Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

[TRANSPO] TRANSPORTATION OVERLAND - 63

MIGUEL SANCHEZ
ESSO STANDARD v. MANILA RAILROAD *
G.R. No. L-25488, September 28, 1979 | De Castro, J.: RULING [2]

PLAINTIFF: Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. Contentions of Manila Railroad and Manila Port Service
DEFENDANTS: Manila Railroad Co. (Phil. Nat’l Railways) and
Manila Port Service • Manila Railroad contends that the said provisional claims
are not in compliance with Section 15 of the
FACTS Management Contract because the latter requires the
filing not merely of a “provisional claim” but of a “claim
On February 1, 1964, Esso filed a complaint for recovery for the value.” This argument lays much stress on the
of money for loss and damage caused to four shipments terminological difference between a “provisional claim”
of goods consigned to it, which were handled by Manila and a “claim for the value,” which distinction is, in our
Railroad and Manila Port Service (arrastre operator). opinion, of no consequential import.

Almost a year later, on January 7, 1966, on the basis of How do we determine whether Section 15 of the
another set of stipulation of facts, the City Court DISMISSED Management Contract have been complied with?
the complaint.
• Whether a claim, be it called a “Provisional claim” or
Esso appealed to the CFI of Manila, and on September 23, a “claim for the value,” has served the purpose of
1965, CFI reversed the City Court’s decision. giving the arrastre operator(s) reasonable
opportunity to check the validity of the claim while
Hence, this appeal before the SC. the facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons
who took part in the transaction and while the
ISSUE(S) pertinent documents are still available

[1] Has Esso’s right to bring this action prescribed, since it AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE:
was brought one year from the date of discharge of the
shipments in question? [NO] • Upon perusal of the said provisional claims, We find that
they contain descriptions of the shipments in
[2] Do the provisional claims satisfy the condition that the question sufficient to have allowed Manila Railroad
“claim for value” should be filed within 15 days from the to make a reasonable verification. 

date of discharge of the last package of the said shipments?
[YES] • Manila Railroad contends that the said provisional do
not claim for actual and itemized goods lost or
RULING [1] damages but, instead, merely advise that the entire
shipments stated therein have been damaged and/or
The right to bring the action has NOT prescribed. short-delivered ex parte their respective carriers.

• Upon examination of the Stipulation of Facts, We find • It is not necessary that the said provisional claims
that the dates of last discharge from the vessels should state a detailed fist of the loss or damage
"Genevieve Lykes...... Pioneer Moor", and "Pioneer Main" suffered by the said shipments; they only have to meet
are May 10, 1962, May 7, 1962, and May 30, 1962. The the test earlier mentioned.
provisional claims therefor have been filed on May 14,
1962, May 14, 1962, and May 30, 1962, respectively. • The determination and preparation of the specific
amount of damages claimed should be done carefully
• As earlier pointed out, the dates of discharge from the and without haste, and these can be done practically
vessels "Genevieve Lykes," "Pionee Moor" and "Pioneer only in a formal claim which can be filed even long after
Main" are May 10, 1962, May 7, 1962, and May 30, 1962, a provisional claim has been filed. 

respectively; that provisional claims therefor have all
been seasonably filed but that the same have not
been acted upon by Manila Railroad and Manila Port. DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
• Thus, said claims are then deemed constructively denied
upon the expiration of one year from May 10, 1962, May
7, 1962, and May 30, 1962 or more exactly on May 10,
1963, May 7,1963, and May 30, 1963, respectively.

• Counting from these dates the one-year period within


which action may be filed, this suit which has been
filed on February 1, 1964 has not yet been barred by
prescription.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen