Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company

vs.
Cia General De Tobacos, De Filipinas, et al.

G.R. No. L-29338 August 15, 1970

Facts
Out of 15 cartons shipped at the port of New York on board the vessel Susan Maersk,
and insured against damage or loss with the Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., only 14
cartons, part of the contents of one of which was missing, were delivered by the Manila
Railroad Co., through its subsidiary, the Manila Port Service as arrastre operator for the
Port of Manila to the consignee, the General Electric Co., Inc. Hence, the latter
seasonably filed its claim for the undelivered carton, valued at Php. 1,898.66., and for
the missing contents of the remaining cartons. As subrogee, the insurer herein
commenced action against both the carrier, the Manila Railroad Co., and the arrastre.
The latter contends that its liability should be limited to Php. 500.00, as provided for in
the management contract.

Issue(s)
Should the arrastre’s liability be limited thusly?

Ruling
No. The Supreme Court refused to give merit to the jurisprudence cited by defendants
because such cases were based upon the premise that the consignee had taken
delivery by virtue of a delivery permit to which was incorporated the provision of the
management contract limiting the liability of the arrastre service operator for each
package not delivered to Php. 500.00. In the case at bar, evidence revealed that this
was not incorporated in the delivery permit, nor has any evidence been presented
showing that the consignee had made use of any document incorporating said provision
or making any reference thereto. Not being a party to said contract and not having
availed of the provisions thereof, the Insurer is not bound by the limitation therein
contained.

(Villanueva notes: The management contract contains stipulations pour autrui, and if
there is stamped across the delivery permit that the importer received the goods subject
to the management contract, then he shall be bound by the same.)