Once the insurer pays the insured, equity demands reimbursement as no one should benefit at the expense of another.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Asian Terminal, Inc. to pay plaintiff Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. the sum of P643,600.25 plus interest thereon at legal rate computed from November 20, 1996, the date the Complaint was filed, until the principal obligation is fully paid, and the costs.
The complaint of the plaintiff against defendants Inchcape Shipping Services and MEC Customs Brokerage, and the counterclaims of said defendants against the plaintiff are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 26, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, in Civil Case No. 96-80945 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.26
- RESPONDENT-INSURER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF GRANTED AS IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER SINCE, AS THE ALLEGED SUBROGEE, IT NEVER PRESENTED ANY VALID, EXISTING, ENFORCEABLE INSURANCE POLICY OR ANY COPY THEREOF IN COURT.
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE TOSBOC & RESBOC WERE ADOPTED AS COMMON EXHIBITS BY BOTH PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.
- CONTRARY TO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, VARIOUS DOCUMENTATIONS WOULD POINT TO THE VESSEL'S LIABILITY AS THERE IS, IN THIS INSTANT CASE, AN OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DAMAGE IN QUESTION WERE SUSTAINED WHEN THE SHIPMENT WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE VESSEL.
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT ADJUDGED HEREIN DEFENDANT LIABLE DUE TO [THE] FACT THAT THE TURN OVER SURVEY OF BAD ORDER CARGOES (TOSBOC) WAS PREPARED ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE DISCHARGING OPERATIONS OR ON NOVEMBER 28, 1995. THUS, CONCLUDING THAT DAMAGE TO THE CARGOES WAS DUE TO THE IMPROPER HANDLING THEREOF BY ATI STEVEDORES.
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CONTRACT FOR CARGO HANDLING SERVICES BETWEEN PPA AND ATI AND APPLYING THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS THEREOF AS REGARDS ATI'S LIABILITY.29
Anent the second issue, it is our view and so hold that the presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in this case before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of herein private respondent as insurer and Caltex, as the assured shipper of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.
The presentation of the insurance policy was necessary in the case of Home Insurance Corporation v. CA (a case cited by petitioner) because the shipment therein (hydraulic engines) passed through several stages with different parties involved in each stage. First, from the shipper to the port of departure; second, from the port of departure to the M/S Oriental Statesman; third, from the M/S Oriental Statesman to the M/S Pacific Conveyor; fourth, from the M/S Pacific Conveyor to the port of arrival; fifth, from the port of arrival to the arrastre operator; sixth, from the arrastre operator to the hauler, Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc. (private respondent therein); and lastly, from the hauler to the consignee. We emphasized in that case that in the absence of proof of stipulations to the contrary, the hauler can be liable only for any damage that occurred from the time it received the cargo until it finally delivered it to the consignee. Ordinarily, it cannot be held responsible for the handling of the cargo before it actually received it. The insurance contract, which was not presented in evidence in that case would have indicated the scope of the insurer's liability, if any, since no evidence was adduced indicating at what stage in the handling process the damage to the cargo was sustained.57 (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, jurisprudence has it that the marine insurance policy needs to be presented in evidence before the trial court or even belatedly before the appellate court. In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Regis Brokerage Corp., the Court stated that the presentation of the marine insurance policy was necessary, as the issues raised therein arose from the very existence of an insurance contract between Malayan Insurance and its consignee, ABB Koppel, even prior to the loss of the shipment. In Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., the Court ruled that the insurance contract must be presented in evidence in order to determine the extent of the coverage. This was also the ruling of the Court in Home Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
However, as in every general rule, there are admitted exceptions. In Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that the presentation of the insurance policy was not fatal because the loss of the cargo undoubtedly occurred while on board the petitioner's vessel, unlike in Home Insurance in which the cargo passed through several stages with different parties and it could not be determined when the damage to the cargo occurred, such that the insurer should be liable for it.
As in Delsan, there is no doubt that the loss of the cargo in the present case occurred while in petitioner's custody. Moreover, there is no issue as regards the provisions of Marine Open Policy No. MOP-12763, such that the presentation of the contract itself is necessary for perusal, not to mention that its existence was already admitted by petitioner in open court. And even though it was not offered in evidence, it still can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves been incorporated in the records of the case.59
ATI, however, contends that the finding of the trial court was contrary to the documentary evidence of record, particularly, the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes dated November 28, 1995, which was executed prior to the turn-over of the cargo by the carrier to the arrastre operator ATI, and which showed that the shipment already contained 2,702 damaged bags.
