GR L 20230; (July, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20230 July 30, 1965
SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LIMITED, plaintiff-appellee, vs. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL., defendants, MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 12, 1960, Shell Chemical Company shipped ten drums of styrene monomer from Los Angeles to Manila, consigned to Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. The vessel arrived on May 6, 1960. The goods were unloaded and delivered to the Manila Port Service on May 7, 1960. On May 6, 1960, the consignee’s customs broker filed a provisional claim with the Manila Port Service for any shortage or damage. On May 19, 1960, the broker secured a customs permit to deliver the goods, which permit contained on its back the provisions of Paragraph 15 of the arrastre management contract between the Bureau of Customs and Manila Port Service. No delivery of the goods was ever made, as they could not be located. The Manila Port Service certified to their non-delivery. Shell Company filed an action to recover the value of the goods. The trial court held the management contract unenforceable against Shell Company and rendered judgment in its favor against Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company. Only Manila Port Service appealed.
ISSUE
1. Is the arrastre management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the Manila Port Service binding upon Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd.?
2. If so, was the provisional claim for shortage or damage filed one day prior to discharge sufficient compliance with Paragraph 15 of the arrastre management contract?
RULING
1. No, the arrastre management contract is not binding upon Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. The Court ruled that a consignee who signs and presents a delivery permit containing the contract’s limitations and obtains partial delivery thereunder is bound by the contract. However, where the consignee does not make use of the delivery permit and derives no benefit from the contract because no delivery was made as the goods were missing, the consignee is not bound. In this case, Shell Company could not and did not use the permit or accept the arrastre service, as no delivery was made. Mere notice of the contract’s provisions is insufficient to bind it.
2. The Court held that a provisional claim filed before the goods are discharged from the vessel is not sufficient compliance with Paragraph 15 of the management contract. The contract clearly requires the claim to be filed “within fifteen (15) days from date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.” A claim filed before such discharge is premature and speculative.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.