GR L 2338; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2338 November 18, 1967
THE LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INSURANCE CO., LTD., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On December 20, 1959, Manila Port Service received two shipments totaling 406 packages of magazines and books for consignee Philippine Education Co. Inc., Manila. Only 401 packages were delivered. On December 24, 1959, the consignee filed a provisional claim for the missing packages under paragraph 15 of the management contract. A formal claim for P850.31 (the total c.i.f. value, comprising invoice value plus insurance and freight) was later filed and acknowledged. The plaintiff, as insurer-subrogee, filed an action on December 20, 1960, in the municipal court to recover the value. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, affirmed by the Court of First Instance, prompting this appeal by the defendants.
ISSUE
1. Whether the provisional claim was valid.
2. Whether the action was filed within the prescriptive period.
3. Whether the defendants’ liability should be limited to the invoice value only.
4. Whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.
RULING
1. The provisional claim was valid. Although it did not state the value, the words “short-landed and/or landed in bad order” with specific reference to the bills of lading sufficiently placed the defendants on notice and constituted substantial compliance with paragraph 15 of the management contract.
2. The action was filed on time. Under paragraph 15, the action was filed within one year from the date of last discharge (December 20, 1959), having been filed on December 20, 1960.
3. The defendants are liable for the full c.i.f. value of P850.31. Paragraph 15 makes the arrastre operator responsible for the invoice value and all damages sustained due to the loss, which includes insurance and freight charges. Furthermore, applying the limited liability clause of P500 per package would result in a higher liability of P2,500 for the five missing packages, which is less favorable to the defendants.
4. The award of P300 as attorney’s fees was not inordinate, considering the professional standing of counsel and the prosecution of the case through three judicial levels.
The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in toto.