We are not persuaded.
Contrary to ATI's assertion, witness Redentor Antonio, marine cargo surveyor of Inchcape for the vessel Jinlian I which arrived on November 21, 1995 and up to completion of discharging on November 28, 1995, testified that it was only after all the bags were unloaded from the vessel that the actual counting of bad order bags was made, thus:
x x x x
The above testimony of Redentor Antonio was corroborated by Edgar Liceralde, marine cargo surveyor connected with SMS Average Surveyors and Adjusters, Inc., the company requested by consignee Chemphil Albright and Wilson Corporation to provide superintendence, report the condition and determine the final outturn of quantity/weight of the subject shipment. x x x
x x x x
Defendant-appellant ATI, for its part, presented its claim officer as witness who testified that a survey was conducted by the shipping company and ATI before the shipment was turned over to the possession of ATI and that the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes was prepared by ATI's Bad Order (BO) Inspector.
Considering that the shipment arrived on November 21, 1998 and the unloading operation commenced on said date and was completed on November 26, 1998, while the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes, reflecting a figure of 2,702 damaged bags, was prepared and signed on November 28, 1998 by ATI's BO Inspector and co-signed by a representative of the shipping company, the trial court's finding that the damage to the cargoes was due to the improper handling thereof by ATI's stevedores cannot be said to be without substantial support from the records.
We thus see no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court that ATI should be made liable for the 2,702 bags of damaged shipment. Needless to state, it is hornbook doctrine that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses. The findings of the trial court on this point are accorded great respect and will not be reversed on appeal, unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.
We also find ATI liable for the additional 179 damaged bags discovered upon delivery of the shipment at the consignee's warehouse in Pasig. The final Report of Survey executed by SMS Average Surveyors & Adjusters, Inc., and independent surveyor hired by the consignee, shows that the subject shipment incurred a total of 2881 damaged bags.
The Report states that the withdrawal and delivery of the shipment took about ninety-five (95) trips from November 29, 1995 to December 28, 1995 and it was upon completion of the delivery to consignee's warehouse where the final count of 2881 damaged bags was made. The damage consisted of torn/bad order condition of the bags due to spillages and caked/hardened portions.
We agree with the trial court that the damage to the shipment was caused by the negligence of ATI's stevedores and for which ATI is liable under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code. The proximate cause of the damage (i.e., torn bags, spillage of contents and caked/hardened portions of the contents) was the improper handling of the cargoes by ATI's stevedores, x x x
x x x x
ATI has not satisfactorily rebutted plaintiff-appellee's evidence on the negligence of ATI's stevedores in the handling and safekeeping of the cargoes. x x x
x x x x
We find no reason to disagree with the trial court's conclusion. Indeed, from the nature of the [damage] caused to the shipment, i.e., torn bags, spillage of contents and hardened or caked portions of the contents, it is not difficult to see that the damage caused was due to the negligence of ATI's stevedores who used steel hooks to retrieve the bags from the higher portions of the piles thereby piercing the bags and spilling their contents, and who piled the bags in the open storage area of ATI with insufficient cover thereby exposing them to the elements and [causing] the contents to cake or harden.66
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. -- A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. -- A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 8-149, with Annexes "A" to "M" inclusive.
