GR L 14764; (November, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14764; November 23, 1960
CENON VILLANUEVA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE, ET AL., defendants. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, INC., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Cenon Villanueva was the consignee of two bales of rayon remnants shipped from New York aboard the SS/TORREADOR, which arrived at the Port of Manila on June 14, 1957. The shipment was covered by a bill of lading issued by defendant Barber-Wilhelmsen Line (the carrier), with defendant Macondray & Co. Inc. as its ship agent in Manila. The goods, discharged “complete and in good condition,” were placed into the custody of the Manila Port Service (a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Co.), the designated arrastre operator. Upon delivery to Villanueva, a shortage of 262 pounds valued at P879.96 was discovered. Villanueva filed a provisional claim for this shortage on July 8, 1957. The Manila Port Service rejected the claim because it was filed more than fifteen (15) days after June 15, 1957 (the date of discharge from the vessel), thereby violating the time limit stipulated in paragraph 15 of the Management Contract between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs. This contractual condition was incorporated by reference and substantially reproduced in the gate pass and delivery permit used by the consignee to take delivery of the merchandise. Villanueva filed an action for recovery against the carrier, ship agent, arrastre operator, and port service. The carrier and ship agent disclaimed liability after delivering the goods to the arrastre operator. The lower court, upon a stipulation of facts, dismissed the complaint against the carrier and ship agent but held the Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Co. liable, ruling that the 15-day claim-filing period in the Management Contract was not binding on the consignee. Hence, this appeal by the arrastre operator and port service.
ISSUE
Whether the provision in paragraph 15 of the Management Contract between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs—requiring a claim for loss, damage, or non-delivery to be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the goods—is binding upon the consignee, despite not being a formal signatory to said contract.
RULING
Yes, the consignee is bound by the 15-day claim-filing period stipulated in the Management Contract. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and absolved the defendants-appellants (Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company) from liability.
The Court held that although the consignee was not a signatory to the Management Contract, he legally became a party to it when, through the requisite procedures, he obtained and used the delivery permit and gate pass that made reference to and reproduced the conditions of said contract, including the 15-day claim period. By demanding delivery of the goods pursuant to the arrastre operator’s undertaking under the same contract, and by subsequently bringing a court action to enforce obligations arising from it, the consignee accepted its stipulations. The principle, as established in prior jurisprudence such as Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Prince Line, is that a party cannot take advantage of a contract when it suits him and reject its provisions when it does not. Since the parties submitted the case for determination solely on this specific issue, the Court’s review was confined thereto. Consequently, the consignee’s claim, filed beyond the contractual 15-day period, was barred.