A report distinguishing Rule 103 and Rule 108 of the Civil Procedures. It was my Specpro report handout.Full description
digest, corporation law,
PNR v IAC
iacFull description
195. Metro Port Service v. IAC 213 SCRA 103 Doctrines
Commercial Law; Common Carriers; Contracts; Strict and reasonable reasonable construction of provision limiting liability of public utility necessary to protect public interest.-The Cour Courtt must must str stress ess that that peti petiti tion oner er Metr Metro o Port ort Serv Servic ice e !nc. !nc. is a publ public ic util utilit ity y discha dis charg rging ing functi functions ons which which are are heavil heavily y invest invested ed with with a publi public c inter interest est.. This This prov provis isio ion n limi limiti ting ng the the liab liabil ilit ity y of said said peti petiti tion oner er thr through ough the the impo imposi siti tion on of a re"uirement that a #formal claim$ must be made within thirty %&'( days from )ling of entry must be carefully scrutini*ed and reasonably construed construed so as to protect the legitimate interest of the public which the public utility must serve. !t is the Court+s duty to tone down this harsh and unreasonable provision and give it a reasonable interpretation. Same; Same; Contra Contracts cts;; ,emand ,emand;; Substa Substanti ntial al compl complian iance ce of re"ui re"uisi sites tes for #for #formal mal$ $ demands sucient for valid claim.-The )ling by the consignee of this provisional claim/ claim/ on March March 01 2340-1 2340-1 days days after after the )ling )ling of the entry entry-is -is subst substant antial ial compli complianc ance e with with the demand demand for a #for #formal mal claim$ claim$ becaus because e as of that that date date the arrastre operator was given the reasonable opportunity to chec5 the validity of the claim while the facts were still fresh in the minds of the persons who too5 part in the transaction and while the pertinent documents were still available. !t did not matter that the provisional claim was for the whole amount of the invoice as a provisional claim-without the value of the goods stated therein-is sucient as long as the name of the carrying vessel its date of arrival and the corresponding bill of lading are attached. Consignee+s #provisional #provisional claim$-aside from the entire value of the invoicehad all three other re"uirements. Facts:
6s insurer-subrogee private respondent instituted Civil Case 7o. 3'289 before the Cour Courtt of :irst irst !nst !nstan ance ce of Mani Manila la enti entitl tled ed The The . ?a*on !nc. and=or 6@aA Customs Bro5erage. The action was to recover from the defendants the amount that private respondent respondent paid 6merican ire and Cable Co. !nc. %consignee( under its policy for losses and damage damages s to an insur insured ed shipm shipment ent the transp transport ortati ation on of which which was handl handled ed by defendants one after the other. The shipment which was transported from 7ew Dor5 to Manila on board the S=S BE?DB6 BE?DB6T>S T>S consisted consisted of syntheti synthetic c resins resins insulatin insulating g materials materials machiner machinery y and copper wire contained in several pac5ages. !t arrived in Manila on March 28 2340 and was discharged doc5side unto the care and custody of petitioner the arrastre operator in the Port of Manila. 6t the time of the discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel it was noted that said cargo had already sustained shortages and that some pac5ages were in bad order and damaged condition. So when the shipment was turned over to the petitioner turn-over surveys were @ointly prepared and accomplished by chec5ers of both the vessel and the arrastre operator.
