G.R. No. L-24923 May 17, 1980
FILIPRO, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Filipro, Inc. filed an action to recover the value of imported goods lost or damaged while in the custody of defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company as arrastre operators. The shipments were discharged between July and September 1962. For each shipment, Filipro filed provisional and formal claims with the arrastre operator within the periods stipulated in the management contract. The defendants took no action on these claims. Consequently, Filipro initially filed a court action on July 27, 1963, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the amount involved being within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior courts. It was in their answer to this first suit, dated August 3, 1963, that the defendants first denied the claims. Filipro then filed the present action in the proper court on September 14, 1963. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts, and the primary issue for resolution was whether Filipro had complied with the claim-filing requirements under Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether the action was filed within the one-year prescriptive period; (2) whether the provisional claims were filed within the required fifteen-day period from discharge; and (3) the correct total value of the lost and damaged goods.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modification on the amount. On prescription, the Court ruled the action was timely. Paragraph 15 of the contract requires suit to be filed within one year from the date of discharge of the goods or from the date the claim is rejected. The one-year period was deemed interrupted when Filipro filed its first action on July 27, 1963, even though it was later dismissed for improper venue. The defendants’ denial of the claim in their answer to that first suit on August 3, 1963, constituted a rejection that also started the one-year period anew. The present action, filed on September 14, 1963, was therefore within the prescriptive period. Regarding the provisional claims, the Court held they were filed in substantial compliance with the contract. The purpose of the fifteen-day rule is to allow the arrastre operator to promptly investigate while facts are fresh. Filipro’s provisional claims, filed within fifteen days of discharge for each shipment, served this purpose by notifying the operator of the loss or damage, even if the exact values were provided later in the formal claims. Finally, based on the stipulation of facts, the Court corrected the total award from P6,885.39 to P6,570.70, as this was the mathematically correct sum of the agreed values for the seven shipments. The judgment was modified to reflect this amount.