Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
NG LI NES, I
NC.,Pet
it
ioner
,v er
sus PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND
ASSURANCE,
INC.,
Respondent
.G.R.No.174116September11,
2009
FACTS:
OnNov ember8,1995,f i
fty-
sixcasesofcompl et
elyknock-
downautopart
sofNi ssanmot or
vehicl
e( cargoes)wer eloadedonboar dM/ VApol l
oTujuh(car
ri
er)atNagoya,Japan,tobe
shippedt oMani l
a.Theshipmentwasconsi gnedtoNissanMotorPhi
li
ppi
nes,I
nc.(Nissan)and
wascov er
edbyBi llofLadingNo.NMA- 1.
[4]Thecarri
erwasownedandoperatedbypet it
ioner
EasternShippingLines,I
nc.
OnNovember16,1995,t hecarri
erarri
vedatt hepor tofManil
a.OnNov ember22,1995,t
he
shi
pmentwasthendischargedfrom t
hev esselontothecust
odyofthearrastr
eoper
ator
,Asi
an
Ter
minal
s,I
nc.(
ATI)
,compl eteandingoodcondi t
ion,
exceptforf
ourcases.[
5]
OnNovember24t
o28,1995,
theshi
pmentwaswi t
hdrawnbySeafr
ontCust
omsandBr
oker
age
fr
om t
hepi
eranddel
i
ver
edtothewarehouseofNi
ssaninQuezonCi
ty.
[6]
Asa resul
t,Nissan demanded t
hesum ofP1, 047,
298.
34[9]r
epr
esent
ing thecostofthe
damagessustai
nedbyt heshipmentfrom pet
it
ioner
,theownerofthev essel
,andATI
,the
arr
ast
reoper
ator.However
,thedemandswerenotheeded.
[10]
OnAugust21,1996,asi
nsureroftheshi
pmentagainstal
lri
sksperMar i
neOpenPol
i
cyNo.86-
168andMarineCargoRi
skNot eNo.3921/95,
respondentPrudent
ialGuar
ant
eeandAssur
ance
I
nc.pai
dNissanthesum ofP1,047,
298.
34.
OnOct ober1,1996,respondentsuedpet it
ionerandATIforrei
mbur sementoft heamountit
pai
dt oNissanbeforetheRegi onalTri
alCour t(RTC)ofMakat
iCity,Branch148,docket
edas
Civ
ilCaseNo.96- 1665,enti
tl
edPr udent
ialGuaranteeandAssurance,Inc.v.East
ernShi
ppi
ng
Li
nes,Inc.Respondentcl
aimedt hatitwassubr ogatedt
otheri
ghtsofNi ssanbyv i
rt
ueofsai
d
payment
rt
cr endered a deci
si
on infavorofPrudenti
alGuarant
ee.CA af
fi
rmed t
he deci
sion but
exonerat
edATI,render
ingEast
ernShi
ppi
ngsolel
yli
abl
e.
I
SSUE:
I
.WHETHERORNOTTHECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDI
NAFFI
RMI
NGTHEDECI
SIONOFTHE
LOWERCOURTFI
NDI
NGHEREI
NPETI
TIONERLI
ABLEDESPI
TETHEFACTTHATRESPONDENT
FAI
LEDTOSUBMI
TANYI
NSURANCEPOLI
CY.
I
I.
HELD:
Thepet i
ti
oni smerit
ori
ous.Anentthef i
rsterror
,pet i
ti
onerarguesthatrespondentwasnot
properl
ysubrogat
edbecauseofthenon- presentat
ionoft hemari
neinsur
ancepolicy.I
nthecase
atbar ,i
nor dertoproveitsclai
m,r espondentpr esentedamar inecargor i
sknot eanda
subrogati
onrecei
pt.Thus,t
hequesti
ont ober esolvediswhetherthetwodocument s,wit
hout
theMar i
neInsur
ancePoli
cy,ar
esuffi
cientt oproverespondent
sr i
ghtofsubrogat
ion.
Bef
oreanyt
hingel
se,itmustbeemphasi
zedt
hatamarineri
sknoteisnotaninsur
ancepoli
cy.I
t
i
sonlyanacknowl edgmentordeclar
ati
onoftheinsurerconf
ir
mi ngthespecifi
cshipment
cov
eredbyit
smarineopenpoli
cy,t
heeval
uat
ionoft
hecargoandthechargeabl
epremium.
