G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968
THE SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE AND/OR MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, The Swedish East Asia Co., Ltd., a Swedish corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines, owned and operated the MS “SUDAN”. On December 3, 1957, the vessel arrived at the port of Manila and discharged cargo. By mistake, sixteen bundles of steel destined for Hongkong (consigned to Welcome Trading Co.) were also landed in Manila, alongside forty similar bundles destined for the Philippines. The petitioner’s Manila agent, upon notification of the error, arranged for the reshipment of the bundles to Hongkong and paid the corresponding customs, arrastre, and storage charges. However, only eight bundles were found and reshipped; the remaining eight were missing. After correspondence with the respondent Manila Port Service (the arrastre operator) failed to locate the missing bundles, the petitioner filed a formal claim for their value (P2,349.62) on January 10, 1958. The claim was rejected on March 8, 1960. The petitioner, having paid the consignee in Hongkong for the loss, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila on March 13, 1961, to recover the amount. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, absolving the respondents, holding that the petitioner’s action was time-barred under the provisions of the management contract between Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s action to recover the value of the cargo mistakenly discharged and lost is governed by the time limitations in the management contract between Manila Port Service and the Bureau of Customs, thereby barring the claim.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner was not bound by the management contract’s time limitations because it did not avail itself of the arrastre operator’s services for the cargo in question; the discharge in Manila was made by mistake, and the cargo was destined for Hongkong. The petitioner, having delivered the goods by mistake, acquired a direct right of action against the respondents for their return under principles of quasi-contract (Article 2154 of the Civil Code). The obligation of the respondents to return the mistakenly received goods was not extinguished by the petitioner’s alleged negligence or by its payment to the consignee. The action, filed within four years from the date the right accrued (December 3, 1957), had not prescribed under Articles 1146 or 1149 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the petitioner’s lack of a license to do business in the Philippines did not bar the suit, as the transaction was not part of doing business in the Philippines but resulted from an isolated mistake. The respondents were ordered to pay the petitioner the value of the missing cargo with interest and attorney’s fees.