G.R. No. L-23716 September 20, 1967
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Manila Port Service (MPS) and Manila Railroad Company appealed from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them to pay Philippine Education Co., Inc. the sum of P2,403.21, with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The case involves a shipment of 305 packages of books and magazines. The plaintiff filed a provisional claim with the appellants on April 28, 1960, three days after the goods were discharged from the carrying vessel S/S Pioneer Ming on April 25, 1960. The provisional claim specified the bill of lading number (123 N.Y.), the vessel name, and the arrival date. However, the claim stated it was for goods “shortlanded and/or landed in bad order ex-abovementioned vessel,” indicating the loss or damage occurred on board the vessel before delivery to the arrastre operator. The claim was addressed to both the carrier and the MPS.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the provisional claim filed by the plaintiff complies with the requirements of paragraph 15 of the Management Contract, which requires a claim to be filed with the contractor (MPS) within fifteen days from the date of discharge of the last package from the vessel to hold the contractor liable for loss or damage.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that the provisional claim was insufficient to comply with the Management Contract’s requirements. While the claim contained sufficient data to identify the shipment (bill of lading number, vessel name, arrival date, and a close package count of 303 vs. 305), its language indicated the loss/damage occurred on board the carrying vessel before delivery to the arrastre operator. This wording implied that the liability lay with the carrier, not the arrastre operator (MPS), thereby depriving the appellants of a reasonable opportunity to investigate the claim as it suggested such investigation was unnecessary against them. Consequently, the claim did not satisfy the contractual condition precedent for holding the arrastre operator liable.