First Division G.R. No. 109293, August 18, 1993: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Supreme Court of the Philippines
G.R. No. 109293
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 109293, August 18, 1993
HOME INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 7TH DIVISION AND
MABUHAY BROKERAGE CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CRUZ, J.:
Filipro Phil., now known as Nestle Phil., was the consignee

of two hydraulic engines shipped on April 25, 1979, by
INREDECO from the United States on the M/S Oriental
Statesman. The cargo arrived in Manila on May 17, 1979, on
board the M/S Pacific Conveyor. It was turned over to E.
Razon Arrastre, which retained custody until July 20, 1979.
The cargo was later hauled by Mabuhay Brokerage Co. to its
warehouse, where it stayed until July 26, 1979. On this date
it was delivered to the consignee.
When the skidded plywood cases were opened by the

consignee, one of the engines was found to be damaged. Its
fan cover was broken and misaligned and its cap deformed. The consignee refused to
accept the unit.
Nestle subsequently filed a claim against E. Razon, Mabuhay, the Port Authority, and its
insurer, the Home Insurance Corp., for P49,170.00. When the other companies denied
liability, Home Insurance paid the claim and was issued a subrogation receipt for
$6,070.00.[1]
[1]
Mabuhay alone was sued by Home Insurance for the recovery of the amount it had paid
to Nestle. Mabuhay again denied liability. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila
rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion declared
[2]
that the plaintiff failed to establish the legal and factual bases for its claim.
The decision noted that the insurance contract between the corporation and the
consignee was not presented and that the other supporting documents were all only
photocopies. No explanation was given for the failure of the plaintiffs to submit the
originals. The trial court also observed that the crates of the shipment did not comply
with the accepted international standards, taking into consideration the length of the
voyage and the transshipment of the cargo. Its conclusion was that whatever damage
was sustained by the engine must have occurred while it was at sea, for which
Mabuhay could not be held liable.
The judgment was affirmed on appeal. In addition, the [3]
respondent court held that the appellant had failed to

establish a valid subrogation, which could not be presumed, [4]
and to prove the amount Home had paid to Nestle. There

was no evidence either of what happened to the damaged
engine, which still retained a residual value despite its
defects.
The Court of Appeals stressed that the petitioner could be excused from presenting the
original of the insurance contract only if there was proof that this had been lost. The
unrebutted claim, however, is that the original was in its possession all the time. The
[5]
respondent court added that even if a valid subrogation could be established, Mabuhay
was nevertheless not an absolute insurer against all risks of the transport of the goods.
In any case, it appeared that Mabuhay had exercised extraordinary diligence for the
safe delivery of the cargo.
The challenged decision, however, deleted the award of P8,000.00 for litigation
expenses for lack of legal or equitable justification.
In the present petition, it is argued that: (1) the subrogation receipt proves the existence
of the insurance contract between Nestle and Home Insurance and the amount paid by
[4]
[
the latter to the former; and (2) the law or presumption of negligence operates against
the carrier.
The petition has no merit.

Home's action against Mabuhay supposedly arose from its contract of insurance with
Nestle. Having paid the consignee the damages it sustained during the shipment, Home
now claims it is rightfully subrogated under such contract to the rights of the consignee.
But the problem is - what rights? And against whom?
The insurance contract has not been presented. It may be assumed for the sake of
argument that the subrogation receipt may nevertheless be used to establish the
relationship between the petitioner and the consignee and the amount paid to settle the
claim. But that is all the document can do. By itself alone, the subrogation receipt is not
sufficient to prove the petitioner's claim holding the respondent liable for the damage to
the engine.
The shipment of the cargo passed through several stages: first, from the shipper to the
port of departure; second, from the port of departure to the M/S Oriental Statesman;
third; from the M/S Oriental Statesman to the M/S Pacific Conveyor; fourth, from the
M/S Pacific Conveyor to the port of arrival; fifth, from the port of arrival to the arrastre
operator; sixth, from the arrastre operator to the hauler; and lastly, from the hauler to the
consignee.
In the absence of proof of stipulations to the contrary, the hauler can be liable only for
any damage that occurred from the time it received the cargo until it finally delivered it to
the consignee. It cannot be held responsible for the handling of the cargo before it
actually received it, particularly since there was no indication from the external
appearance of the crates, which Mabuhay did not open, that the engine was damaged.
As a mere subrogee of Nestle, Home can exercise only such

rights against the parties handling the cargo as were
granted to Nestle under the insurance contract. The
insurance contract would have clearly indicated the scope of
the coverage but there is no evidence of this. It cannot
simply be supposed that the hauling was included in the
coverage; it is possible that the coverage ended with the
arrastre. In other words, the rights transferred to Home by
Nestle - still assuming there was a valid subrogation - might
not include the right to sue Mabuhay.
The petitioner cites Article 1735 of the Civil Code reading as
follows:
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos.

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are
lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as required in Article 1733.
This presumption is applicable only if the shipper or consignee has, to begin with, a right
of action against the carrier. It has not been shown in the case at bar that Home, as the
supposed subrogee of Nestle, has acquired such a right against Mabuhay.
The insurance contract might have proved that it covered the hauling portion of the
shipment and was not limited to the transport of the cargo while at sea, if that were
really the case. It could have shown that the agreement was not only a marine
transportation insurance but covered all phases of the cargo's shipment, from the time
the cargo was loaded on the vessel in the United States until it was delivered to the
consignee in the Philippines. But there is no acceptable evidence of these stipulations
because the original contract of insurance has not been
presented.
Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is quite clear:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. -

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from
them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
It is curious that the petitioner disregarded this rule,

knowing that the best evidence of the insurance contract
was its original copy, which was presumably in the
possession of Home itself. Failure to present this original (or
even a copy of it), for reasons the Court cannot comprehend,
must prove fatal to this petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against

the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.
[1]
Exhibit E, Exhibits of the Plaintiff.
[2]
Annex A, Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 73-81.
[4]
Ibid., p. 76.
[5]
Rollo, p. 77.
Copyright 2016 - Batas.org
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

First Division G.R. No. 109293, August 18, 1993: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Division G.R. No. 109293, August 18, 1993: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Division G.R. No. 109293, August 18, 1993: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of the Philippines

G.R. No. 109293

Filipro Phil., now known as Nestle Phil., was the consignee

When the skidded plywood cases were opened by the

The judgment was affirmed on appeal. In addition, the [3]

respondent court held that the appellant had failed to

and to prove the amount Home had paid to Nestle. There

The petition has no merit.

As a mere subrogee of Nestle, Home can exercise only such

Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos.

Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is quite clear:

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. -

It is curious that the petitioner disregarded this rule,

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against

Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

You might also like