GR L 17027; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17027 November 29, 1965
Yu Kimteng Construction Corporation, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff Yu Kimteng Construction Corporation purchased reinforced steel bars from New York. The shipment arrived at the Port of Manila and was completely unloaded from the vessel in eight lifts on May 31, 1957, and delivered to defendant Manila Port Service, the arrastre service operator. Plaintiff obtained delivery permits on May 29, 1957, and was billed for arrastre charges on June 16, 1957. On June 20, 1957, plaintiff’s customs broker obtained delivery of only three lifts; the other five were missing. On that same date, June 20, 1957, plaintiff filed provisional claims with Manila Port Service, later confirmed by formal claims on July 12, 1957. The value of the missing steel bars was P5,770.40. Manila Port Service denied liability on October 19, 1957, asserting the claims were time-barred under Section 15 of its Management Contract with the Bureau of Customs. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the provisional claims filed on June 20 were beyond the 15-day period from the date of discharge (May 31) stipulated in the contract.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff’s filing of its claim on June 20, 1957, complied with the 15-day filing requirement under the Management Contract, considering the goods were discharged on May 31, 1957.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It ruled that the 15-day period for filing a claim under the Management Contract should commence, not from the date of discharge of the goods from the vessel, but from the date the consignee or claimant learns of the loss, damage, or misdelivery. The Court cited precedent establishing that it is not enough for the consignee to be notified of the discharge; they must be apprised of the actual delivery to discover any loss. In this case, plaintiff learned of the missing steel bars only on June 20, 1957, when it took delivery of three lifts and discovered the shortage. It filed provisional claims on the same date, thereby complying with the 15-day requirement. The Court awarded compensatory damages of P7,955.00 (the cost of locally replacing the bars) and P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.