Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > April 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22382 April 30, 1969 - REPUBLIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22382. April 30, 1969.]

REPUBLIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, as Operator of the Manila Port Service, Defendant-Appellant.

Corporate Legal Counsel D. F . Macaranas and Trial Attorney Cipriano R. Dizon, for Defendant-Appellant.

J . P. Yuseco, Jr. for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COMMERCIAL LAW; ARRASTRE; MANAGEMENT CONTRACT; CONSIGNEE THOUGH NOT PARTY TO THE CONTRACT IS BOUND BY ITS PROVISIONS. — A consignee who takes delivery of a shipment by virtue of a delivery permit, which incorporates thereto, by reference, the provisions of the management contract between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, particularly paragraph 15 thereof, pursuant to which the liability of the arrastre service operator, for each package not delivered to the consignee, shall not exceed P500, unless the value of the missing package is "otherwise specified or manifested," the gist of which is set forth in the permit, is, although not a party to the said contract is bound by its provisions.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


In this appeal by defendant Manila Railroad Company, as operator of the Manila Port Service, from a decision of the Court of First Instance ordering it to pay plaintiff Republic Manufacturing Co., Inc. the sum of P3,770.84 because it could deliver only three out of the four bales of rayon and cotton remnants, the sole question is whether or not such liability was legally incurred considering that in the stipulation of facts plaintiff did admit that under paragraph 15 of the management contract entered into between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs the amount for which the former is liable should not exceed Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) "for each package unless the value is otherwise specified or manifested, and the corresponding arrastre charges had been paid." There was likewise the admission that the above paragraph 15 of the management contract was in substance reproduced in the gate pass and did appear in the permit to deliver imported goods issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of plaintiff’s broker. Notwithstanding the above admission, plaintiff prevailed. Hence this appeal. We reverse.

It is not that the lower court is unaware of the repeated pronouncements of this Tribunal that under the aforesaid paragraph 15, the liability cannot exceed P500.00 for each package. Such a provision was not, however, applied by it in view of what it considered the failure of defendant to plead its limited liability before the Municipal Court of Manila, thus precluding from setting it up on appeal to the Court of First Instance. Hence its decision.

Defendant Manila Railroad Company would argue in this appeal that before the municipal court the matter was adjudged solely on the basis of documentary evidence, included among which was the management contract. It could not be said then that there was such a failure to set up the defense of limited liability. Attention is likewise invited to the fact that the case was submitted to the Court of First Instance on stipulation of facts, wherein, as above pointed out, plaintiff did admit the execution of such a management contract by and between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, including paragraph 15 thereof as indicated above.

Even plaintiff is not insensible to the force of the above argument for in its brief as appellee what it stressed was not such failure to plead but its not being bound by such stipulation considering that it was not a party to the management contract not being a signatory thereto nor the gate pass issued by the Bureau of Customs. Such a disclaimer, however, is far from persuasive. The stipulation in the management contract should be considered as controlling in the light of our unwavering line of decisions.

It suffices to quote Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, 1 where this Court, through the then Justice, now Chief Justice, Concepcion, stated: "Plaintiff maintains that, not being a party to the management contract, the consignee — into whose shoes plaintiff had stepped in consequence of said payment — is not subject to the provisions of said stipulation, and that the same is furthermore invalid. The lower court correctly rejected this pretense because, having taken delivery of the shipment aforementioned by virtue of a delivery permit, incorporating thereto, by reference, the provisions of said management contract, particularly paragraph 15 thereof, the gist of which was set forth in the permit, the consignee became bound by said provisions, and because it could have avoided the application of said maximum limit of P500.00 per package by stating the true value thereof in its claim for delivery of the goods in question, which, admittedly, the consignee failed to do . . ." That is still good law. 2

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of December 3, 1963, is modified in the sense that the liability of defendant Manila Railroad Company is limited to P500.00. Costs against Republic Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Reyes, J.B.L., C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Capistrano, J., did not take part..

Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. L-16271, October 31, 1961.

2. Two of the recent decisions reiterating such a doctrine are Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Manila Railroad Company, 23 SCRA 205 (1968) and Philippine Education Co. v. Manila Port Service, 23 SCRA 557 (1968).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





April-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25924 April 18, 1969 - EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27833 April 18, 1969 - IN RE: ARSENIO GONZALES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-29113 April 18, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30052 April 18, 1969 - CAMILO V. PEÑA Y VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-20953 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE T. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-26489 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ODONCIO TARRAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21492 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUITO TAPITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22452 April 25, 1969 - GEORGE KALITAS v. CATALINO LIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22799 April 25, 1969 - TOMAS L. LANTING v. RESTITUTO GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22945 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARASA HAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23652 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: GO AY KOC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24166 April 25, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24508 April 25, 1969 - CENTRAL SAWMILLS, INC. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25438 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: WILLIAM SAY CHONG HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25709 April 25, 1969 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26602 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: LIM CHUY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26416 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: JULIO CHUA LIAN YAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26524 April 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26789 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DICTO ARPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29910 April 25, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20122 April 28, 1969 - FELICIANO A. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20268 April 28, 1969 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24163 April 28, 1969 - REGINO B. ARO v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24813 April 28, 1969 - HERMENEGILDO SERAFICA v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25437 April 28, 1969 - IN RE: YAP EK SIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27347 April 28, 1969 - JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27588 April 28, 1969 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28805 April 28, 1969 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29930 April 28, 1969 - BENITO ARTUYO v. FRANCISCO GONZALVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20374 April 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SYLVIA ABONITALLA DE RAVIDAS

  • G.R. No. L-21483 April 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22418 April 28, 1969 - FELIX LIMON v. ALEJO CANDIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22012 April 28, 1969 - OTILLA SEVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23282 April 28, 1969 - FELIPE GANOB, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS RAMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22587 April 28, 1969 - RUFINO BUENO, ET AL. v. MATEO H. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28747 April 28, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21690 April 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO PUJINIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22341 April 29, 1969 - JOSE RAMOS v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23973 April 29, 1969 - CIPRIANO VERASTIQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25094 April 29, 1969 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25883 April 29, 1969 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CALTEX DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19906 April 30, 1969 - STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22382 April 30, 1969 - REPUBLIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-24273 April 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO FIGUEROA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24507 April 30, 1969 - ARSENIO REYES v. REYNALDO B. CHAVOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24402 April 30, 1969 - PEDRO V. C. ENRIQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25604 April 30, 1969 - PAULO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. ABRAJANO & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26679 April 30, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27010 April 30, 1969 - MARLENE DAUDEN-HERNAEZ v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES, ET AL.