Facts:

The case involves Benguet Exploration, Inc. (petitioner) as the plaintiff against the Court of Appeals, Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd., and Seawood Shipping, Inc. (respondents). The events leading to the case began on November 29, 1985, when Benguet filed a complaint for damages against Seawood Shipping in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which was assigned Civil Case No. 12394. Subsequently, on March 4, 1986, Benguet filed another complaint against Switzerland Insurance, which was assigned Civil Case No. 13085. The two cases were consolidated for trial.

Benguet chartered Seawood Shipping to transport copper concentrates, which were loaded onto the vessel Sangkulirang No. 3 at Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union. The cargo was insured by Switzerland Insurance. Upon arrival in Japan, a surveyor reported a shortage of 355 metric tons of the cargo compared to what was stated in the bill of lading. Benguet made a formal demand for compensation from both Seawood Ship...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

• Petitioner Benguet Exploration, Inc. (Benguet) filed two complaints for damages:
  1. Against Seawood Shipping, Inc. (Seawood Shipping) for alleged cargo shortage (Civil Case No. 12394).
  2. Against Switzerland General Insurance, Co., Ltd. (Switzerland Insurance) for refusing to honor the insurance claim (Civil Case No. 13085).
• The cases were consolidated, and Switzerland Insurance filed a third-party complaint against Seawood Shipping for indemnification.

Cargo Details:

• Benguet chartered Seawood Shipping to transport 2,243.496 wet metric tons of copper concentrates from Poro Point, La Union, to Japan.
• The cargo was insured by Switzerland Insurance.
• Upon unloading in Japan, a surveyor reported a shortage of 355 metric tons.

Witness Testimonies:

1. Rogelio Lumibao (Benguet’s Marketing Assistant):

   • Handled export documentation but did not witness the actual loading or weighing of the cargo.
   • Relied on the bill of lading and draft survey report from Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co., Ltd. (OMIC).
   • Admitted he had no personal knowledge of the cargo’s actual weight or whether spillage occurred during loading/unloading.

2. Ernesto Cayabyab (Benguet’s Secretary):

   • Witnessed the loading of the cargo at Poro Point and signed documents like the Certificate of Weight and Mate’s Receipt.
   • Admitted he could not confirm if spillage occurred during loading, as his attention was not consistently focused on the operation.

Switzerland Insurance’s Defense:

• The marine insurance policy required the vessel to have a steel centerline bulkhead to prevent cargo shifting.
• Investigation revealed the vessel, Sangkulirang No. 3, lacked this feature, rendering the policy void.
• Switzerland Insurance refunded the premium and denied the claim.

Discrepancies in Documents:

• Benguet’s Export Declaration stated the cargo weighed 2,050 wet metric tons, conflicting with the bill of lading’s 2,243.496 wet metric tons.
• Certified Adjusters, Inc. reported 2,451.630 wet metric tons were delivered to Poro Point, further complicating the actual weight of the cargo.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Hearsay Evidence:

   • Benguet’s witnesses, Lumibao and Cayabyab, lacked personal knowledge of the cargo’s actual weight and loading/unloading process. Their testimonies were based on reports prepared by others, making them hearsay and inadmissible.

2. Prima Facie Presumption Rebutted:

   • While the bill of lading and other documents created a prima facie presumption of the cargo’s weight, this presumption was rebutted by:
     • Discrepancies in the Export Declaration and other records.
     • Admissions by Benguet’s witnesses that they could not confirm the accuracy of the figures.

3. Failure to Prove Loss:

   • Benguet failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the alleged shortage. The Court found no basis to overturn the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which are accorded high respect unless shown to be unsupported by evidence.

4. Insurance Policy Void:

   • The vessel’s lack of a steel centerline bulkhead violated the insurance policy’s warranty, rendering the policy null and void.