GR L 23811; (October, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23811 October 30, 1967
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On June 17, 1962, the SS “SUSAN MAERSK” discharged 142 cartons of books in good order at Manila, consigned from New York to the Philippine Education Co., Inc., and received by the arrastre operator Manila Port Service, a department of the Manila Railroad Company. On June 21, 1962, within four days of discharge, the consignee filed a provisional claim of loss and damage stating the marks and number of packages. Formal claims were filed on October 22 and 26, 1962, valuing the damage at P601.78. A Bad Order Examination Report dated August 14, 1962, issued by the Manila Port Service, showed 21 cartons with shortages. After the claims were rejected, the consignee sued in the Municipal Court of Manila, which ruled in its favor. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the judgment, awarding the plaintiff P601.78 for all damages, plus P50.00 attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the provisional claim was insufficient for failure to state the money value of the damage.
2. Whether the award should be limited to the invoice value of the damaged goods.
3. Whether the award of attorneys’ fees was proper.
RULING
1. The provisional claim was sufficient. The Supreme Court, citing previous rulings, held that the purpose of a provisional claim is to give the arrastre operator a reasonable opportunity to check the claim while facts are fresh. The absence of a precise amount does not invalidate it, as it constitutes substantial compliance with the management contract, provided it is filed after discharge and within 15 days.
2. The award is not limited to the invoice value. The arrastre operator is liable not only for the invoice value of lost or damaged goods but also for all damages suffered by the consignee due to such loss, destruction, or injury. As this is a direct appeal on points of law, the factual finding on the amount of damages is not reviewable.
3. The award of attorneys’ fees is proper. The appellant’s systematic rejection of such claims, as shown by numerous Court decisions, makes the award just and equitable under Article 2208(11) of the Civil Code.
The appealed decision is affirmed with costs against appellants.