GR 22395; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966
STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Various imported goods, insured by the plaintiff, arrived at the Port of Manila on different dates and were consigned to seven owners. The defendants, as arrastre operators, discharged and received the goods in good order. The consignees, through their agents, filed “provisional claims” for loss and/or damage with the defendants within fifteen days from the discharge of the last package. Formal claims were submitted later but beyond the fifteen-day period. The defendants failed to deliver or delivered in bad order some of the goods. The plaintiff, as insurer, paid the consignees for the lost or damaged cargoes and was subrogated to their rights. Upon the defendants’ refusal to pay, the plaintiff filed suit. The parties entered a partial stipulation of facts, admitting the binding effect of the Arrastre Management Contract and setting the money value of damages for the first seven causes of action. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding specific sums for each cause of action, including actual damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the filing of “provisional claims” within fifteen days from discharge substantially complies with Section 15 of the Arrastre Management Contract.
2. Whether the awards for actual damages and attorney’s fees were proper.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the provisional claims substantially complied with Section 15. The provisional claims, filed within the fifteen-day period, contained sufficient descriptions of the importations to allow the Manila Port Service reasonable verification and to check the validity of the claims while facts were fresh. The precise amount and supporting documents were properly reserved for the subsequent formal claim. This ruling is consistent with prior jurisprudence.
2. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the defendants, by directly appealing on the ground of pure questions of law, are deemed to have waived any challenge to the trial court’s findings of fact. Therefore, the factual findings supporting the awards for actual damages and attorney’s fees are final and conclusive. Furthermore, an award of attorney’s fees was deemed reasonable in a case of similar nature. The appealed judgment was affirmed in its entirety.