Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14711)
Facts:
Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. v. Manila Port Service & Manila Railroad Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-14711, April 22, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. (plaintiff-appellee) purchased a Crossley diesel engine (9 component packages, including a heavy flywheel) from Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. (London) for importation into the Philippines. The machinery was shipped on the SS Patroclus under bill of lading No. 99 and, upon arrival in Manila in July 1957, was discharged into the custody of Manila Port Service (defendant-appellant), a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company (defendant). The flywheel, which was uncrated and weighed about 600 lbs., fell while being lifted by a Manila Port Service forklift and was broken beyond repair.
Plaintiff paid the value represented by the shipping documents, cleared the shipment with the vessel’s agents and the Bureau of Customs, and demanded compensation for the damaged flywheel: a total claim of P2,063.18 (P2,027.88 for the flywheel’s value plus P35.30 survey cost and other items). Manila Port Service refused full payment, offering only P500, invoking Section 15 of the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and Manila Port Service dated February 29, 1956 (Exh. 1), which purported to limit liability for loss or damage to P500 per package unless the value had been specified and corresponding arrastre charges paid.
Plaintiff sued in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil No. 36034). The trial court found Manila Port Service negligent (forklift inadequate), held the flywheel was a total loss valued at P2,027.88, and entered judgment for that amount with legal interest and costs, dismissing the claims against Manila Railroad Company for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Section 15 of the management contract between the Bureau of Customs and Manila Port Service, limiting arrastre contractor liability to P500 per package unless value is specified and arrastre charges paid, binding on a consignee who did not sign that contract?
- Where the bill of lading does not specify the value of the damaged package, is the consignee’s recovery limited to P50...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)