Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Container Terminal Services Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corp. G.R. No. 161539 June 27 2008 578 PHIL 751 762
International Container Terminal Services Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corp. G.R. No. 161539 June 27 2008 578 PHIL 751 762
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J : p
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated July 1, 1999 finding
petitioner liable.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in the assailed
Decision 3 dated October 22, 2003, affirmed the RTC Decision. Petitioner filed
a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution dated
January 8, 2004. 4
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, with the following assignment of errors:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY
THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF P3,500 PER PACKAGE WHICH
LIMITS PETITIONER'S LIABILITY, IF ANY, TO A TOTAL OF ONLY
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
P49,000.00 PURSUANT TO PPA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 10-
81. AHcCDI
Petitioner posits that its liability for the lost shipment should be limited
to P3,500.00 per package as provided in Philippine Ports Authority
Administrative Order No. 10-81 (PPA AO 10-81), under Article VI, Section
6.01 of which provides:
Section 6.01. Responsibility and Liability for Losses and
Damages; Exceptions. — The CONTRACTOR shall at its own expense
handle all merchandise in all work undertaken by it hereunder
deligently [sic] and in a skillful, workman-like and efficient manner;
that the CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an independent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
CONTRACTOR, and hereby agrees to accept liability and to promptly
pay to the shipping company consignees, consignors or other
interested party or parties for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of
cargoes to the extent of the actual invoice value of each package
which in no case shall be more than THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (P3,500.00) (for import cargo) . . . for each package unless the
value of the cargo importation is otherwise specified or
manifested or communicated in writing together with the
declared bill of lading value and supported by a certified
packing list to the CONTRACTOR by the interested party or
parties before the discharge . . . of the goods, as well as all
damage that may be suffered on account of loss, damage, or
destruction of any merchandise while in custody or under the control of
the CONTRACTOR in any pier, shed, warehouse facility or other
designated place under the supervision of the AUTHORITY . . . . 7
(Emphasis supplied) cHEATI
While it appears in the present case that the RAGC availed itself of
petitioner's services and therefore, PPA AO 10-81 should apply, the Court
finds that the extent of petitioner's liability should cover the actual value of
the lost shipment and not the P3,500.00 limit per package as provided in
said Order.
It is borne by the records that when Desma Cargo Handlers was
negotiating for the discharge of the shipment, it presented Hapag-Lloyd's Bill
of Lading, 10 Degussa's Commercial Invoice, which indicates that value of
the shipment, including seafreight charges, was DM94.960,00 (CFR Manila);
11 and Degussa's Packing List, which likewise notes that the value of the
Petitioner insists that Marine Open Policy No. MOP-12763 under which
the shipment was insured was no longer in force at the time it was loaded
on board the Hannover Express on June 10, 1994, as provided in the
Endorsement portion of the policy, which states: "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED
AND AGREED that effective June 10, 1994, this policy is deemed
CANCELLED." 16 FGU, on the other hand, insists that it was under Marine
Risk Note No. 9798, which was executed on May 26, 1994, that said
shipment was covered.
It must be emphasized that a marine risk note is not an insurance
policy. It is only an acknowledgment or declaration of the insurer confirming
the specific shipment covered by its marine open policy, the evaluation of
the cargo and the chargeable premium. 17 It is the marine open policy which
is the main insurance contract. In other words, the marine open policy is the
blanket insurance to be undertaken by FGU on all goods to be shipped by
RAGC during the existence of the contract, while the marine risk note
specifies the particular goods/shipment insured by FGU on that specific
transaction, including the sum insured, the shipment particulars as well as
the premium paid for such shipment. In any event, as it stands, it is evident
that even prior to the cancellation by FGU of Marine Open Policy No. MOP-
12763 on June 10, 1994, it had already undertaken to insure the shipment of
the 400 kgs. of silver nitrate, specially since RAGC had already paid the
premium on the insurance of said shipment. DHSaCA
As in Delsan, there is no doubt that the loss of the cargo in the present
case occurred while in petitioner's custody. Moreover, there is no issue as
regards the provisions of Marine Open Policy No. MOP-12763, such that the
presentation of the contract itself is necessary for perusal, not to mention
that its existence was already admitted by petitioner in open court. 22 And
even though it was not offered in evidence, it still can be considered by the
court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly
recorded and they have themselves been incorporated in the records of the
case. 23
Finally, petitioner questions the imposition of a 12% interest rate,
instead of 6%, on its adjudged liability. The ruling in Prudential Guarantee
and Assurance Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc., 24 to wit:
This Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
inscribed the rule of thumb in the application of interest to be imposed
on obligations, regardless of their source. Eastern emphasized beyond
cavil that when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, regardless of
whether the obligation involves a loan or forbearance of money, shall
be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim
period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
credit. STDEcA
is instructive. The CA did not commit any error in applying the same.
The Court notes, however, an apparent clerical error made in the
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision. While it appears that FGU paid RAGC
the amount of P1,835,068.88, as shown in the Subrogation Receipt, 26 as
prayed for in its Complaint, 27 the RTC awarded the sum of P1,875,068.88.
Thus, a necessary modification should be made on this score.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 22,
2003 and Resolution dated January 8, 2004 of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award in the RTC Decision dated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
July 1, 1999 should be P1,835,068.88 instead of P1,875,068.88. cCaEDA
Footnotes
2. Records, p. 18.
5. Rollo, p. 35.
6. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V
"National Honor", G.R. No. 161833 , July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 202, 215.
7. Records, pp. 440-442. EICDSA
15. Villaruel v. Manila Port Service, 131 Phil. 438, 444-445 (1968).
27. Id. at 5.