THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 206892, February 03, 2021
C.V. GASPAR SALVAGE & LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LG INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., (UNITED STATES BRANCH)/WM H. MCGEE & CO., INC., Respondents.
[G.R. No. 207035]
FORTUNE BROKERAGE AND FREIGHT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. LG INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (UNITED STATES BRANCH) AND WM H. MCGEE & CO., INC., C.V. GASPAR SALVAGE & LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, AND VENANCIO MESINA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court are two Petitions for Review on Certiorari.1
In G.R. No. 206892, C.V. Gaspar Salvage and Lighterage Corporation (C.V. Gaspar) assails in its petition the Decision2 dated August 13, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated April 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 91166. In G.R. No. 207035, Fortune Brokerage and Freight Services, Inc. (Fortune Brokerage) assails in its petition the same Decision and Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 91166. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision4 dated January 21, 2008 of Branch 132, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City in Civil Case No. 99-1864.
G.R. No. 206892 and G.R. No. 207035 were consolidated in the Court Resolution5 dated July 29, 2013.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs ordering defendants Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar to jointly and solidarily pay plaintiffs the sum of US$100,688.82 representing the actual amount covering the subrogation receipt, or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the conversion rate obtaining at the time of payment, and P1,200,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses.Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar appealed the RTC Decision.
SO ORDERED.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated January 21, 2008, [is] AFFIRMED with modification, DELETING the award of attorney's fees.C.V. Gaspar and LG Insurance filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In a Resolution promulgated on April 23, 2013, the CA denied both motions.
SO ORDERED.17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In G.R. No. 207035, Fortune Brokerage alleges that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(1) the complaint is fatally defective for having been filed in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) AYNA-1 is not a common carrier; (3) the service contract between C.V. Gaspar and Fortune Brokerage is valid; and (4) C.V. Gaspar should not be held solidarily liable with Fortune Brokerage because it is not a party to the contract between Fortune Brokerage and Great Harvest.18
(1) LG Insurance and WM H. McGee failed to prove their claim; (2) Fortune Brokerage is not a party to the service contract; and (3) The Complaint and the Amended Complaint suffer from defects and irregularities.19
1. Whether Fajardo Law Office, through Atty. Fajardo, is authorized to file the Complaint and Amended Complaint and to sign the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping in behalf of LG Insurance and WM H. McGee;
2. Whether there was a valid subrogation of rights between Great Harvest and LG Insurance and WM H. McGee;
3. Whether AYNA-1 is a common carrier; and
4. Whether C.V. Garcia and Fortune Brokerage should be held solidarily liable to LG Insurance and WM H. McGee for the amount paid to Great Harvest.
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. |
A foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines is not absolutely incapacitated from filing a suit in local courts. Only when that foreign corporation is "transacting" or "doing business" in the country will a license be necessary before it can institute suits. It may, however, bring suits on isolated business transactions, which is not prohibited under Philippine law. Thus, this Court has held that a foreign insurance company may sue in Philippine courts upon the marine insurance policies issued by it abroad to cover international-bound cargoes shipped by a Philippine carrier, even if it has no license to do business in this country. It is the act of engaging in business without the prescribed license, and not the lack of license per se, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our courts.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn its transactions with Great Harvest and in filing the cases against C.V. Gaspar and Fortune Brokerage, LG Insurance acted through WM H. McGee, its American Manager. The authority of Fajardo Law Office and Atty. Fajardo to act for and in behalf of LG Insurance and WM H. McGee is established by the Special Power of Attorney designating Fajardo Law Office to act as WM H. McGee's resident agent and to represent it in a suit against Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar. WM H. McGee also designated Atty. Fajardo as its resident agent. The Court agrees with the CA that the designation necessarily includes signing the requisite Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
Article 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.There is no question in this case that Great Harvest insured the shipment of the bags of fishmeal against all risks with LG Insurance through WM H. McGee. It is likewise undisputed that when 7,952 bags of fishmeal got wet due to water that entered AYNA-1, Great Harvest demanded payment from Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar for the payment of the damaged cargo. Both Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar refused to pay. Hence, Great Harvest demanded payment under the insurance policy. Upon the payment of Great Harvest's insurance claim, LG Insurance was subrogated to its rights against Fortune Brokerage and C.V. Gaspar.
