GR L 24887; (April, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24887; April 22, 1968
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellants, NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA and/or ELIZALDE and CO., INC., defendants.
FACTS
On August 21, 1962, the vessel “SS Hoeisan Maru,” owned by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, loaded 1,188 packages of goods in Copenhagen, Denmark, consigned to Ed. A. Keller & Co. Ltd., Manila, and insured by the plaintiff. The vessel arrived at Manila on September 25, 1962, and discharged the cargo into the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Service, a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company. Upon delivery to the consignee, fifteen packages were missing. The plaintiff, as subrogee of the consignee, filed a claim and subsequently sued, in the alternative, the vessel owner/agent and the arrastre operator/principal, alleging uncertainty as to who was responsible for the loss. The lower court rendered a decision ordering Elizalde & Co., Inc. to pay a portion and Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company jointly and severally to pay another portion. Only the arrastre operator and its principal appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit against the appellants.
2. Whether the provisional claim filed one day before the complete discharge of the shipment substantially complied with the management contract.
3. Whether the appellants are liable for the C.I.F. value or the invoice value of the lost goods.
RULING
1. On jurisdiction: The lower court had jurisdiction. The joinder of alternative causes of action—one against the carrier (an admiralty case within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance) and another against the arrastre operator—is permitted under the Rules of Court. When one cause of action is cognizable by the Court of First Instance, the suit is correctly filed there, even if the other cause of action alone, based on amount, would fall under an inferior court’s jurisdiction. This is settled in prior jurisprudence.
2. On the provisional claim: The provisional claim filed on September 25, 1962, was valid and in substantial compliance. Although filed before the discharge of the last package, part of the shipment had already been discharged, and Bad Order Tally Sheets dated that same day showed damaged packages. Following the distinction in prior cases, the claim was not speculative or premature because the consignee was already aware of the bad order condition of some goods during the unloading, making the claim based on known facts.
3. On the value of liability: The appellants’ claim that liability should be based on invoice value, not C.I.F. value, is raised for the first time on appeal. There is no showing the lower court based its award on C.I.F. value. The factual finding on the actual amount of liability is not reviewable in this direct appeal. The decision of the lower court is affirmed.