Case Digest: Chiok Ho vs. Compañia Maritima, 13 SCRA 734, 737

Chiok Ho vs. Compañia Maritima, 13 SCRA 734, 737, April 30, 1965

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

A shipment of 69 cases containing radio parts was discharged from the vessel S.S. Samar of the Compañia Maritima and placed in the Special Cargo Coral of the Manila Port Service which was then operating the arrastre service at the Port of Manila. Marinduque Iron Mines, Inc. is the consignee. However, upon delivery of said goods, the consignee found that 4 cases were missing.

Chiok Ho, the assignee, made a formal demand upon the Manila Port Service for the payment of the value of missing goods which was refused by CM. For this reason, Chiok Ho filed the action before the CFI of Manila to recover not the amount of missing goods plus attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation.

CFI rendered a decision ordering the defendants, Manila Port Service and the Manila Railroad Company, to pay the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants interposed the present appeal.

The defendant alleged that since the appellee did not file his claim with the Manila Port Service within the reglementary 15-day period, stamped as notice on both delivery permit and pertinent gates passes used to withdraw the goods, from May 15, 1960 the date of discharge of the last package of the shipment from the carrying vessel, his claim is already barred and, consequently, his action should be dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the reglementary 15-day period has expired.

RULING

No, the reglementary 15-day period has not expired.

Under the law, when the claim for indemnity for a particular loss is rejected, such claim shall be filed "within 15 days from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel."

In this case, the stipulation is completely silent as to when the shipment was delivered to the consignee. It is not enough that the consignee be notified of the discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel in order that section 15 of the management agreement may be applicable. It is equally important to indicate the date when the shipment was actually delivered to the consignee in order that he may be given the chance to discover if there is something missing or lost in the shipment. Only in this way can he be apprised of the loss and file the necessary claim, - not otherwise. Since this is a matter of defense on the part of the defendants, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it should be presumed that the claim was filed within the reglementary period, as properly found by the lower court.