NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL G.R. No. 171468
DEVELOPMENT (PHILS.), INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
PERALTA,
ABAD,
and
MENDOZA, JJ.
NYK-FILJAPAN SHIPPING
CORP.,
LEP PROFIT
INTERNATIONAL,
INC. (ORD), LEP
INTERNATIONAL
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
DMT CORP.,
ADVATECH
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
MARINA PORT
SERVICES, INC.,
SERBROS CARRIER
CORPORATION,
and
SEABOARD-EASTERN
INSURANCE CO.,
INC.,
Respondents.
x -------------------------------------------------
x
NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL G.R. No. 174241
DEVELOPMENT (PHILS.), INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus -
SEABOARD-EASTERN Promulgated:
INSURANCE CO.,
INC.,
Respondent. August 24, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
These
consolidated petitions involve a cargo owners right to recover damages from
the loss of insured goods under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Insurance
Code.
The
Facts and the Case
Petitioner
New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. (
DMT shipped the generator sets by
truck from
NYK
unloaded the shipment in
Marina
Port Services, Inc. (Marina), the
An
examination of the three generator sets in the presence of petitioner New Worlds
representatives, Federal Builders (the project contractor) and surveyors of petitioner
Since
Seaboard covered the goods with a marine insurance policy, petitioner
On October 11, 1994 petitioner
New World filed an action for specific performance and damages against all the
respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
August 16, 2001 the RTC rendered a decision absolving the various respondents
from liability with the exception of NYK.
The RTC found that the generator sets were damaged during transit while in
the care of NYKs vessel, ACX Ruby. The latter
failed, according to the RTC, to exercise the degree of diligence required of
it in the face of a foretold raging typhoon in its path.
The
RTC ruled, however, that petitioner
As
regards petitioner New Worlds claim against Seaboard, its insurer, the RTC
held that the latter cannot be faulted for denying the claim against it since
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on January 31, 2006,[2] affirming
the RTCs rulings except with respect to Seaboards liability. The CA held that petitioner New World can
still recoup its loss from Seaboards marine insurance policy, considering a) that
the submission of the itemized listing is an unreasonable imposition and b)
that the one-year prescriptive period under the COGSA did not affect New
Worlds right under the insurance policy since it was the Insurance Code that governed
the relation between the insurer and the insured.
Although
petitioner
Instead
of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner instituted a second petition
for review before the Court in G.R. 174241,
assailing the CAs amended decision.
The
Issues Presented
The
issues presented in this case are as follows:
a) In G.R. 171468, whether or not the CA erred in affirming the
RTCs release from liability of respondents DMT, Advatech, LEP, LEP Profit,
Marina, and Serbros who were at one time or another involved in handling the
shipment; and
b) In G.R. 174241, 1) whether or not the CA
erred in ruling that Seaboards request from petitioner New World for an
itemized list is a reasonable imposition and did not violate the insurance
contract between them; and 2) whether or not the CA erred in failing to rule that
the one-year COGSA prescriptive period for marine claims does not apply to petitioner
New Worlds prosecution of its claim against Seaboard, its insurer.
The
Courts Rulings
In
G.R. 171468 --
Petitioner New World asserts that
the roles of respondents DMT, Advatech, LEP, LEP Profit, Marina and Serbros in
handling and transporting its shipment from
But the issue regarding which of
the parties to a dispute incurred negligence is factual and is not a proper
subject of a petition for review on certiorari.
And petitioner
That the loss was occasioned by a
typhoon, an exempting cause under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, does not
automatically relieve the common carrier of liability. The latter had the burden of proving that the typhoon
was the proximate and only cause of loss and that it exercised due diligence to
prevent or minimize such loss before, during, and after the disastrous typhoon.[4] As found by the RTC and the CA, NYK failed to discharge
this burden.
In
G.R. 174241 --
One.
