Case Digest (G.R. No. 134514)
Facts:
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., G.R. No. 134514, December 08, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) received on board at San Francisco on April 25, 1990 a shipment of five lots of canned foodstuffs consigned to Duel Food Enterprises under a bill of lading issued by China Ocean Shipping Company; the shipment was insured by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. (Prudential) under Marine Insurance Policy No. 20RN-3011/90. The cargo arrived at the Port of Manila and was discharged May 30, 1990 by MS Wei He and placed in ICTSI’s custody at its container yard.
On June 1, 1990 A.D. Reyna Customs Brokerage withdrew and delivered the goods to the consignee. Upon inspection at the consignee’s warehouse, 161 cartons were found missing (valued at P85,984.40). The consignee’s claim for indemnity was ultimately paid in compromise (P66,730.12), and Prudential, as subrogee, sued ICTSI and the brokerage for reimbursement of the amount paid.
At the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40, the brokerage was declared in default but the trial court dismissed Prudential’s complaint against ICTSI in a Decision dated November 8, 1995, concluding that Prudential (as subrogee) was not in a better position than the consignee who allegedly failed to comply with contractual conditions; reconsideration was denied on December 27, 1995. The Court of Appeals (Third Division) reversed in a March 10, 1998 Decision, finding ICTSI negligent and holding that the 15-day filing requirement did not run because ICTSI failed to issue a certificate of loss; the CA ordered ICTSI to pay the compromise sum with interest and attorney’s fees. Reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution of June 23, 1998.
ICTSI filed a Petition for Review under Ru...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was ICTSI negligent and therefore liable for the shortage of 161 cartons while the sea vans were in its custody?
- Did Prudential (as subrogee of the consignee) comply with the contractual 15-day requirement for filing a claim against ICTSI, and from what event does the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)