Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17331)
Facts:
Insurance Company of North America v. Manila Port Service, et al., G.R. No. L-17331, November 29, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.The shipment at issue was consigned by C. Itch & Co., Ltd. (Tokyo) to Roxas-Kalaw Textile Mills, Inc. (consignee) and shipped aboard the steamer "CANADA MAIL" under Bill of Lading No. X-13-M; the shipment (two cases containing one set welding machine and parts) arrived at the Port of Manila on May 28, 1957. The shipper insured the cargo with Insurance Company of North America (plaintiff/appellee). Upon discharge, the Manila Port Service (defendant/appellant), operator of arrastre services under a management contract with the Bureau of Customs, unloaded and delivered the cargo to the consignee but allegedly delivered the shipment "short of 1 case" valued at P1,608.05.
After the consignee filed a claim with the insurer, the insurer paid the loss and was subrogated to the consignee’s rights. The insurer demanded indemnification from the Manila Port Service, which refused, invoking provisions of its management contract with the Bureau of Customs that (1) limited liability for loss to the invoice value of each package but not to exceed P500 per package unless value was manifested otherwise, and (2) required claims to be filed with the contractor within fifteen (15) days of arrival and suits to be brought within one (1) year from arrival (or from denial of claim). No claim was filed with Manila Port Service within the 15-day period.
Plaintiff sued the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Co., Inc., in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts without trial; the CFI rendered judgment for plaintiff ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay P1,608.05 with interest f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can the limitation and claims-presentation provisions of the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and the Manila Port Service be binding on a consignee or its successor-in-interest who was not an original party to the contract?
- Does the consignee’s failure to file a claim with the Manila Port Service within the 15-day period prescribed in the management contract bar recovery despite suit being ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)