G.R. No. L-21890, March 29, 1968
MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARCELO LAPEÑA, doing business under the name and style “LA PEÑA ENTERPRISES”, respondents.

FACTS

On December 5, 1959, five cases of baby soothers and ten cases of essential oil, consigned to Marcelo Lapeña, were discharged in good order into the custody of the Manila Port Service from the SS “Juno”. Four or five days after discharge, the consignee’s broker examined the packages and found them in good condition. However, around December 27, 1959 (two or three days after Christmas), the broker noticed the cartons were damaged. A provisional claim was prepared on December 29, 1959, and filed with the Manila Port Service on January 4, 1960. Upon actual delivery on February 3, 1960, a shortage valued at P1,370.00 was discovered. A formal claim was filed on February 29, 1960, but both claims were rejected by the Manila Port Service on April 22, 1960, on the ground that the provisional claim was filed beyond the 15-day period from the discharge of the last package as required under Section 15 of the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the Manila Port Service. Lapeña filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila, which ruled in his favor. The Court of First Instance affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s decision. Petitioners Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that the requirement of filing a claim within the 15-day period under Section 15 of the management contract had been complied with.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the limited liability clause of Section 15 of the management contract (limiting liability to not more than P500.00 per package) was not pleaded nor put in issue before the trial court.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision ordering petitioners to pay respondent P1,370.00 with legal interest and costs.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that a liberal and realistic application of the 15-day claim filing requirement was warranted under the circumstances. The consignee’s broker discovered the damage only on December 27, 1959, and the provisional claim was filed eight days later on January 4, 1960. The Court cited previous rulings (Consunji v. Manila Port Service and Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Manila Railroad Co.) which recognized the inequity of literally applying the 15-day period when the consignee learns of the loss or damage only after its lapse. The consignee acted diligently upon discovery.
2. No. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the defense of limited liability under the management contract was not properly pleaded before the trial court. Issues must be embodied in the pleadings. The trial court’s decision did not touch upon the matter of limited liability, and petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration to resolve such an issue. A special defense not properly pleaded before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
3. No. Having found that the action was not barred and that the defense of limited liability was not available on appeal, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioners.