G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968
ANG CHING GI, doing business under the firm name ANGI TRADING CO., petitioner, vs. DELGADO BROTHERS., INC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Lawrence Export Company of New York shipped cargo for Ang Ching Gi in 1954. The carrier delivered it to arrastre operator Delgado Brothers, Inc. Ang Ching Gi’s broker paid the fees and claimed the cargo but was told the four cases had been transferred to A.C. Esguerra & Company, a customs bonded warehouse operator. Esguerra stated only two cases were erroneously transferred without papers and were stored in the Chinese Baggage Room. The broker requested release from the Acting Collector of Customs. An investigation revealed tampering and shortage. The goods were released after a surety bond was posted. Ang Ching Gi sued Delgado Brothers, Inc. for the value of the lost cargo, unrealized profits, damages, and attorney’s fees. Delgado Brothers denied liability, alleging prescription for failure to file a claim within 15 days from discharge or a suit within one year from arrival, and filed a third-party complaint against A.C. Esguerra & Co. The Court of First Instance absolved Esguerra and held Delgado Brothers liable, finding the transfer unproven and the goods tampered with while in Delgado’s possession, and ruled the prescriptive period inapplicable as Ang Ching Gi was not bound by the management contract. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding gross negligence by Delgado Brothers but dismissed the case because Ang Ching Gi, who was bound by the management contract, did not file his claim within the required period.

ISSUE

Whether Ang Ching Gi’s claim against Delgado Brothers, Inc. is barred for failure to comply with the prescriptive periods (15-day claim period and one-year suit period) stipulated in the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the arrastre operator.

RULING

Yes. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The management contract’s limitation of liability is binding upon consignees like Ang Ching Gi if shown to have known and accepted it. Although no delivery permit or gate pass was issued here, the withdrawal of the goods from the customs zone after posting a bond would have required such documents, which customarily bear the terms of the management contract. Therefore, Ang Ching Gi is deemed bound by the contract’s terms. He failed to file a claim within the required 15-day period from the issuance of the delivery permit or gate pass, which is a condition precedent before availing of the one-year period to file a court action. His court action, while arguably within one year, is barred for non-compliance with the 15-day requirement. His claims for unrealized profits lack sufficient proof, and moral damages are not recoverable absent bad faith in such breach of contract cases.