Article 2207 of the Civil Code is founded on the well-settled principle of suborgation. If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured, then the insurer, upon payment to the assured, will be subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay. Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer x x x.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe Court further explained in Henson, Jr. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.:26chanrobleslawlibrary
x x x [S]ubrogation, under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, operates as a form of "equitable assignment" whereby "the insurer, upon payment to the assured, will be subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay." It is characterized as an "equitable assignment" since it is an assignment of credit without the need of consent - as it was, in fact, mentioned in Pan Malayan, "[t]he right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer."27 (Emphasis and underscoring omitted.)Hence, from the time of payment for the damaged cargo under the insurance policy, subrogation took place and LG Insurance stepped into the shoes of Great Harvest.
Results of SurveyC.V. Gaspar failed to overcome the presumption of negligence in its handling and transporting of the bags of fishmeal. As pointed out by the CA, the bottom plating of AYNA-1 proved it to be unseaworthy when it carried the cargo.
x x x
Barge "AYNA-1" was inspected to determine/ascertain the seepage/ingress of water into Hatch No. 2. A hole or gap of about 50mm diameter was found in the bottom plating located at the starboard side of the center longitudinal T-frame and forward of No. 5 transverse T-frame, counting from the center bulkhead. x x x
Remarks
The loss sustained by subject shipment could be reasonably attributed to wetting due to the seepage/ingress of water through the hole or gap in the bottom plating of the barge in way of Hatch No. 2.
The barge's bottom plating in way of Hatch No. 2. may have come in contact with a hard/sharp object which caused the same to be holed probably during the towage upstream from Manila Bay to Pasig River and/or whilst alongside Romus Terminal.x x x32
Endnotes:
1 Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Rollo (G.R. No. 206892), pp. 8-25; rollo (G.R. 207035), Vol. I, pp. 9-51.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 206892), pp. 245-263; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of the Court), concurring.
3Id. at 285-286.
4Id. at 144-162; penned by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.
5Id. at 288.
6Id. at 144-145.
7Id. at 145.
8Id. at 146-147.
9Id. at 162.
10Id. at 159-160.
11Id. at 161.
12Id. at 162.
13Id.
14Id. at 254-255.
15Id. at 255-256.
16Id. at 261.
17Id. at 262-263.
18Id. at 15-16.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 207035), Vol. I, pp. 19-20.
20Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 583 Phil. 257, 270-271 (2008). Emphasis omitted.
21Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. NLRC (2nd Div.), 564 Phil. 119, 127 (2007).
22Id.
23Id. at 128, citing Bernardo v. NLRC, 325 Phil. 371 (1996).
24 262 Phil. 919 (1990).
25Id. at 923, citing Compania Maritima v. Insurance Co. of North America, 120 Phil. 998, 1005-1006 (1964) and Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., et al. v. Jamila & Co. of the Phils., et al., 162 Phil. 421, 426 (1976).
26 G.R. No. 223134, August 14, 2019.
27Id., citing Pan Malayan Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 262 Phil. 919, 923 (1990).
28Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 610, 616-617 (2003).
29Id. at 618, citing Article 1733 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
30Id., citing Article 1735 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
31Id. at 618-619.
32Rollo (G.R. No. 206892), pp. 259-260.
33Rollo (G.R. 207035), Vol. I, p. 318.
34Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage Corp., et al., 654 Phil. 67, 76 (2011), citing Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp. v. Transport Venture, Inc., 496 Phil. 437, 450, (2005) further citing Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., 429 Phil. 244 (2002).cralawredlibrary