The Court does not regard as substantial the question of reasonableness
of Seaboards additional requirement of an itemized listing of the damage that
the generator sets suffered. The record
shows that petitioner
The marine open policy that
Seaboard issued to
Here, the policy enumerated
certain exceptions like unsuitable packaging, inherent vice, delay in voyage,
or vessels unseaworthiness, among others.[6] But Seaboard had been unable to show that
petitioner
What is more, Seaboard had been
unable to explain how it could not verify the damage that New Worlds goods
suffered going by the documents that it already submitted, namely, (1) copy of the
Suppliers Invoice KL2504; (2) copy of the Packing List; (3) copy of the Bill
of Lading 01130E93004458; (4) the Delivery of Waybill Receipts 1135, 1222, and 1224;
(5) original copy of Marine Insurance Policy MA-HO-000266; (6) copies of Damage
Report from Supplier and Insurance Adjusters; (7) Consumption Report from the
Customs Examiner; and (8) Copies of Received Formal Claim from the following: a)
LEP International Philippines, Inc.; b) Marina Port Services, Inc.; and c)
Serbros Carrier Corporation.[7] Notably, Seaboards own marine surveyor
attended the inspection of the generator sets.
Seaboard cannot pretend that the
above documents are inadequate since they were precisely the documents listed
in its insurance policy.[8] Being a contract of adhesion, an insurance policy
is construed strongly against the insurer who prepared it. The Court cannot read a requirement in the
policy that was not there.
Further, it appears from the exchanges
of communications between Seaboard and Advatech that submission of the requested
itemized listing was incumbent on the latter as the seller DMTs local agent. Petitioner
Two.
Regarding prescription of claims, Section 3(6) of the COGSA provides
that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in case of
loss or damage unless the suit is brought within one year after delivery of the
goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.
But whose fault was it that the
suit against NYK, the common carrier, was not brought to court on time? The last day for filing such a suit fell on
October 7, 1994. The record shows that
petitioner
In the ordinary course, if
Seaboard had processed that claim and paid the same, Seaboard would have been
subrogated to petitioner
Besides, when petitioner
Section 241 of the Insurance Code
provides that no insurance company doing business in the
Notably, Seaboard already
incurred delay when it failed to settle petitioner
Consequently, Seaboard should pay
interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of the delay until the
claim is fully satisfied at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the
Monetary Board. The term ceiling
prescribed by the Monetary Board means the legal rate of interest of 12% per annum provided in Central Bank
Circular 416, pursuant to Presidential Decree 116.[9] Section 244 of the Insurance Code also
provides for an award of attorneys fees and other expenses incurred by the
assured due to the unreasonable withholding of payment of his claim.
In Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Trans-
Petitioner
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition in G.R. 171468 and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision of January 31, 2006 insofar as
petitioner New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. is not allowed to
recover against respondents DMT Corporation, Advatech Industries, Inc., LEP
International Philippines, Inc., LEP Profit International, Inc., Marina Port
Services, Inc. and Serbros Carrier Corporation.
With respect to G.R. 174241, the Court
GRANTS the petition and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of
Appeals Amended Decision of August 17, 2006. The Court DIRECTS
Seaboard-Eastern Insurance Company, Inc. to pay petitioner
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, per Special Order 1069
dated August 23, 2011.
[1]
Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. v.
Manila Railroad Co., 168 Phil. 22, 31 (1977).
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Aurora S. Lagman, rollo (G.R. 171468), pp. 9-41.
[3]
See Cang v. Cullen, G.R. No.
163078, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 391.
[4] Civil Code, Article 1739.
[5] Choa
Tiek Seng v. Court of Appeals, 262 Phil. 245, 255 (1990).
[6]
Rollo (G.R. 174241), p. 163.
[7]
Exhibit BB for petitioner, id. at 216.
[8] For documentation of claims, the
policy requires submission of: (1) Original policy or certificate of insurance;
(2) Original copy of shipping invoices together with shipping specifications
and/or weight notes; (3) Original Bill of Lading and/or other contract of
carriage; (4) Survey report or other documentary evidence to show the extent of
the loss or damage; (5) Landing account and weight notes at final destination,
and; (6) Correspondence exchanged with the Carrier and other parties regarding
the liability for the loss or damage, id. at 165.
[9] Otherwise known as Amending Further Certain
Sections of Act Numbered Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Five, as amended,
otherwise known as The Usury Law.
[10]
G.R. Nos. 151890 and 151991, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 411.
[11]
Cathay Insurance Company, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, 255 Phil. 714, 723 (1989).
[12]
G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.