GR 22230; (January, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22230. January 30, 1971.
MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case involves a shipment of 44 cartons of gate and globe valves consigned to Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. Only 40 cartons were unloaded from the S/S President Tyler on June 25, 1960, and delivered to the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service. The remaining four cartons were overcarried and later unloaded from the S/S President Pierce on July 10, 1960. On July 5, 1960, the appellee secured the shipping documents and engaged a broker to claim the goods. After a search failed to locate the shipment, the broker filed a provisional claim with the Manila Port Service on July 25, 1960, covering all 44 cartons. Subsequently, 15 cartons were located and delivered, leaving 29 cartons missing. A formal claim for the value of the undelivered goods was later filed. The appellee sued for damages after the appellants failed to satisfy the claim.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the provisional claim filed by the appellee’s broker complied with the requirement under Section 15 of the Management Contract to file a claim within fifteen days from the discharge of the last package, thereby holding the arrastre operator liable for the loss.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding the appellants jointly and severally liable. The Court ruled that the fifteen-day period for filing a claim under Section 15 of the Management Contract commenced not from the discharge of the first 40 cartons on June 24, 1960, but from July 11, 1960, the day after the last four cartons were unloaded on July 10. The provisional claim filed on July 25, 1960, was therefore timely. The Court emphasized that the label “provisional” did not invalidate the claim, as it was necessitated by the ongoing discovery of missing cartons and it sufficiently notified the arrastre operator of a potential demand.
Regarding the computation of damages, the Court rejected the appellants’ contention that liability should be limited to the invoice value. Interpreting Section 15 of the Management Contract in conjunction with Article 1173 of the Civil Code, the Court held the arrastre operator liable for the total actual landed cost, which includes shipping expenses, margin tax, and other charges, as these constitute the full damages suffered by the consignee due to the loss. The consignee had manifested this total value, thereby properly holding the operator accountable for it. The award of attorney’s fees was also deemed just and equitable.