GR L 22500; (April, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22500 April 24, 1967
NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd., as insurer, sued the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company for the recovery of a sum of money due to the loss of one case of plain irons from a shipment of eight cases. The shipment, consigned to J. R. De Santos and Company, Inc., arrived at the Port of Manila on June 16, 1961, and was discharged complete and in good order into the custody of the Manila Port Service. The consignee took delivery of the cargo on July 7, 1961, and only then discovered that one case was missing. The consignee’s broker filed a provisional written claim with the Manila Port Service on July 12, 1961. The plaintiff insurer, having paid the consignee, was subrogated to the consignee’s rights and filed a formal claim. The defendants contended they were relieved of liability because the claim was not filed within fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package from the vessel, as required by Section 15 of the Management Contract.
ISSUE
Whether the claim for the loss of the goods was filed within the prescribed period under Section 15 of the Management Contract, considering the consignee learned of the loss only upon delivery.
RULING
Yes, the claim was filed on time. The Supreme Court ruled that the fifteen-day period for filing a claim under Section 15 of the Management Contract should commence, not from the date of discharge of the goods from the carrying vessel, but from the date the consignee or claimant learns of the loss, damage, misdelivery, and/or non-delivery. In this case, the last package was discharged on June 16, 1961, but the consignee learned of the missing case only on July 7, 1961, when taking delivery. The claim was filed five days later, on July 12, 1961, which was within the allowable period reckoned from the date of discovery. A literal application of the contract provision from the date of discharge would be unfair, as it would allow the arrastre contractor to escape liability by withholding knowledge of the loss until after the period expires. The judgment of the lower court holding the defendants liable was affirmed.