2 Id. at 26-37; penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Bienvenido L. Reyes.
3 Id. at 46-47.
4 Id. at 27.
5 Id.
6 Records, p. 134.
7 Rollo, p. 9.
8 Records, pp. 134-135.
9 Rollo, p. 28.
10 Records, pp. 135-136.
11 Id.
12 Rollo, p. 28.
13 Id. at 49-55.
14 Id. at 28.
15 Records, pp. 19-23, 24-30, and 31-35.
16 Rollo, pp. 38-44; penned by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.
17 Id. at 39.
18 Id. at 39-43.
19 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
20 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
x x x x
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
x x x x
21 Rollo, p. 43.
22 Id. at 44.
23 Id. at 115-136.
24 Id. at 36.
25 Id. at 30-34.
26 Id. at 36.
27 Id. at 137-148.
28 Id. at 47.
29 Id. at 261.
30 Id. at 262-268.
31 Id. at 262.
32 Id. at 268.
33 Id. at 270.
34 Id. at 268-286.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 283-286.
37 Id. at 290.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 247.
40 Id. at 250.
41 Art. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
42 Rollo, p. 251-252.
43 Id. at 253.
44 Id. at 242-244.
45 Id. at 241.
46 Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. -- A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
47 Rollo, pp. 245-246.
48 Id. at 238-240.
49 Id. at 240-241.
50 III. ISSUES
1. Whether x x x the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of US$456,000.00 representing the amount which plaintiff paid to the consignee;
2. What is the extent of the damages sustained by the subject shipment?
3. Which of the defendants is liable to plaintiff for the alleged damages and the extent of liability?
4. Is the package limitation contract applicable in the instant case?
5. Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea [Act] (COGSA), is defendant Inchcape exempted from damages by virtue of the defense like insufficient packing, the very nature of the shipment.
6. Is the defendant Inchcape liable for any damage which may have arisen after the cargo was discharged from the vessel's hold or ship's docket in the case of Ludo v. Binamira, 101 Phil. 120;
7. Whether x x x defendant MEC broker had something to do with the unloading of the cargo from the carrier up to the terminal;
8. Whether x x x defendant MEC had any participation in the unloading of the cargo to the warehouse or the place of the consignee;
9. Whether x x x the alleged loss or damages to the cargo occurred while the shipper was in transit or after it was unloaded from the carrier;
10. Whether x x x defendants ATI, Inchcape and MEC are entitled to any form of damages, specifically the attorney's fees. (Id. at 66-67).
51 Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 394, 406 (2004).
52 Id. at 407.
53 Rollo, p. 121.
54 Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, Incorporated, G.R. No. 174154, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 396, 399-400.
55 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 174116, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 565, 581.
56 420 Phil. 824. (2001).
57 Id. at 835-836.
58 G.R. No. 161539, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 194.
59 Id. at 203-204.
60 Rollo, p. 208.
61 SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendant ATI, by way of Special and Affirmative Defenses, reiterates and repleads all the foregoing.
2. Plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant ATI because the latter was not negligent in the performance of its duty as an arrastre operator.
3. As evidenced by the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes, the subject shipment arrived and was discharged unto the custody of defendant ATI in bad order condition.
4. The subject shipment was released/withdrawn from the custody of defendant ATI in exactly the same quantity and condition as when discharged from the carrying vessel. Hence, any alleged loss or damage is no longer the liability of defendant ATI.
5. Under Section 7.01 of Article VII of the Management Contract between the Philippine Port[s] Authority and defendant ATI (formerly Manila Ports Services, Inc.), the liability of the latter in case of loss, damage or non-delivery of cargoes in its custody and control shall be limited to PESOS FIVE THOUSAND ONLY (P5,000.00). (Id. at 57).
62 IV. ISSUES
ATI submits that the issues to be resolved by this Honorable Court are the following:
1. What is the extent of the damages sustained by the subject shipment?
2. Which of the defendants is liable for the damages?
3. Assuming that ATI is liable for the damages up to how much may it be held liable? (Records, p. 42)
63 Puno v. Puno Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 177066, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 585, 590.
64 Dueñas v. Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009, 603 SCRA 11, 20.
65 Id. at 20-21.
66 Rollo, pp. 30-36.
67 Section 7.01 Responsibility and Liability for Losses and Damages; Exceptions - The Contractor shall, at its own expense, handle all merchandise in all work undertaken by it hereunder, diligently and in a skillful, workman-like and efficient manner. The Contractor shall be solely responsible as an independent contractor, and hereby agrees to accept liability and to pay to the shipping company, consignees, consignors or other interested party or parties for the loss, damage or non-delivery of cargoes in its custody and control to the extent of the actual invoice value of each package which in no case shall be more than FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) each, unless the value of the cargo shipment is otherwise specified or manifested or communicated in writing together with the declared Bill of Lading value and supported by a certified packing list to the Contractor by the interested party or parties before the discharge or loading unto vessel of the goods.
x x x
68 Revised Charter of the Philippine Ports Authority. Promulgated on December 23, 1975.
69 SECTION 6. Corporate Powers and Duties. --
a) The corporate duties of the Authority shall be:
x x x x
(ii) To supervise, control, regulate, construct, maintain, operate, and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belonging to the Authority.
x x x x
b) The corporate powers of the Authority shall be as follows:
x x x x
(vi) To make or enter [into] contracts of any kind or nature to enable it to discharge its functions under this Decree.
x x x x.