Caltex v. Service

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company, to pay to plaintiff Caltex (Phil.), Inc., the sum of P8,028.60, with legal interest thereon from April, 1960, until fully paid. Plaintiff was the consignee of several shipments of lubricating grease, paraffin wax, acidless tallow, and other similar products, carried by the vessel "SS Ferndale" and discharged unto the custody of Manila Port Service on March 22 and 23, 1960.

Of the goods received by the Manila Port Service, consigned to Caltex (Phil.), Inc., 30 drums of acidless tallow oil compound, 1 crate of paraffin wax and 2 pails of lubricating oil could not be located. Thus, a provisional claim therefor was filed by the consignee with the arrastre operator on March 25, 1960, followed by formal demands. As no action thereon was taken, the consignee went to the Court of First Instance of Manila, demanding from the Manila Port Service the payment, not only of the sum of P6,422.88, allegedly the value of the missing goods, but also of the 25% marginal fee imposed and paid on that amount by said plaintiff.

Defendant, in its, answer, denied liability for the value of the undelivered articles. After due trial, decision was rendered granting plaintiff's claim and ordering defendants to pay the same. The latter filed the present appeal.1äwphï1.ñët It is claimed now by appellants that the lower court erred (1) in not limiting their liability to P500.00, pursuant to Section 15 of the Management Contract between the Bureau of Customs and defendant Manila Port Service; and (2) in holding defendants liable to pay plaintiff-appellee the sum of P8,029.60.

The first assigned error cannot be sustained. The pertinent portion of Section 15 of the Management Contract, relied upon by appellants, reads as follows: x x x the CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an independent contractor for, and promptly pay to the steamship company, consignee, consignor, or other interested party or parties the invoice value of each package but in no case shall be more than five hundred pesos(P500.00) for such package unless the value is otherwise specified or manifested, and the corresponding arrastre charges had been paid, including all damages that may be suffered on account of loss , destruction, or damage of any merchandise while in the custody or under the control of the CONTRACTOR x x x . (Emphasis supplied.) It is not disputed that 33 pieces of goods or containers consigned to plaintiff-appellee, duly unloaded unto the custody of the defendant-appellant Manila Port Service, were not delivered.

If appellants' prayer, that their liability be limited to P500.00 per missing or undelivered package were granted, the loss of the articles would have cost appellants much more up for transportation; a packet; a bale; a parcel; or that in which anything is packed; a box, case, barrel, crate, etc., in which goods are packed; a container.1 The articles in this case were contained in drums, pails and crate. I f appellants' liability were fixed at P500.00 per container, and there are 33 of them, they should have been required to pay more than P8,028.60. And yet, this is only the amount being claimed by plaintiff-appellee, it being allegedly the invoice value of the missing goods.

As to the second issue, it appears that the sum of P8,028.60 is broken as follows: 30 drums, acidless tallow P6,350.82 1 crate, paraffin wax (Texwax) 38.72 2 5-gal. pails, lube oil (regal Oil A, R & O) 33.34