G.R. No. L-21413 September 23, 1966
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, filed a suit to recover a sum of money from the defendants, Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company, as the arrastre operator. The case was submitted for decision based on a stipulation of facts. The defendants operated under a Management Contract with the Bureau of Customs, which contained a provision (Paragraph 15) stating that the contractor shall be relieved of all responsibility for loss or damage unless a suit is brought within one year from the date of discharge of the goods or from the date a claim is rejected, provided that such claim is filed with the contractor within fifteen days from the date of discharge. The plaintiff admitted it did not file any claim directly with the defendants within the fifteen-day period. Instead, it furnished the defendants with copies of provisional claims it had filed with the shipping companies, alleging the shipments were “short-landed or discharged in bad order.” The issues were whether these provisional claims constituted a valid claim under the contract and whether the suit was time-barred.

ISSUE

1. Whether the provisional claims filed by the plaintiff with the shipping companies, copies of which were furnished to the defendants, may be considered as claims filed with the contractor under Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract.
2. Whether the present suit is time-barred under the provisions of Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that the provisional claims did not constitute a valid claim filed with the arrastre contractor as required by the Management Contract. The claims were directed against the shipping companies, not the defendants, and concerned conditions (“short-landed or discharged in bad order”) that are the responsibility of the carrier, not the arrastre operator. The contract requires the claim to be filed directly with the contractor in clear terms to hold it liable.
2. Yes, the suit is time-barred. The Court ruled that the filing of a claim with the contractor within fifteen days is a condition precedent to filing a suit, whether the suit is brought within one year from the date of discharge or from the date of rejection of a claim. Since no claim was filed with the defendants, the plaintiff could not avail of the one-year period from the date of discharge. The modified doctrine that the fifteen-day period starts from the date the claimant learns of the loss (from GSIS, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al.) was found inapplicable to this case.
The judgment of the lower court was reversed and the complaint was dismissed.