GR L 20155; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20155, April 30, 1966
LEXAL PURE DRUG LABORATORIES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellee, Lexal Pure Drug Laboratories, filed a case to recover the value of 100 kilos of Methyl Cellulose, which was discharged to the custody of the defendant-appellant Manila Port Service on November 11, 1959, but was never located or delivered to the plaintiff. The value of the goods was admitted to be P1,818.61. The defendants-appellants invoked Section 15 of the Management Contract between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, which limits the arrastre contractor’s liability to P500.00 per package unless a higher value is declared and requires that claims be filed within 15 days from the discharge of the goods from the vessel. The plaintiff’s claim was filed 20 days after discharge. The plaintiff objected to being bound by this contract, contending it had no knowledge of its provisions. The trial court found for the plaintiff, holding it was not bound by Section 15, and ordered the defendants to pay the full value of the goods plus interest and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellee, as consignee, is bound by the provisions of Section 15 of the Management Contract between the Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, which prescribes a 15-day period for filing claims and limits liability to P500.00 per package unless a higher value is declared.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court held that while the provisions of Section 15 of the Management Contract are valid, they are binding upon a consignee who is not a party to the contract only if the consignee has knowledge of such limitation of liability. The arrastre contractor has the duty to prove such knowledge on the part of the importer. In this case, the plaintiff vehemently disclaimed knowledge, and the record showed that the stamped provision of Section 15 was placed on the dorsal portion of the delivery permit by the Manila Port Service after the permit was presented by the plaintiff’s broker for processing. Since the goods were never delivered and the permit was never returned to the plaintiff (it was retained and presented as evidence by the defendant), the plaintiff had no occasion to learn of the incorporated notice. Consequently, the plaintiff was not bound by the 15-day filing period or the P500.00 liability limit. The appellant was therefore liable for the full admitted value of the lost goods, P1,818.61.