GR L 23033; (January, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23033 January 5, 1967
LUA KIAN, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants and appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Lua Kian imported 2,000 cases of Carnation Milk, shipped per Bill of Lading No. 17. Only 1,829 cases marked “LUA KIAN 1458” were discharged from the vessel and received by defendant Manila Port Service, the arrastre operator. From the same vessel, 3,171 cases marked “CEBU UNITED 4860-PH-MANILA” consigned to Cebu United Enterprises per Bill of Lading No. 18 were also discharged, though its bill of lading indicated only 3,000 cases. Manila Port Service delivered 1,913 cases marked “LUA KIAN 1458” to plaintiff’s broker. Plaintiff filed a claim for the short-delivery of 87 cases (from the 2,000 in the bill of lading), valued at P1,183.11. Defendants contended they were only bound to deliver the 1,829 cases actually received and that they had over-delivered. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, is liable for the short-delivery of 87 cases of milk to the consignee, Lua Kian, despite a discrepancy between the bill of lading quantities and the markings on the cases received.
RULING
Yes, the defendants are liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, with modification on attorney’s fees. The legal relationship between an arrastre operator and a consignee is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman. As custodian, it was the arrastre operator’s duty to take good care of the goods and deliver them to the party entitled to possession. Given the discrepancy (the shipment for Cebu United showed 3,000 cases in the bill of lading but 3,171 cases were marked for it, while Lua Kian’s shipment showed 2,000 cases but only 1,829 were marked for him), the arrastre operator should have withheld delivery and conducted an investigation or called upon the parties to interplead to determine rightful ownership. The exemption under the Management Contract for loss due to improper or insufficient marking does not apply because the bill of lading itself showed the correct quantities due to each consignee. The arrastre operator was thus liable for the shortage of 87 cases to Lua Kian. The attorney’s fees awarded by the lower court were reduced from P500 to P300. The defendants are not precluded from taking legal steps to recover any excess delivered to Cebu United Enterprises.