GR 24600; (April, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24600 April 27, 1970
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and its subsidiary MANILA PORT SERVICE, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On August 30, 1960, the vessel “SS FERNSTATE” arrived at the Port of Manila carrying 21 bales of cotton piece-goods consigned to Cinderella Dresses. The shipment was completely discharged in good order into the custody of the Manila Port Service on September 2, 1960. When the consignee’s broker withdrew the shipment on September 9, 1960, eight bales were found in bad order with a shortage of 832 lbs. The consignee filed a formal claim for the shortage’s value on October 31, 1960. However, a provisional claim had been filed earlier, dated August 26, 1960, and received by the arrastre operator on September 1, 1960—one day prior to the discharge of the shipment from the vessel. Universal Insurance and Indemnity Company, as insurer, paid the consignee P3,935.00 for the shortage and was subrogated to the consignee’s rights. After its claim was refused, the insurer filed a complaint on August 30, 1961. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the first cause of action, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the provisional claim filed one day before the discharge of the shipment constitutes sufficient compliance with the 15-day claim filing requirement under Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract between the Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company.
RULING
No. The provisional claim was premature and speculative, and thus not a substantial compliance with the contractual requirement. Paragraph 15 of the Management Contract requires a claim to be filed “within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.” The provisional claim was filed a day before discharge, at a time when there was no knowledge of any shortage, as the shipment was discharged in good order the following day. Following precedent, such a requirement is not empty formalism but serves to afford the arrastre operator a reasonable opportunity to investigate claims while facts are fresh. The failure to file a claim within the stipulated 15-day period bars the action, notwithstanding that the court suit was commenced within the one-year period from discharge. The decision of the lower court dismissing the first cause of action is affirmed.