G.R. No. L-23128. September 30, 1978.
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves six separate shipments of flour consigned to different parties and insured by Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. Upon arrival at the Port of Manila, the cargo was discharged into the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company. The consignees subsequently received portions of the shipments in bad order condition, and some shipments also had short deliveries. The consignees filed provisional claims with the arrastre operator and formal claims with Malayan Insurance. After paying the consignees, Malayan Insurance, as subrogee, demanded reimbursement from Manila Port Service. Upon rejection of the claims, Malayan Insurance filed a collection suit.
The defendants-appellants raised several defenses in the Court of First Instance, primarily arguing that the provisional claims filed by the consignees were invalid for not stating the monetary value of the loss, that the claims for short delivery were speculative, and that there was no proof of the cargo’s condition upon discharge. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay various sums corresponding to the six causes of action, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the provisional claims filed without stating the precise monetary value are valid; (2) whether the claims for short delivery are speculative; (3) whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved the condition of the cargo upon discharge; (4) whether the correct basis for valuation is the invoice value or CIF value; and (5) whether the trial court erred in awarding an amount exceeding the prayer in the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification on the awarded amount. On the first issue, the Court held that the filing of a provisional claim within 15 days from discharge substantially complies with the Management Contract, even without stating the exact monetary value, as its purpose is to give the arrastre operator timely opportunity to investigate. This aligns with established jurisprudence. Second, the claim for short delivery was not speculative, as it was confirmed through bad order examinations and certificates issued by the arrastre contractor itself. Third, the trial court’s factual finding of short delivery is conclusive in this appeal, which is limited to questions of law. Fourth, the arrastre operator’s liability is not limited to the invoice value but extends to the CIF value, encompassing all damages arising from the loss. Finally, the Court found merit in the appellant’s contention regarding the award exceeding the prayer. Applying the rule in J.M. Tuason & Co. vs. Santiago, where the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence, recovery is limited to the amount originally prayed for. Thus, the total award was reduced to P3,235.46, the amount specified in the complaint’s prayer. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.