G.R. No. L-23636 October 31, 1967
TABACALERA INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and/or MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., defendants. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and/or MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On or about June 6, 1961, the vessel SS “Leverkusen” shipped from Antwerp, Belgium to Manila 2,825 jute bags of glue and glue hardener consigned to Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc. The consignee insured the shipment with Tabacalera Insurance Company. The vessel arrived in Manila on July 11, 1961, and the shipment was discharged into the custody of Manila Port Service on July 13, 1961. On July 14, 1961, a broker filed a “provisional claim” with Manila Port Service for damage and shortages, specifically listing 875 bags as bad order cargo and 386 bags as non-delivered or shortlanded. The goods were delivered to the consignee, with the last delivery on July 20, 1961. A shortage of 33 bags was discovered. The consignee and/or its insurer, Tabacalera Insurance Company (subrogated to the consignee’s rights), filed a formal claim for P1,117.64 (the CIF value of the lost goods) on September 25, 1961. When the claim was refused, Tabacalera filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila on July 10, 1962, suing alternatively the carrier (Humburg-Amerika Line) for negligence during carriage and the arrastre operators (Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service) for negligence during custody. The parties stipulated, among other facts, that the shipment was discharged complete and in good order; the arrastre operator received the provisional claim on July 14, 1961; only 2,792 bags were delivered; the insurer paid the consignee; the invoice value of the lost 33 bags was P1,051.28 and the CIF value was P1,117.64; and the liability of Manila Port Service, if any, was limited by its Management Contract to the invoice value of the goods, but in no case more than P500 per package. The trial court ordered the arrastre operators to pay P1,117.64, attorney’s fees, and costs. They appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over the subject matter, given the joinder of alternative causes of action against the carrier (admiralty) and the arrastre operators (where the claim amount was below the court’s general jurisdictional threshold).
2. Whether the filing of a “provisional claim” within 15 days from discharge of the goods, without stating the value of the loss, complied with the Management Contract requirement that a “claim for value” be filed within that period.
3. Whether, under the contract clause limiting liability to the “invoice value” but not exceeding P500 per package, an amount larger than the invoice value but less than the value computed at P500 per package may be awarded.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction. The joinder of alternative causes of action against the carrier (based on contract of carriage) and the arrastre operators (based on contract of deposit) arising from the same transaction is expressly permitted under Sections 5, Rule 2 and 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Since the cause of action against the carrier involved admiralty jurisdiction, which is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, the court properly acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, even if the claim against the arrastre operators alone was for an amount within municipal court jurisdiction.
2. Yes, the provisional claim was a sufficient compliance. The filing of a provisional claim within the 15-day period, indicating knowledge of damage or loss, satisfies the Management Contract requirement. It is recognized that a consignee needs a reasonable opportunity after delivery to ascertain the exact extent of loss or damage. The formal claim for the specific value can be filed later.
3. No, the award must be based on the invoice value, subject to the P500 per package ceiling. The contract clause clearly limits liability to the invoice value of the goods, provided it does not exceed P500 per package. Here, the invoice value of the lost goods (P1,051.28) was less than the amount computed at P500 per package for 33 bags (P16,500). Therefore, the correct award is the invoice value of P1,051.28, not the higher CIF value of P1,117.64 awarded by the trial court. The award of attorney’s fees was upheld as just and equitable.
DISPOSITIVE:
The award of P1,117.64 was reduced to P1,051.28 (the invoice value). The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. No costs.