:rom March 03 to Fune 2 2340 deliveries of the shipment were made by petitioner to the consigneeGs bro5er the defendant 6@aA Customs Bro5erage. 6t this stage of the cargo handling the shipment had already sustained a shortage of 22 pallets and 08 of the pac5ages delivered to the bro5er were already in bad order and damaged condition. The shortage of 22 pallets was covered by a certi)cate of delivery issued by petitioner and the 08 bad order pac5ages were covered by bad order certi)cates also issued by petitioner. !n the meantime on March 01 2340 the consignee presented to petitioner a provisional claim for the full value of the shipment. Hn September 29 2340 the consignee submitted to petitioner a formal claim for the actual value of the loss sustained by the shipment. !n the course of the proceedings before the trial court defendants Marchessini Lines and Citadel Lines settled the claim for the loss attributed to the vessel. The case therefore proceeded only against remaining defendants >. ?a*on !nc. %now petitioner( and 6@aA Bro5erage Corp. who were ad@udged liable to plaintiI now private respondent. Hn appeal to the !ntermediate 6ppellate Court the decision appealed from was armed. 6t any rate petitioner disclaims any liability due to the fact that private respondent did not )le a formal claim within &' days from the )ling of entry on March 0' 2340 as the formal claim was )led on September 29 2340. Petitioner disregarded the )ling of a provisional claim on March 01 2340 on the ground that it is not the claim demanded by the ?evised Management Contract which >. ?a*on !nc. as 6rrastre Contractor entered into with the Bureau of Customs on the 04th day of Fanuary 2394. Private respondent on the other hand claims that despite the change introduced in the matter of )ling claims i.e. formal claims have to be )led the purpose is still the same J to aIord the arrastre operator the opportunity to chec5 the validity of the claims. Issue:
hether or not under the ?evised Management Contract the words formal claim eAclude any provisional claimK$ Hel:
7o. Petition is unmeritorious. The petitioner being a public utility it may not easily do away of its liability by providing a clause in its ?evised Management Contract that a #formal claim$ is necessary doing so will be unreasonable to public interest. The ?evised Management Contract provides #BNut said CH7T?6CTH? shall not be responsible for the condition of the contents of any pac5age received nor for the weight nor for any loss in@ury or damage to the said cargo before or while the goods are being received or remain on the piers or wharves if the loss in@ury or damage is caused by force ma@eure or other causes beyond the CH7T?6CTH?Gs control or capacity to prevent or remedy; P?HO!,>, that a formal claim together
with the necessary copies of the bill of lading invoice certi)ed pac5ing list ban5 certi)cate showing the rate of eAchange at the time of purchase or opening of letter of credit and the computation arrived at covering the loss damage or non-delivery of such goods shall have been )led with the CH7T?6CTH? within thirty %&'( days from the date of )ling of entry; P?HO!,>, :E?T<>? that if the loss in@ury or damage is discovered within the last )fteen %2( days of said period of thirty %&'( days then the formal claim shall be )led within )fteen %2( days from the date of discovery of the loss in@ury or damage.$ !n the case at bar the shipment in "uestion arrived in Manila on March 28 2340. The import entry was )led March 0' 2340. The deliveries of this shipment started March 03 2340 and ended on Fune 2 2340. Since the delivery of the last pac5age was made on Fune 2 2340 J 4& days after the )ling of the import entry J then a literal compliance under paragraph QQ of the ?evised Management Contract would mean that 6merican ire and Cable Co. %consignee insured by private respondent( had only until 6pril 0' 2340 to )le a formal claim for damaged goods. But said GGformal claimGG would cover only goods delivered as of 6pril 0' 2340 J the cost of goods delivered after said date in a damaged condition or lost J would be for the consigneeGs own account. The Court must stress that petitioner Metro Port Service !nc. is a public utility discharging functions which are heavily invested with a public interest. This provision limiting the liability of said petitioner through the imposition of a re"uirement that a formal claim must be made within thirty %&'( days from )ling of entry must be carefully scrutini*ed and reasonably construed so as to protect the legitimate interest of the public which the public utility must serve. !t is the CourtGs duty to tone down this harsh and unreasonable provision and give it a reasonable interpretation. The )ling by the consignee of this provisional claim on March 01 2340 J 1 days after the )ling of the entry J is substantial compliance with the demand for a formal claim because as of that date the arrastre operator was given the reasonable opportunity to chec5 the validity of the claim while the facts were still fresh in the minds of the persons who too5 part in the transaction and while the pertinent documents were still available. !t did not matter that the provisional claim was for the whole amount of the invoice as a provisional claim J without the value of the goods stated therein J is sucient as long as the name of the carrying vessel its date of arrival and the corresponding bill of lading are attached. ConsigneeGs provisional claim J aside from the entire value of the invoice J had all three other re"uirements.
