G.R. No. L-24826; March 20, 1968
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL., defendants, MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company insured a shipment of 218 packages of medicinal and pharmaceutical products consigned to Winthrop Stearns, Inc., Manila. The shipment arrived on the vessel SS Tei Ping on August 7, 1960, and was discharged into the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, on August 11, 1960. The consignee sustained loss and damage to the shipment, collected the insured value from the insurer, and the insurer, as subrogee, filed a complaint. The complaint alleged the loss and damage were due to the fault of either the vessel owner/agents (Wilhelm Wilhelmsen, Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., and/or Macondray & Co.) prior to delivery to the arrastre, or, alternatively, the fault of Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company after delivery. The trial court found the shipment was discharged complete and in good order except for one drum and three cartons. It held the vessel owner/agents liable for damage to the one drum and three cartons, and the arrastre operator (Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company) liable for one undelivered carton and damage to three other cartons. Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the provisional claim for the lost and damaged goods was filed within the period required by the Management Contract, thereby binding the arrastre operator.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The provisional claim was filed on August 10, 1960, which was before the carrying vessel discharged its last package on August 11, 1960. The Court held that a stereotyped provisional claim filed before the discharge of the last package from the vessel is premature and speculative and does not constitute compliance with the provision of the Management Contract, which requires filing within fifteen days from the date of discharge. The general rule is that such advance claims are non-compliant. The exception in Switzerland General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Java Pacific and Hoegh Lines, where an advance claim was held a substantial compliance, did not apply because that case involved an examination revealing shortages before discharge, conducted with representatives of both parties present. No such conditions were shown to obtain in this case. The bare allegation of knowledge of loss before final unloading, unsupported by evidence, was insufficient to invoke the exception. In view of this finding on the timeliness of the claim, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address the other issue regarding the amount of liability.