Case Digest (A.M. No. 02-8-23-0)
Facts:
Asian Terminals, Inc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 185964, June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On July 6, 1996, 3,000 bags of sodium tripolyphosphate in 100 jumbo bags were loaded aboard M/V Da Feng, owned by China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO), consigned to Grand Asian Sales, Inc. (GASI). The shipment was insured by GASI with First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (FIRST LEPANTO) for P7,959,550.50 under a Marine Open Policy (as evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance). The cargo arrived in Manila on July 18, 1996 and was discharged into the custody of Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), an arrastre operator. The cargo remained in ATI’s storage area until withdrawn by broker Proven Customs Brokerage Corporation (PROVEN) on August 8–9, 1996.
Upon inspection, GASI discovered shortages of 8,600 kg and spillage of 3,315 kg (total loss/damage 11,915 kg) valued at P166,772.41, and sought recovery from COSCO (through its agent Smith Bell Shipping Lines, Inc. (SMITH BELL)), ATI and PROVEN, but was denied. FIRST LEPANTO paid GASI P165,772.40 as insurance indemnity and obtained a Release of Claim from GASI that subrogated FIRST LEPANTO to GASI’s rights against third parties. FIRST LEPANTO then demanded reimbursement from COSCO, SMITH BELL, PROVEN and ATI; when demands failed, it filed suit on May 29, 1997 in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila for P166,772.41, 25% attorneys’ fees and costs.
ATI denied liability, asserting it exercised due diligence and presenting a Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargo and a Request for Bad Order Survey (dated in August 1996) allegedly showing one damaged jumbo bag arrived already in bad order; ATI alternatively relied on a contractual limitation of liability (P5,000 per package) in its Management Contract with the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). PROVEN also denied liability; COSCO and SMITH BELL did not file answers and a MeTC motion to declare them in default was denied under Rule 9, Sec. 3.
The MeTC (Presiding Judge Juan O. Bermejo, Jr.) in a May 30, 2006 judgment dismissed the complaint for failure of FIRST LEPANTO to establish its cause of action against ATI, COSCO, SMITH BELL and PROVEN, and absolved ATI and PROVEN of liability. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21 (Judge Amor A. Reyes), in a January 26, 2007 Decision reversed: it found ATI negligent for failing to prove due diligence, ordered ATI to reimburse FIRST LEPANTO P165,772.40 with legal interest, 10% attorneys’ fees and costs, and dismissed claims against COSCO/SMITH BELL/PROVEN. ATI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA (Decision dated October 10, 2008) denied ATI’s petition, holding the Release of Claim and Certificate of Insurance established FIRST LEPANTO’s subrogation rights and affirming the RTC’s finding that the damage occurred while the cargo was in ATI’s custody. ATI’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied (Resolution dated January 12, 2009). ATI then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court disturb the RTC’s and CA’s factual findings that ATI failed to exercise due diligence and is liable for the loss/damage to the shipment?
- Does the non-presentation of the marine insurance contract bar FIRST LEPANTO from enforcing its subrogation rights against ATI?
- Is FIRST LEPANTO’s claim time-barred by the 15-day limitation in ATI’s gate passes/Management Contract (i.e., can ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)