The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing its complaint  (civil No.  28561).  The parties entered  into  a stipulation  of facts at the hearing of the case held on 15 February 1956, the terms of which are, as stated by the trial court, as follows:

* *  *  that on January 14, 1955,  the  Carnation Company of San Francisco, California,  U.S.A., shipped on board  the steamship "Mangalore"  of  the  defendant De La Rama Steamship  Co., Inc. 1,000 cases of carnation milk, 600 cases of which are  Tails 48 and 400 cases Baby 96, all marked "Tomas Grocery, 1006-PH, Manila"; that on  February 5,  1955, the steamship "Mangalore"  unloaded the cargo at Manila where defendant Delgado Brothers,  Inc. handled the arrastre services; that on February 8, 1955, the said shipment was received from defendant Delgado Brothers, Inc.,  short of  178 cases (105 cases Tails 48 and 73 cases Baby 96), the value of which is P2,884.49; and that on March 3, 1955, a formal claim was presented by the plaintiff  against the defendant Delgado Brothers, Inc.  In view of said stipulation of facts, the parties did not present anymore testimonial evidence  but only presented documentary  evidence.

The question for this Court to decide is: Who is responsible for the shortage.

The  trial court absolved the  defendant De La Rama Steamship  Co.,  Inc. from liability  because it had delivered  the whole shipment of 1,000 cases  of milk to the appellee, the operator authorized by the Bureau  of Customs to handle the hauling service at the port of  Manila. Pursuant to paragraph  12 of the bill of lading issued by the  steamship company, "The responsibility of the Carrier in any  capacity shall altogether cease and the goods shall be considered to be  delivered and at their own risk and expense in every  respect  when taken  into   custody of customs or other authorities."   (Exhibit A.)   It also absolved the appellee  from  liability for  failure of the appellant to file  its claim for loss  or non-delivery of goods within fifteen days from  date  of  arrival of the goods pursuant to paragraph 15  of the  management  contract entered into by the Bureau of  Customs and the  appellee on 21  October 1950  (Exhibit 7).

The  appellant does not question the release  from liability of  the defendant De La Rama Steamship  Co.,  Inc.

Section 13, Act No. 3002, as  amended by  Republic Act No. 140, authorizes the Bureau of Customs to enter into a contract  with  any  person,  association  or  corporation to receive, handle, take custody of and deliver merchandise to be loaded and unloaded at the port of Manila and other ports  of entry.   On  21 October  1950  the  Bureau of Customs entered into a contract with the appellee appointing it  sole  manager of  the  arrastrte  service  at  the port of Manila (Exhibit 7).  Paragraph 15  of the management contract, which is  the focal point of decision  in this case, provides in part:

* * * in any event the contractor (the appellee) shall be relieved and released  of any and  all  responsibility or  liability  for loss, damage, mis-delivery, and/or non-delivery of goods, unless suit in the  court of proper jurisdiction is brought  within a  period of one (1)  year from the date of the  arrival  of the goods, or from the date when the claim for the value of such goods has been  rejected or denied by the contractor, provided that such claim shall have been filed with the contractor within fifteen  (15) days from the date of the arrival of the goods.  * *  * (Exhibit 7-A.)

On  8 February 1955 three deliveries were  made (Exhibits 3, 4  &  5-Delgado)  and on 10  February the last delivery was made  (Exhibit 6-Delgado)  to the appellant of the 822  cases of milk.   On 3  March 1955 the corresponding claim for  shortage of 178 cases  was filed with the appellee, or 21 days after the  last delivery  (Exhibits C & 2-Delgado)

Among the conditions imposed by the enabling  Act  to be incorporated in the contract to  be  entered  into  by the Bureau  of Customs with any person, association  or corporation to receive, handle, take custody  of,  and  deliver merchandise to be  loaded  and  unloaded at  the port  of Manila and other ports of  entry  is "the prompt payment of all losses  thereof, as may be agreed upon between the Bureau  of  Customs and  the contractor,  subject  to the approval of  the Secretary  of Finance."   The provision, therefore, in the management contract (Exhibit 7-A)  that claims for losses should be filed with the contractor within 15 days from date of arrival of the goods before an action may be brought  against it in  court for recovery of the value of the losses, is in consonance with the provisions of the enabling Act,  intended  undoubtedly to afford the contractor  the opportunity to check  up  the  claims for losses which verification would be more difficult if a longer period of time be allowed to pass.

The appellant contends that  it was  not  a party to the management contract entered into by  the Bureau  of Customs and the appellee and that for that reason it could not be bound  by  such condition.  It appears that  the 822 cases of milk were withdrawn from the appellee by Protacio Villafuerte, a licensed  customs broker (Exhibits  3, 4, 5 & 6-Delgado). The notice of claim for loss filed with the appellee was signed  by him for and in behalf of the appellant (Exhibits C & 2-Delgado).  In the  permit  to deliver imported goods dated 4 February  1955 issued by the  Collector  of Customs,  the name of the same  customs broker appears  (Exhibit B).  The gate passes issued by the appellee to bring the cargo out of  the pier was in the name  of the said customs broker (Exhibits 3,  4, 5 & 6Delgado).  The appellant has  not repudiated its privity with the broker  and  has accepted the benefit of  delivery of  the 822  cases  of milk through  him.  Therefore, it is bound by the notice appearing on the back of the permit to  deliver  imported goods  (Exhibit B)  and  on the  gate passes (Exhibits 3, 4, & 6-Delgado) that claims for losses must be "filed with the CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days from the date of the arrival of the goods" before the appellant could sue the  appellee  in  court for recovery  of the value of the losses.  As the trial court aptly observed the appellant cannot  avail itself of the provisions of the management  contract (Exhibits 7  and 7-A), when its agent Protacio Villafuerte, a  licensed customs  broker, accepted delivery of the  cargo, as shown by the permit to deliver imported goods  (Exhibit B)  and the gate passes In re: Petition by del Rosario-Francisco  vs. Garcia (Exhibits 3, 4,  5 and 6-Delgado), and  at the  same time deny being  a party thereto when adverse to its interests.

Moreover, the appellant has not given any reason for  the delay in filing its claim  with the appellee.

The judgment  appealed  from  is  affirmed,  with costs against  the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.