Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    Phoenix Assurance Company and McGee paid an insurance claim to Del Monte Produce after their shipment of fruits was damaged while being loaded by Mindanao Terminal. Phoenix and McGee then sued Mindanao Terminal claiming negligence caused the damage. The trial court ruled against Phoenix and McGee, stating they did not have a cause of action since Mindanao's contract was with Del Monte Philippines, not the insured Del Monte Produce. However, the appellate court reversed, finding Phoenix and McGee had a cause of action based on quasi-delict or negligence law, even without a direct contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a liability for tort can arise even in a contractual setting if negligence causes injury to a third

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    53 views1 page
    Phoenix Assurance Company and McGee paid an insurance claim to Del Monte Produce after their shipment of fruits was damaged while being loaded by Mindanao Terminal. Phoenix and McGee then sued Mindanao Terminal claiming negligence caused the damage. The trial court ruled against Phoenix and McGee, stating they did not have a cause of action since Mindanao's contract was with Del Monte Philippines, not the insured Del Monte Produce. However, the appellate court reversed, finding Phoenix and McGee had a cause of action based on quasi-delict or negligence law, even without a direct contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a liability for tort can arise even in a contractual setting if negligence causes injury to a third

    Original Description:

    Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Phoenix Assurance Company and McGee paid an insurance claim to Del Monte Produce after their shipment of fruits was damaged while being loaded by Mindanao Terminal. Phoenix and McGee then sued Mindanao Terminal claiming negligence caused the damage. The trial court ruled against Phoenix and McGee, stating they did not have a cause of action since Mindanao's contract was with Del Monte Philippines, not the insured Del Monte Produce. However, the appellate court reversed, finding Phoenix and McGee had a cause of action based on quasi-delict or negligence law, even without a direct contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a liability for tort can arise even in a contractual setting if negligence causes injury to a third

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    Phoenix Assurance Company and McGee paid an insurance claim to Del Monte Produce after their shipment of fruits was damaged while being loaded by Mindanao Terminal. Phoenix and McGee then sued Mindanao Terminal claiming negligence caused the damage. The trial court ruled against Phoenix and McGee, stating they did not have a cause of action since Mindanao's contract was with Del Monte Philippines, not the insured Del Monte Produce. However, the appellate court reversed, finding Phoenix and McGee had a cause of action based on quasi-delict or negligence law, even without a direct contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a liability for tort can arise even in a contractual setting if negligence causes injury to a third

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MINDANAO TERMINAL VS.

    PHOENIX ASSURANCE
    COMPANY & MCGEE
    FACTS:
    Del Monte Philippines contracted Mindanao Terminal, a stevedoring company, to load and stow
    bananas and pineapples owned by Del Monte Produce (note: not by Del Monte Philippines) into
    the cargo hold of a vessel. Del Monte Produce insured the shipment of fruits under an “open cargo
    policy” with Phoenix (insurer) and McGee & Co (underwriting manager/agent of Phoenix). The
    cargo was damaged so Del Monte Produce filed a claim against Phoenix and McGee. Phoenix and
    McGee paid del Monte Produce and was issued a subrogation receipt. So Phoenix and McGee filed
    an action for damages against Mindanao Terminal in the RTC of Davao. The RTC ruled against
    Phoenix and McGee stating, among others, that they did not have a cause of action against
    Mindanao because Mindanao was contracted by Del Monte Philippines, and not with the insured
    Del Monte Produce. On appeal, the CA reversed, stating that there was a cause of action based on
    Article 2176 (Quasidelict).

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Phoenix and McGee have a cause of action against Mindanao Terminal?

    HELD:
    Yes, there was a cause of action. The present action is based on quasi-delict, arising from the
    negligent and careless loading and stowing of the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Even
    assuming that both Phoenix and McGee have only been subrogated in the rights of Del Monte
    Produce, who is not a party to the contract of service between Mindanao Terminal and Del Monte,
    still the insurance carriers may have a cause of action in light of the Court’s consistent ruling that
    the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under
    a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. In the present case, Phoenix and McGee
    are not suing for damages for injuries arising from the breach of the contract of service but from
    the alleged negligent manner by which Mindanao Terminal handled the cargoes belonging to Del
    Monte Produce. Despite the absence of contractual relationship between Del Monte Produce and
    Mindanao Terminal, the allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant should be sufficient
    to establish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict.

    You might also like