Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38613)
Facts:
Pacific Timber Export Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Workmen's Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-38613, February 25, 1982, Supreme Court First Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.On March 19, 1963, petitioner Pacific Timber Export Corporation obtained a temporary insurance cover (Cover Note No. 1010) from respondent Workmen's Insurance Company, Inc., insuring shipment of 1,250,000 board feet of Lauan and Apitong logs for export. The cover note expressly provided that it was "Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the WORKMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. printed Marine Policy form as filed with and approved by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner."
Regular marine cargo policies (Nos. 53 HO 1032 and 53 HO 1033) were subsequently issued on April 2, 1963 covering the specific numbers and pieces actually loaded aboard the SS Woodlock. Between issuance of the cover note and the regular policies, on March 29, 1963, an accident during loading at Diapitan Bay caused 30 pieces of logs to be lost or washed away. Petitioner mailed a notice dated April 4, 1963 advising of the loss; the insurer received that notice on April 15, 1963.
Petitioner filed a claim (Claim Statement, Exhibit G) for P19,286.79. Respondent retained an adjuster (First Philippine Adjustment Corporation), which inspected the loss (adjuster’s report dated August 23, 1963) and submitted a computation of probable liability (September 14, 1963) estimating respondent’s liability at P11,042.04 under the cover note. On January 13, 1964 respondent denied the claim, asserting that the regular marine policies (issued after the loss) showed cargo received in good order at destination and that the cover note had become "null and void by virtue of the issuance of Marine Policy Nos. 53 HO 1032 and 1033." Petitioner referred the denial to the Insurance Commissioner, who on March 30, 1964 advised that "it is only fair and equitable to indemnify the insured under Cover Note No. 1010."
Petitioner sued in the Court of First Instance (Manila). The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered respondent to pay P11,042.04 with interest at 12% from receipt of notice of loss (April 15, 1963) until full payment, plus P3,000 attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and dismissed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Cover Note (No. 1010) null and void for lack of valuable consideration?
- Did respondent insurer lose its liability under the Cover Note by reason of unreasonable delay in giving notice of loss (or by failing to promptly object ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)