G.R. No. L-13276. February 25, 1961.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (As Administrator of the Property Insurance Fund Under R.A. No. 656 ), plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) imported tractor parts insured by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The shipment arrived in Manila on May 22, 1956, and was discharged into the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service. Upon delivery to NAMARCO’s broker on June 12, 1956, a shortage of 11 pieces valued at P2,046.50 was discovered. GSIS, as insurer, indemnified NAMARCO and, by subrogation, filed a claim against the arrastre operator on July 12, 1956.
The defendants, Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service, invoked a defense under their Management Contract with the Bureau of Customs. This contract stipulated that the arrastre operator would be completely relieved of liability for any loss or shortage unless a formal claim was filed within 15 days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel. Since the claim here was filed well beyond this 15-day period, the defendants argued they were released from liability.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff GSIS, as subrogee of the consignee NAMARCO, is bound by the 15-day claim filing stipulation in the Management Contract between the arrastre operator and the Bureau of Customs, to which GSIS was not a direct party.

RULING

Yes, the plaintiff is bound by the contractual stipulation. The Supreme Court, reiterating established jurisprudence, ruled that a consignee who avails itself of the services of the arrastre operator and takes delivery of goods pursuant to documents like gate passes and delivery permits—which are expressly made “subject to all the terms and conditions” of the Management Contract—impliedly accepts and becomes bound by all its provisions, including the restrictive condition on the period for filing claims. By deriving benefits from the contract (i.e., using the arrastre service), the consignee, and consequently its subrogee (the insurer GSIS), cannot accept the favorable aspects of the contract while repudiating its burdensome terms.
The Court rejected GSIS’s argument that the 15-day period constituted an impossible condition, noting that the possibility of compliance depended on when the consignee received notice of the goods’ arrival and the diligence exercised thereafter in inspecting them. The record was insufficient to determine these factual points. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for reception of evidence to ascertain whether NAMARCO had a reasonable opportunity to comply with the 15-day requirement or acted with due diligence under the circumstances. The amended decision of the lower court was set aside for further proceedings.