GR L 24677; (May, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968
YAP TECK SUY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ETC., ET AL., defendants, MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The City Court of Manila ordered defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company to pay plaintiff Yap Teck Suy P3,111.96 for the loss of 594 pieces of automobile main leaf springs, discharged from the vessel “S.S. Ninny Figari” into the custody of the arrastre operator Manila Port Service, plus P200.00 as attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The parties entered into a stipulation of facts, which included that: the entire shipment of 1,400 pieces was delivered by the vessel to Manila Port Service; only 806 pieces were received in Cebu; plaintiff filed a provisional claim on December 7, 1959, with details in a formal claim on December 24, 1960; the vessel arrived on November 18, 1959, with the last discharge on November 22, 1959; the claim amount of P3,111.96 was based on a dollar exchange rate of $1 to P4.04, but if converted at the official rate then of $1 to P2.02, the claim would be P1,550.98; and plaintiff was willing to settle for P1,550.98. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay plaintiff P1,550.98 as damages and P300.00 as attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the provisional claim filed by the plaintiff, which did not specify the value of the short-landed items, constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement under paragraph 15 of the arrastre Management Contract to support the defendants’ liability for damages.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that the presentation of a provisional claim within the 15-day period, even without stating the exact value of the missing merchandise or being supported by proper documents, constitutes substantial compliance with paragraph 15 of the Management Contract. This affords the arrastre operator a reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claim while facts are fresh and papers are available. The Court cited a long line of cases rejecting the appellants’ contention. The award of P1,550.98 in damages was justified by the parties’ stipulation, and the award of P300.00 in attorney’s fees was warranted by the stipulation and the appellants’ persistence in maintaining an untenable suit.