G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., as subrogee of several consignees, filed a complaint against defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company to recover the sum of P4,154.80, representing insurance payments made for losses/damages to shipments discharged into the custody of Manila Port Service between March and June 1961. The complaint contained eighteen causes of action. Defendants denied negligence and asserted the special defense that no claim was filed within fifteen days from the discharge of the last package as required by Section 15 of the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and Manila Port Service, thus barring the claims, and that liability, if any, was limited to P500 per package. The Court of First Instance of Manila held defendants liable under sixteen causes of action, computing liability based on invoice value, totaling P1,767.24. Defendants appealed solely on a pure question of law regarding the sixth cause of action.
The pertinent facts for the sixth cause of action are: Consignee Rosario del Valle filed a provisional claim with Manila Port Service on May 31, 1961, one day before the discharge of a shipment of 1,667 bags of wheat flour from the S.S. “Varda” on June 1, 1961. The provisional claim stated: “Provisional claim is hereby filed against you for bad order/non-delivery of goods, kindly make immediate survey to determine their whereabout.” Upon delivery, 124 bags with an invoice value of P461.23 were missing. There was no evidence that the consignee had knowledge of any damage or loss when the provisional claim was filed.

ISSUE

Whether the provisional claim filed one day before the discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel constitutes a substantial compliance with the 15-day filing requirement under Section 15 of the management contract.

RULING

No. The provisional claim was premature and speculative, and did not comply with Section 15 of the management contract. Following the precedent in Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Railroad, et al., the Supreme Court distinguished two situations: (1) where a provisional claim is filed before the discharge of the last package and the consignee has not yet examined or been informed of the condition of the shipment, it is speculative and premature; and (2) where the consignee files a provisional claim before discharge but has in fact discovered or been informed of a shortage or damage during the unloading, then the claim is properly presented. The present case falls under the first situation. The claim was filed while the goods were still aboard the carrying vessel, and the arrastre operator was not yet in possession or control. There was no showing that unloading had started or that the consignee had discovered or been informed of any shortage or damage when the claim was filed. Consequently, the claim under the sixth cause of action is time-barred. The decision of the lower court is reversed regarding the sixth cause of action, and the award of P461.23 is deducted from the total award.