Case Digest (G.R. No. 127897)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 127897)
Facts:
Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals and American Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 127897, November 15, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. was a common carrier under a one-year contract of affreightment with Caltex Philippines to transport industrial fuel oil. Under that contract petitioner loaded 2,277.314 kiloliters of Caltex's industrial fuel oil aboard its vessel MT Maysun for delivery to the Caltex Oil Terminal in Zamboanga City. The shipment was insured with respondent American Home Assurance Corporation.
MT Maysun sailed from Batangas on August 14, 1986 and sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay Gulf, taking the entire cargo. The insurer paid Caltex P5,096,635.57 as the insured value of the lost cargo, and by operation of subrogation under Article 2207 of the New Civil Code demanded that petitioner reimburse that amount. When petitioner did not pay, American Home filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 137.
The RTC (Branch 137) after trial rendered judgment on November 29, 1990 dismissing the complaint, finding the MT Maysun seaworthy based on a Philippine Coast Guard dry-docking/inspection certificate (Survey Certificate Report No. M5-016-MH) and that the sinking was caused by an unexpected squall or force majeure, thus exonerating the common carrier. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39836 reversed in a decision promulgated June 17, 1996, giving weight to a PAGASA weather report showing modest winds and wave heights and finding the sinking unexplained and the vessel improperly manned; the CA held petitioner liable. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on January 21, 1997.
Petitioner sought relief before this Court via a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), challenging the CA ruling on several grounds including that the insurer's payment constituted an admission of the vessel's seaworthiness and that the insurer failed to present the marine insurance policy in evidence. The Supreme Court Second Division resolved the petition through the opinion penned by Justice De Leon, Jr.
Issues:
- Whether the insurer's payment to the assured for the lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was seaworthy, thereby barring recovery from the carrier.
- Whether the insurer's failure to present the marine insurance policy in evidence deprived it of a cause of action to recover from the carrier.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)