Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18965)
Facts:
Compania Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L-18965. October 30, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.In October 1952 Macleod and Company (the shipper) contracted by telephone with Compania Maritima (the petitioner/carrier) to move 2,645 bales of hemp from Macleod’s private pier at Sasa, Davao City to Manila for transshipment to Boston aboard the S.S. Steel Navigator. The oral arrangement was confirmed by a written booking from Macleod’s Davao branch. In performance the carrier sent two of its lighters, LCT Nos. 1023 and 1025, each manned by a patron and an assistant, to Macleod’s wharf; the patrons issued carrier’s receipts, one of which expressly recited receipt “in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot … for transhipment at Manila onto S.S. Steel Navigator. FINAL DESTINATION: Boston.”
On the night of October 29–30, 1952, LCT No. 1025 sank while moored at the government marginal wharf at Davao, damaging or causing the loss of 1,162 bales loaded therein. Macleod notified the carrier on October 30. The damaged hemp was sent to Odell Plantation in Madaum, Davao for cleaning and reconditioning; between November 1–15 the carrier’s vehicles hauled reconditioned hemp back to Macleod. After reclassification, diminution in value plus reconditioning and related expenses produced a documented loss totaling P60,421.02.
All Macleod’s abaca shipments were insured with Insurance Company of North America (the respondent). The insurer paid Macleod P64,018.55 and obtained a subrogation/assignment of Macleod’s rights. Failing to recover from Compania Maritima, the insurer filed suit against the carrier on October 28, 1953. The trial court awarded P60,421.02 with legal interest and costs in favor of the insurer; the Court of Appeals affirmed on December 14, 1960. Petitioner brought this petition for review to the Supreme Court, raisi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the carrier waive or imply an admission of the shipper’s accounts by desisting from producing books of account (Exhibit NNN-1), thereby justifying reliance on those accounts?
- Was the insurer’s corporate personality to maintain the action established?
- Was there a contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper even though the cargo was on a lighter (loaned free of charge) and no bill of lading for the ship’s carriage was issued?
- Was the sinking of LCT No. 1025 the result of a fortuitous event, storm or natural disaster that would relieve the carrier of liability?
- Could the respondent insurance company sue the carrier as assignee/subr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)