaged merchandise nor is supported by proper documents constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of paragraph 15 of the management contract for it already affords the arrastre operator reasonable opportunity to check on the validity of the demand while the facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and the pertinent papers are available. In the present case, there is no showing that the provisional claim which was timely filed, prevented verification by appellants of the truthfulness of plaintiff’s allegations of loss. For the purpose of placing the arrastre operator upon inquiry, the value of the merchandise is unessential.

2. ID.; CLAIMS FOR LOSS; AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES; JUSTIFICATION. — There is no reason to set aside the lower court’s awards to plaintiff of damages in the sum of P1,550.98, for the loss of a portion of his imported goods, and for attorney’s fees in the amount of P300.00. The first amount is justified under the stipulation of the parties submitted to and approved by the court below while the second was not only provided for in the same stipulation but also warranted by appellant’s persistence in maintaining a clearly untenable suit.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Ordered by the City Court of Manila to pay to plaintiff Yap Teck Suy the sum of P3,111.96, for the loss of 594 pieces of automobile main leaf springs, discharged from the vessel "S.S. Ninny Figari" unto the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, and the amount of P200.00 as attorney’s fees, the defendants Manila Railroad Company and its subsidiary the said Manila Port Service, appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 53672). Thereat, the parties 1 entered into the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the parties hereto manifest that they are submitting to this Court the same documentary evidence which the plaintiff and the defendants (except Bradman & Co.) had previously offered to the City Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 82441.

"2. That what was delivered to plaintiff at Cebu was all that was received by Cia. Maritima from the Manila Port Service at Manila; that is, 806 pieces of automobile main leaf springs.

"3. That the entire shipment of 1,400 pieces of leaf springs had been delivered by the Ninny Figari unto the Manila Port Service.

"4. That plaintiff had duly filed a provisional claim for the missing goods with Manila Port Service on December 7, 1959, although the details were contained in the formal claim submitted by plaintiff to Manila Port Service on December 24, 1960; that the vessel arrived at Manila on Nov. 18, 1959 and made the last discharge of the package on November 22, 1959.

"5. That the amount of P3,111.96 mentioned in the complaint is based on the actual exchange value of the dollar to peso (at the rate of $1 to P4.04; that the plaintiff manifests that if the value of the undelivered shipment ($772.20) is converted at the rate of $1 to P2.02 (official rate then), the claim amounts to P1,550.98;

"6. That negotiations were conducted by the parties for the amicable settlement of the case; that the plaintiff was willing to consider himself satisfied of his claim if he is paid P1,550.98;

"7. That the parties leave the question of attorney’s fees and costs to the court’s discretion."cralaw virtua1aw library

Based upon said stipulation, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on January 15, 1965, holding defendants Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service liable for the loss of the missing goods and ordering them to pay to plaintiff damages in the sum of P1,550.98 and P300.00 as attorney’s fees. The other defendants Bradman & Co. and Compañia Maritima were freed from any liability.

From this decision, defendants appealed to this Court contesting the sufficiency of the provisional claim filed by the plaintiff to support the ruling on their liability for damages to the latter, under paragraph 15 of the arrastre Management Contract. It is appellants’ contention that the provisional claim, which did not specify the value of the particular item or items short-landed, was nothing more than a notice of an anticipated loss of or damage to the cargo, and not a "claim for value" as required in the aforecited paragraph 15 of the Management Contract.

This contention of defendants-appellants has been repeatedly raised before, and rejected by this Court in a long line of decided cases. 2 And we have consistently declared that the presentation of a provisional claim within the required 15-day period, although such claim does not state the exact value of the missing or damaged merchandise nor is supported by proper documents, constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, for it already affords the arrastre operator reasonable opportunity to check on the validity of the demand, while the facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and the pertinent papers are available. In the present case, there is no showing that the provisional claim, which was timely filed, prevented verification by appellants of the truthfulness of plaintiff’s allegations of loss. For the purpose of placing the arrastre operator upon inquiry, the value of the merchandise is unessential.

There is similarly no reason to set aside the lower court’s awards to plaintiff of damages in the sum of P1,550.98, for the loss of a portion of his imported goods, and for attorney’s fees in the amount of P300.00. The first amount is justified under the stipulation of the parties submitted to and approved by the court below (No. 6); while the second was not only provided for in the same stipulation (No. 7), which the court reasonably fixed at P300.00, but also warranted by appellant’s persistence in maintaining a clearly untenable suit. 3

For the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendants-appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The Brandman & Co., as agent of the carrier "S.S. Ninny Figari" and Compañia Maritima, as operator of the interisland vessel M/V Samar where the merchandise was shipped from the port of Manila to Cebu, were also made parties defendant.

2. Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Manila Port Service, L-22810, Aug. 31, 1967; State Bonding & Ins. Co., Inc. v. Manila Port Service, L-23715 Oct. 30, 1967; Philippine Education Co. v. Manila Port Service, L- 23811, Oct. 30, 1967; Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Manila Port Service, L-23338, Nov. 18, 1967, and the many cases cited therein.

3. Philippine Education Co. v. Manila Port Service, supra.




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






May-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.