Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Isabel Roque V Iac GR L 66935

    Uploaded by

    Princess Faith
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Isabela Roque and Pioneer Insurance regarding insurance coverage of logs lost at sea. [1] Roque insured logs being transported by barge from Palawan to Manila, but the barge sank with the logs. [2] The appellate court found the barge was unseaworthy and absolved the insurer of liability, ruling the loss was from "perils of the ship" not covered, not "perils of the sea." [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding an implied warranty of seaworthiness on cargo owners and that the logs were lost due to the ship's defective condition, not a sea peril.

    Copyright:

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

    Isabel Roque V Iac GR L 66935

    Uploaded by

    Princess Faith
    29 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Isabela Roque and Pioneer Insurance regarding insurance coverage of logs lost at sea. [1] Roque insured logs being transported by barge from Palawan to Manila, but the barge sank with the logs. [2] The appellate court found the barge was unseaworthy and absolved the insurer of liability, ruling the loss was from "perils of the ship" not covered, not "perils of the sea." [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding an implied warranty of seaworthiness on cargo owners and that the logs were lost due to the ship's defective condition, not a sea peril.

    Original Title

    9. Isabel Roque v Iac Gr l 66935

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Isabela Roque and Pioneer Insurance regarding insurance coverage of logs lost at sea. [1] Roque insured logs being transported by barge from Palawan to Manila, but the barge sank with the logs. [2] The appellate court found the barge was unseaworthy and absolved the insurer of liability, ruling the loss was from "perils of the ship" not covered, not "perils of the sea." [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding an implied warranty of seaworthiness on cargo owners and that the logs were lost due to the ship's defective condition, not a sea peril.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Isabel Roque V Iac GR L 66935

    Uploaded by

    Princess Faith
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Isabela Roque and Pioneer Insurance regarding insurance coverage of logs lost at sea. [1] Roque insured logs being transported by barge from Palawan to Manila, but the barge sank with the logs. [2] The appellate court found the barge was unseaworthy and absolved the insurer of liability, ruling the loss was from "perils of the ship" not covered, not "perils of the sea." [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding an implied warranty of seaworthiness on cargo owners and that the logs were lost due to the ship's defective condition, not a sea peril.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    FIRST DIVISION

    G.R. No. L-66935 November 11, 1985

    ISABELA ROQUE, doing busines under the name and style of Isabela Roque Timber Enterprises
    and ONG CHIONG, petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT and PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY
    CORPORATION, respondent.

    FACTS

    On February 19, 1972, the Manila Bay Lighterage Corporation (Manila Bay), a common carrier, entered into
    a contract with the petitioners whereby the former would load and carry on board its barge Mable 10 about
    422.18 cubic meters of logs from Malampaya Sound, Palawan to North Harbor, Manila. The petitioners
    insured the logs against loss for P100,000.00 with respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation
    (Pioneer).

    On February 29, 1972, the petitioners loaded on the barge, 811 pieces of logs at Malampaya Sound,
    Palawan for carriage and delivery to North Harbor, Port of Manila, but the shipment never reached its
    destination because Mable 10 sank with the 811 pieces of logs somewhere off Cabuli Point in Palawan on its
    way to Manila.

    As alleged by the petitioners in their complaint and as found by both the trial and appellate courts, the
    barge where the logs were loaded was not seaworthy such that it developed a leak. The appellate court
    further found that one of the hatches was left open causing water to enter the barge and because the barge
    was not provided with the necessary cover or tarpaulin, the ordinary splash of sea waves brought more
    water inside the barge.

    After hearing, the trial court found in favor of the petitioners.

    On January 30, 1984, the appellate court modified the trial court's decision and absolved Pioneer from
    liability after finding that there was a breach of implied warranty of seaworthiness on the part of the
    petitioners and that the loss of the insured cargo was caused by the "perils of the ship" and not by the
    "perils of the sea". It ruled that the loss is not covered by the marine insurance policy.

    After the appellate court denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed this petition with the
    following assignments of errors:

    ISSUE

    THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN CASES OF MARINE


    CARGO INSURANCE, THERE IS A WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS BY THE CARGO
    OWNER.

    II

    THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOSS OF THE
    CARGO IN THIS CASE WAS CAUSED BY "PERILS OF THE SHIP" AND NOT BY "PERILS OF
    THE SEA."

    RULING

    I. NO!
    The petitioners state that a mere shipper of cargo, having no control over the ship, has nothing to do with
    its seaworthiness. Section 99 of the same Code also provides in part.

    Marine insurance includes:

    (1) Insurance against loss of or damage to:

    (a) Vessels, craft, aircraft, vehicles, goods, freights, cargoes, merchandise, ...

    From the above-quoted provisions, there can be no mistaking the fact that the term "cargo" can be the
    subject of marine insurance and that once it is so made, the implied warranty of seaworthiness immediately
    attaches to whoever is insuring the cargo whether he be the shipowner or not.

    As we have ruled in the case of Go Tiaoco y Hermanos v. Union Insurance Society of Canton (40 Phil. 40):

    rule is accepted in our own Insurance Law (Act No. 2427, sec. 106 The same conclusion
    must be reached if the question be discussed with reference to the seaworthiness of the
    ship. It is universally accepted that in every contract of insurance upon anything which is
    the subject of marine insurance, a warranty is implied that the ship shall be seaworthy at
    the time of the inception of the voyage. This). ...

    Moreover, the fact that the unseaworthiness of the ship was unknown to the insured is immaterial in
    ordinary marine insurance and may not be used by him as a defense in order to recover on the marine
    insurance policy.

    Since the law provides for an implied warranty of seaworthiness in every contract of ordinary marine
    insurance, it becomes the obligation of a cargo owner to look for a reliable common carrier which keeps its
    vessels in seaworthy condition. The shipper of cargo may have no control over the vessel but he has full
    control in the choice of the common carrier that will transport his goods. Or the cargo owner may enter into
    a contract of insurance which specifically provides that the insurer answers not only for the perils of the sea
    but also provides for coverage of perils of the ship.

    II. NO!

    On the contention of the petitioners that the trial court found that the loss was occasioned by the perils
    of the sea characterized by the "storm and waves" which buffeted the vessel, the records show that the
    court ruled otherwise. It stated:

    xxx xxx xxx


    ... The other affirmative defense of defendant Lighterage, 'That the supposed loss of the logs
    was occasioned by force majeure... "was not supported by the evidence. At the time Mable 10
    sank, there was no typhoon but ordinary strong wind and waves, a condition which is natural
    and normal in the open sea.

    It must be considered to be settled, furthermore, that a loss which, in the ordinary course of events, results
    from the natural and inevitable action of the sea, from the ordinary wear and tear of the ship, or from the
    negligent failure of the ship's owner to provide the vessel with proper equipment to convey the cargo under
    ordinary conditions, is not a peril of the sea. Such a loss is rather due to what has been aptly called the
    "peril of the ship."

    In the present case the entrance of the sea water into the ship's hold through the defective pipe already
    described was not due to any accident which happened during the voyage, but to the failure of the ship's
    owner properly to repair a defect of the existence of which he was apprised. The loss was therefore more
    analogous to that which directly results from simple unseaworthiness than to that which result from the
    perils of the sea.

    You might also like