GR 26268; (March, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26268 March 25, 1970
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On or about May 10, 1960, the vessel “SS BAYERSTEIN” shipped eight cases of auto parts from Hamburg, Germany, to Manila, consigned to Leelin & Co. The vessel arrived and discharged the cargo into the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service (agent of Manila Railroad Company), on June 23, 1960. The defendant delivered five cases to the consignee’s broker on August 17, 1960, and two cases on August 22, 1960, leaving one case undelivered. A provisional claim was filed by the consignee against the arrastre operator on July 22, 1960. A formal claim for the value of the undelivered shipment was sent on October 19, 1960. The insurer, Insurance Company of North America, paid the consignee P774.08 and, as subrogee, filed an action against the defendants on June 23, 1961. The defendants raised the defense that the claim was not filed within the 15-day period prescribed in the Management Contract. The City Court and the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding the provisional claim filed on July 22, 1960, complied with the contract terms, counting the 15-day period from the date the consignee first had knowledge of the short delivery.
ISSUE
Whether the provisional claim for the undelivered goods was filed within the 15-day period prescribed in paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, thereby holding the arrastre operator liable.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision, holding the defendants not liable. The provisional claim filed on July 22, 1960, was not within the 15-day period from the discharge of the goods on June 23, 1960. Furthermore, applying the doctrine that the period may be counted from the date the consignee learned or could have learned of the loss, the claim was premature and speculative, as no delivery had occurred by July 22, 1960. The consignee must have known of the short-delivery by August 22, 1960, when the last delivery was made and only seven of eight cases were received. The appellee’s alternative theory that the consignee first learned of the loss on October 7, 1960 (when a Certificate of Delivery was issued) was untenable, as knowledge existed earlier, and there was no evidence of when the formal claim was received. The failure to file a claim within the stipulated 15-day period relieved the appellants of liability.