GR L 22409; (April, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22409; April 27, 1967
RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Rizal Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., as subrogee of consignee Natividad Lim, filed an action to recover the value of a short-delivered shipment of 250 cases of Hereford Brand Corned Beef. The shipment arrived in Manila on January 9, 1961. On that same day, the consignee filed a “Provisional Claim” with the arrastre contractor, Manila Port Service, advising that the shipment had been shortlanded and/or landed in bad order. The last package of the cargo was discharged from the vessel on the following day, January 10, 1961. Upon examination, a shortage of 24 cases and 17 tins, valued at P870.05, was discovered. The plaintiff, as insurer, paid the consignee and then sought reimbursement from the defendants. Both the Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance of Manila held the defendants liable.
ISSUE
Whether the provisional claim filed by the consignee one day before the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel constitutes a substantial compliance with the requirement in Section 15 of the arrastre contract that a claim must be filed “within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.”
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and held the defendants not liable. The provisional claim filed on January 9, 1961, was speculative and premature. The Court ruled that a claim filed before the discharge of the last package is premature unless the consignee had already discovered or was informed of a shortage or damage before or during the unloading. In this case, the stipulation of facts and the language of the provisional claim itself (“provisional claim is hereby made for any loss or shortage that may after examination be found to exist”) showed that the consignee had no definite information of any shortage at the time of filing. Therefore, it did not substantially comply with Section 15 of the management contract. The formal claim filed on March 3, 1961, was beyond the fifteen-day period.