GR L 24091; (September, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24091 September 20, 1967
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Philippine Education Company, Inc., was the consignee of a shipment of 202 bundles of magazines that arrived at the Port of Manila on board the SS President McKinley on January 8, 1961. The shipment was discharged into the custody of the Manila Port Service (MPS), the arrastre operator. Upon delivery, 35 bundles were missing. The plaintiff filed a “provisional claim” with “Messrs. American President Lines Ltd. and/or Manila Port Service” on January 11, 1961, and a formal claim on August 26, 1961. The defendants, Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Company, refused to pay for the loss, leading the plaintiff to file a complaint. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay P1,089.15 (the value of the missing bundles), plus interest, P100.00 in attorney’s fees, and costs. The defendants appealed, arguing that the claims were insufficiently filed and that the action was barred by prescription, and contesting the amount of liability and the award of attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
1. Whether the provisional and formal claims filed by the plaintiff complied with the requirements of Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract binding the parties.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s action was barred by prescription.
3. Whether the award of damages and attorney’s fees was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
1. On the Sufficiency of the Claims: The Court held that the defense of late filing of the claim was not established. The 15-day period for filing a claim under Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract commences not from the date of discharge of the goods, but from the date the consignee learns of the loss or could have learned of it with due diligence. The record did not show when the plaintiff received the shipment or learned of the loss, so it could not be determined that the claims (provisional filed January 11, 1961, and formal filed August 26, 1961) were filed beyond the prescribed period. The provisional claim, while general in nature, did not preclude recovery as the formal claim specifically addressed the loss.
2. On Prescription of Action: The Court ruled that the action was not barred by prescription. Under Paragraph 15, the consignee has one year from the date the claim is denied or rejected by the MPS to file suit. Since the MPS neither denied nor rejected the claim, such denial is deemed to have occurred upon the expiration of one year from the date of discharge (January 8, 1961), or on January 8, 1962. The complaint, filed on January 19, 1962, was within the one-year period from that deemed denial date.
3. On the Award of Damages and Attorney’s Fees: The Court found the award proper. The liability limitation in Paragraph 15 is “P500 for each package,” not a total of P500. A “bundle” qualifies as a “package,” and since 35 bundles were lost, the award of P1,089.15 did not exceed the contractual limit. The award of attorney’s fees and costs was justified under the circumstances.