In Inter
nati
onal Contai
ner Ter
minal Ser
vices, I
nc. v
. FGU I nsurance Cor
por
ati
on
(
Int
ernati
onal
),
[20]t
henatur
eofamari
necargorisknot
ewasexpl
ained,
thus:
xxxI tisthemar i
neopenpol i
cywhi chisthemaininsurancecontr
act
.Inotherwords,the
marineopenpol i
cyi st
heblanketi
nsurancetobeundertakenbyFGUonallgoodstobeshipped
byRAGCdur i
ngtheexi st
enceofthecontract
,whil
ethemar i
neri
sknotespeci
fi
estheparti
cul
ar
goods/shi
pmenti nsur
edbyFGUont hatspeci
fi
ct r
ansacti
on,i
ncl
udingthesum insur
ed,the
shi
pmentpar ti
cularsaswellasthepremium pai
dforsuchshipment
.xxx
Iti
sundisputedthatthecargoeswerealreadyonboardthecarr
ierasear
lyasNov ember8,1995
andt hatthesamear r
ivedatt heportofMani l
aonNov ember16,1995.Iti
s,howev er
,v er
y
apparentthattheMar i
neCar goRiskNot ewasissuedonlyonNov ember16,1995.Thesame,
ther
efore,shouldhaveraisedar edf
lag,asitwoul
dbei mpossibl
etoknowwhet hersai
dgoods
wereactuall
yinsuredwhilethesamewer eintr
ansitf
rom JapantoManil
a.
i
tisalr
eadyevi
dentwhyherei
npeti
ti
oni smeri
tor
ious.TheMar ineRiskNot
erel
ieduponby
r
espondentast
hebasi
sfori
tscl
aimforsubr
ogat
ionisinsuf
fi
cienttopr
ovesai
dcl
aim.
Aspr evi
ouslyst at
ed,t heMar i
neRi skNotewasi ssuedonl yonNov ember16,1995;hence,
wit
houtacopyoft hemar i
neinsurancepoli
cy,itwouldbei mpossibl
eandsi mplyguessworkto
know whet herthecar gowasi nsuredduri
ngt hev oyagewhi chstart
edonNov ember8,1995.
Again,withoutthemar i
nei nsurancepoli
cy,i
twoul dbei mpossi
blefort hi
sCourttoknow the
fol
lowing:fir
st,thespeci f
icsoft heInst
it
uteCar goCl ausesAandot herter
msandcondi ti
ons
perMar i
neOpenPol icy-86-168asal l
udedtoint heMar ineRi
skNot e;second,i
fthesaidter
ms
andconditionswer eactuallycompl i
edwit
hbef orerespondentpai
dNi ssansclai
m.
Therefore,
sincerespondental
ludedt
oanact ionabledocumentinit
scompl ai
nt,thecont
ractof
i
nsur ancebetweenitandNissan,asi
ntegralt
oitscauseofacti
onagai nstpet
it
ioner,
theMar i
ne
InsurancePolicyshouldhav ebeenat t
achedt ot heComplaint
.Ev eni nit
sf ormalofferof
evidence,r
espondentall
udedtothemar i
neinsurancepoli
cywhichcanst andi
ndependentofthe
Mar i
neCar goRiskNote.
Iti
ssignifi
cantthatt hedatewhent heal
legedinsurancecontractwasconst i
tut
edcannotbe
est
abli
shedwi t
hcer taint
ywithoutt
hecontracti
tsel
f.Saidpointi
scr uci
albecausether
ecanbe
noinsuranceonar iskthathadalreadyoccurr
edbyt heti
met hecont ractwasexecuted.[
33]
Sur
ely,t
heMar ineRiskNot eonitsf
acedoesnotspeci f
ywhent heinsurancewasconsti
tuted.
Alt
hought heCAmayhav erul
edt hatthedamaget othecar gooccur redwhi l
et hesamewasi n
peti
tionerscust ody,thisCour tcannotappl yt herulingi nI nternati
onaltot hecaseatbar .In
contrast,unlikei nInter nati
onalwher et her
ewasnoi ssueasr egardst hepr ovisi
onsoft he
mar i
nei nsur ancepol icy ,sucht hatt hepr esent ati
onoft hecont r
acti t
selfi snecessar yfor
perusal,her ein petiti
onerhad r epeat edlyobj ected tot he non- presentat
ion oft he mar i
ne
i
nsur ance pol icyand had mani fested its desiret o know t he specifi
c pr ovi
sions thereof.
Mor eover,andt hesamei scrit
ical,themar iner i
sknot ei nt hecaseatbari squestionable
because:f ir
st ,itisdatedont hesamedayt hecar goesar riv
edatt hepor tofMani laandnot
duri
ngt hedur ationoft hev oyage;second,wi thoutt heMar i
neI nsurancePol icytoel uci
dateon
thespeci f
icsoft hetermsandcondi t
ionsalludedt oi nt hemar ineri
sknot e,itwoul dbesi mply
guesswor ktoknowi fthesamewer ecompl i
edwi th.
Lastl
y,tocastal
ldoubtont
hemer
it
sofher
einpet
it
ion,t
hisCour
tisgui
dedbyt
her
uli
ngi
n
Malayan,t
owit:
Inconclusion,t
hisCour tr
ulesthatbasedont heappl i
cabl
ejuri
sprudence,becauseofthe
i
nadequacyoft heMar i
neCargoRiskNoteforther easonsalr
eadystated,i
twasincumbenton
respondenttopresenti
nevi
dencetheMar i
neInsurancePolicy
,andhavingfail
edindoingso,
its
clai
m ofsubrogati
onmustnecessari
l
yfail
.
Becauseoft
hef
oregoi
ng,i
twoul
dbeunnecessar
ytodi
scusst
heseconder
rorr
aisedby
peti
ti
oner
.