Facts:

The case of American Machinery & Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-21460, arose from a direct appeal concerning a question of law decided on April 30, 1966. The plaintiff-appellant, American Machinery & Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc., filed a complaint against the defendants-appellees, the Manila Railroad Company and the Manila Port Service, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. This complaint consisted of nine causes of action pertaining to the short-delivery of consigned merchandise spread over eight separate shipments that arrived in the port of Manila.

The trial court found that all shipments were unloaded without deficiencies noted at the time of receipt by the Manila Port Service, the arrastre operator. The shortages were not attributed to losses occurring during the transit from the port to the plaintiff's factory. The plaintiff made claims for various short-deliveries, including claims for 70 piec

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Plaintiff-Appellant: American Machinery & Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc.
• Defendants-Appellees:
• Manila Railroad Company (mother-company)
• Manila Port Service (arrastre contractor)
• Nature of the case: Direct appeal on a question of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the complaint for short-delivery of consigned merchandise under nine causes of action.

Background and Contractual Framework

• The dispute arose from alleged short-deliveries in eight separate shipments of various merchandise consigned to the plaintiff.
• The arrastre management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the Manila Port Service required that any claim for the value of goods be filed with complete supporting documents within fifteen (15) days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.
• The contract’s Section 15 provided that unless suit is brought within one (1) year after discharge or after a claim is rejected or denied – provided the claim was filed within fifteen (15) days – the contractor would be relieved of liability for any loss, damage, misdelivery, or non-delivery of goods.

Details of Shipments, Claims, and Procedural History

• First Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Ventura" on September 30, 1959.
• Provisional claim filed on October 21, 1959; formal claim filed on February 12, 1960 for 70 pieces of D-7 Carriers, valued at P370.25.
• Second Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Munsen" on November 11, 1959.
• Provisional claim filed on November 24, 1959; formal claim on February 19, 1960 for 114 pieces of Grouser Plates TD-18-A, worth P98.77.
• Third Shipment
• The claim for the shortage on this shipment was fully paid.
• Fourth Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Bayernstein" on October 27, 1959.
• Provisional claim filed on November 13, 1959; formal claim on February 19, 1960 for one (1) piece of seamless steel tube, valued at P599.06.
• Fifth Shipment
• Shortage valued at P509.47, of which P275.05 had been paid.
• Sixth Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Idaho" on July 14, 1960.
• Provisional claim filed on July 21, 1960; formal claim on September 7, 1960 for 32 pieces of end collars, amounting to P177.52.
• Seventh Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Bonneville" on February 17, 1960.
• Provisional claim filed on February 22, 1960; formal claim on September 12, 1960 for 10 pieces of end collars, valued at P58.51.
• Eighth Shipment
• Last package discharged from SS "Pioneer Moor" on December 5, 1959.
• Provisional claim filed on December 17, 1959; formal claim on September 7, 1960 for 1,100 pieces of bolts, worth P2,741.80.

Contentions and Arguments Raised

• The trial court ruled that the provisional claims did not constitute a valid “claim for the value” under Section 15 of the arrastre management contract because they failed to include complete supporting papers (bill of lading, commercial and consular invoices, and packing list) and did not state the merchandise or its value.
• The plaintiff-appellant argued that the provisional claims, though lacking complete documentation, sufficiently described the shipments and the alleged shortages and were filed within the required 15-day period (except in two shipments).
• A sample provisional claim was presented, showing that even without a detailed statement of indemnity, the descriptions allowed for reasonable verification by the Manila Port Service.

Relevant Precedents and Interpretations

• The Court referred to its recent decision in State Bonding & Insurance Company vs. Manila Port Service/Manila Railroad Co. (G.R. No. L-21833, promulgated February 28, 1966).
• This precedent recognized that provisional claims, even if they did not state the full amount or include all supporting documents, were sufficient to serve the purpose of providing prompt notice to enable the arrastre operator to verify the cargo’s condition upon discharge.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff-appellant’s failure to file claims with complete supporting papers within fifteen (15) days after the last package’s discharge was fatal to its claims.

• Does the absence of detailed supporting documents in the provisional claims void the notice requirement under the contract?

Whether the provisional claims, as filed within the prescribed 15-day period (except for the first and fourth shipments), were sufficient to satisfy the contractual requirement of a “claim for the value” of the goods.

• Is the description contained in the provisional claim adequate to trigger the contractual period for later submission of formal claims?

• The extent to which the administrative purpose of the provisional claim – to promptly alert the arrastre operator to shortages – should take precedence over strict procedural formalism.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)