GR L 22534; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22534 August 9, 1966
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., defendants, MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants and appellants.
FACTS
Standard Chemical Co., Inc. shipped 1,300 packages of raw materials from New York to Manila, consigned to Ed. A. Keller & Co., Ltd. The shipment arrived in Manila on May 10, 1962, and discharge to the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, began immediately. On the same day, May 10, 1962, the consignee, through its broker, filed a provisional claim with the arrastre operator for loss and/or damage to the cargo. The last package was discharged from the vessel on May 13, 1962. A bad order examination on August 14, 1962, revealed damage to two drums and 13 bags. A formal claim was filed on August 23, 1962. The consignee was paid by its insurer, Insurance Company of North America, which then sued as subrogee. The Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company defended on the ground of non-compliance with the 15-day period for filing a claim under Section 15 of the Arrastre-Management Contract, arguing the provisional claim filed on May 10 was premature because it was filed before the discharge of the last package on May 13.
ISSUE
Whether the provisional claim filed on May 10, 1962, three days before the discharge of the last package from the vessel, complies with the requirement under Section 15 of the Arrastre-Management Contract to file a claim “within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.”
RULING
Yes. The provisional claim was timely and not premature. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The purpose of the 15-day period is to give the arrastre operator a reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claim while facts are fresh and documents are available. This purpose was served because the claim was filed after some goods had been discharged and the consignee had already discovered damage. The Court applied the rule from Yu Kimteng Construction Corp. vs. Manila Port Service that the 15-day period should commence from the date the consignee learns of the loss or damage, not strictly from the date of discharge of the last package. Since the consignee learned of the damage on May 10 and filed immediately, it was a sign of diligence that gave the arrastre operator fair warning.