Facts:

The case involves the plaintiff-appellants, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, The New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd., and Philex Mining Corporation, against the defendants-appellees, Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Company. The dispute arose following the handling of a shipment of 216 bales of cotton piece goods, which was received by the Manila Port Service on July 11, 1960, from the SS Pioneer Minx, meant for the Philex Mining Corporation. Upon delivery, it was discovered that 11 bales valued at P8,840.26 were undelivered. Formal claims for these missing bales were filed on September 9, 1960. Due to the non-payment from the defendants, Philex Mining Corporation sought compensation from its insurers, who subsequently brought this lawsuit as subrogees.

The defendants denied liability based on their role as arrastre operators, and they also raised the issue of the plaintiffs' legal capacity to sue being foreign corporations. Central to their defense was the invocati

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Plaintiffs and Appellants:
• Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
• The New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd.
• Philex Mining Corporation
• Defendants and Appellees:
• Manila Port Service
• Manila Railroad Company

Shipment and Consignment Details

• On July 11, 1960, defendant Port Service, a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company, received a shipment ex SS Pioneer Minx.
• The shipment consisted of 216 bales of cotton piece goods consigned to Philex Mining Corporation.

The Incident and Claim

• Eleven (11) bales of the shipment, with a total value of P8,840.26, were not delivered to the consignee.
• A formal claim for the lost merchandise was filed on September 9, 1960.
• Prior to the formal claim, a provisional claim was filed on July 14, 1960, within the 15-day period stipulated by the contract.

Contractual Provision and Condition Precedent

• The defendants relied on Section 15 of their Management Contract, which provided that the contractor (Port Service) would be released from liability for loss, damage, mis-delivery, and/or non-delivery of goods unless:
• A suit was brought within one (1) year from the date of the discharge of the goods, or
• A claim for the value of such goods was filed within fifteen (15) days from the discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.
• The shipment’s last package was discharged on July 12, 1960, making the 15-day period critical for filing a valid claim.

Contentions of the Parties

• Defendants argued non-compliance with the 15-day period as a condition precedent to their liability, asserting that the provisional claim, which did not specify the value of the lost merchandise, was insufficient.
• Defendants also questioned the personality of the plaintiffs as foreign corporations.
• Plaintiffs contended that the provisional claim, notwithstanding its lack of detailed valuation, fulfilled the contract requirement as established by prior jurisprudence.

Prior Jurisprudence and Legal Context

• Several decisions (e.g., State Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service and Parsons Hardware Co. vs. De la Rama) have held that a provisional claim made within the 15-day period adequately protects the rights of the consignee.
• The jurisprudence noted that even if the provisional claim did not state the exact value of the goods lost or attach supporting papers, it substantially satisfied the contractual requirement.

Outcome on Payment

• The insurers paid a sum of P7,173.34 for the goods undelivered.
• However, it was stipulated that liability would be computed at a rate not exceeding P500.00 per bale lost.
• The court’s final decision required defendants to pay a total of P5,500.00, in addition to court costs.

Issue:

Compliance with the 15-Day Condition

• Whether the filing of the provisional claim within the 15-day period, notwithstanding its vagueness in stating the exact value of the lost goods, satisfies the condition precedent to induce the liability of the defendant Port Service under the Management Contract.
• Whether the subsequent formal claim filed after the 15-day period affects the validity of the provisional claim.

Application of Prior Jurisprudence

• Whether the established decisions (State Bonding & Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Manila Port Service and Parsons Hardware Co. vs. De la Rama) mandating the sufficiency of a provisional claim applies to the present case.

Interpretation of Contractual Provisions

• The proper interpretation and application of Section 15 of the Management Contract regarding the discharge of liability for non-compliance with the specified time period.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)