Case Study 10:

Case Title: Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., plaintiff-appellee vs. Manila Port Service and Manila
Railroad Co., defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-26700, 15 May 1969

Facts:

Malayan, herein petitioner, insured the following goods: a shipment of 343 cartons and two
crates of electrical surface raceways and fittings from United States and was placed on board the SS
“Pioneer Ming.” Three cases upper leather carried on board the same SS “Pioneer Ming.” Imported from
United States, 18 cases of auto parts shipped on board the SS “Pioneer Ming.” And 15 cases black
umbrella cloth imported by Chua Luan and Co., Inc. from Japan. The goods delivered and arrived at the
port of Manila and thereafter discharged into the custody of Manila Port Service. The goods were
thereafter discovered to be short, missing or incomplete as follows: one carton was pilfered of its
contents while six cartons were not delivered. The leather delivered was short of 111-¾ square feet.
One case of that shipment was pilfered of its contents. And two cases of the shipment were pilfered of
contents.

Malayan, as subrogee of the goods, paid the value to the consignees and thereafter collected
from Manila Port.

CFI ordered payment of Manila Port Service to Malayan Insurance, thus the appeal.

Issue:

Manila Port Service is liable.

Held:

It is now futile for defendants to pass on liability to the carriers which are not parties to this
action. Defendants on the other hand argue the fact that shipments were received by Manila Port
Service complete, it does not mean the goods were received in “good order.” Obviously, the defendants
miss the point because plaintiff’s claim is for short delivery and pilferage, and therefore the question of
the shipments were discharged into the custody of defendant Manila Port Service cannot be anymore
disputed. Consequently, liability cannot be shifted to the carriers.

Under the presumption in Article 1265 of the Civil Code that whenever “the thing is lost in the
possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there is a proof
to the contrary.” Because there is no proof that the losses occurred either without defendants’ fault or
by reason of caso fortuito, defendants are liable.

There is no necessity for proof of date of discharge and thus the absence of which is not
material to the 15-day filing requirement. Provisional claims on each of the shipments were filed well
within the 15-day period following the arrival of each of the vessels. And although the provisional claims
do not specify the value of the goods lost and were not accompanied by supporting papers, the
jurisprudence is that such claims substantially fulfill the requirement.

Since the value of each claim is admitted and considering that plaintiff is entitled thereto as
earlier expressed in this opinion and upon the terms of the stipulation just quoted, the lower court was
correct in sentencing defendants to pay the total amount therein stated.
 The amount of P 1,447.51 shall bear legal interest from the date of the decision. Award of
attorneys’ fees is affirmed.