G.R. No. L-17027 March 3, 1967
YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Yu Kimteng Construction Corporation, imported eight lifts of reinforced steel bars. The carrying vessel arrived in Manila on May 28, 1957. The shipment was completely discharged into the custody of the defendants-appellees (Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service) on May 31, 1957. On June 20, 1957, the Manila Port Service delivered only three lifts to the appellant’s broker, prompting the filing of provisional claims for the five missing lifts on the same day. The appellees’ principal defense was that the appellant failed to file its claim within 15 days from the date of complete discharge of the goods from the vessel, as required under paragraph 15 of the management contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Supreme Court initially reversed the decision, ordering the appellees to pay damages. The appellees filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellant’s claim was filed within the prescribed period under paragraph 15 of the management contract.
2. Whether the appellees’ liability is limited to P500 per package under the same contract.
3. Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of the claim: The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that the 15-day period for filing a claim should be counted not from the discharge of the last package from the vessel, but from the date the consignee learned or could have learned of the loss. The Court found that the appellant acted promptly by presenting delivery permits on June 3, 1957, and was billed for arrastre charges for the full shipment on June 16, 1957, indicating the shipment was still intact at that time. The loss, therefore, must have occurred after the 15-day period from discharge had lapsed. The appellant filed its provisional claim on June 20, 1957, the same day it received only three lifts, which was within 15 days from when it learned of the loss. The Court cited precedents, including its own decision in this case, which established that it would be unfair to apply the 15-day proviso strictly where the consignee could not have known of the loss within that period.
2. On the limitation of liability: The Court rejected the appellees’ new defense that their liability was limited to P500 per package under paragraph 15 of the management contract. This defense was not raised in their answer to the complaint, where their sole reason for refusing payment was the alleged late filing of the claim. Evidence on the actual value of the missing lifts and other damages was admitted at trial without objection. Raising this defense for the first time on appeal was deemed too late.
3. On the award of attorney’s fees: The Court upheld the award of P1,000 as attorney’s fees, noting that the parties had stipulated below to leave the amount to the discretion of the court, and the awarded sum was just and reasonable.
The motion for reconsideration was denied.