G.R. No. 150094 August 18, 2004

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Basic is the requirement that before suing to recover loss of or damage to transported goods, the plaintiff must give the carrier notice of the loss or damage, within the period prescribed by the Warsaw Convention and/or the airway bill.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the June 4, 2001 Decision2 and the September 21, 2001 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 58208. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed Decision of Branch 149 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 95-1219, entitled 'American Home Assurance Co. and PHILAM Insurance Co., Inc. v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION and/or CARGOHAUS, INC. (formerly U-WAREHOUSE, INC.),' is hereby AFFIRMED and REITERATED.

"Costs against the [petitioner and Cargohaus, Inc.]."4

The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts

The antecedent facts are summarized by the appellate court as follows:

"On January 26, 1994, SMITHKLINE Beecham (SMITHKLINE for brevity) of Nebraska, USA delivered to Burlington Air Express (BURLINGTON), an agent of [Petitioner] Federal Express Corporation, a shipment of 109 cartons of veterinary biologicals for delivery to consignee SMITHKLINE and French Overseas Company in Makati City, Metro Manila. The shipment was covered by Burlington Airway Bill No. 11263825 with the words, 'REFRIGERATE WHEN NOT IN TRANSIT' and 'PERISHABLE' stamp marked on its face. That same day, Burlington insured the cargoes in the amount of $39,339.00 with American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). The following day, Burlington turned over the custody of said cargoes to Federal Express which transported the same to Manila. The first shipment, consisting of 92 cartons arrived in Manila on January 29, 1994 in Flight No. 0071-28NRT and was immediately stored at

[Cargohaus Inc.'s] warehouse. While the second, consisting of 17 cartons, came in two (2) days later, or on January 31, 1994, in Flight No. 0071-30NRT which was likewise immediately stored at Cargohaus' warehouse. Prior to the arrival of the cargoes, Federal Express informed GETC Cargo International Corporation, the customs broker hired by the consignee to facilitate the release of its cargoes from the Bureau of Customs, of the impending arrival of its client's cargoes.

"On February 10, 1994, DARIO C. DIONEDA ('DIONEDA'), twelve (12) days after the cargoes arrived in Manila, a non-licensed custom's broker who was assigned by GETC to facilitate the release of the subject cargoes, found out, while he was about to cause the release of the said cargoes, that the same [were] stored only in a room with two (2) air conditioners running, to cool the place instead of a refrigerator. When he asked an employee of Cargohaus why the cargoes were stored in the 'cool room' only, the latter told him that the cartons where the vaccines were contained specifically indicated therein that it should not be subjected to hot or cold temperature. Thereafter, DIONEDA, upon instructions from GETC, did not proceed with the withdrawal of the vaccines and instead, samples of the same were taken and brought to the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines by SMITHKLINE for examination wherein it was discovered that the 'ELISA reading of vaccinates sera are below the positive reference serum.'

"As a consequence of the foregoing result of the veterinary biologics test, SMITHKLINE abandoned the shipment and, declaring 'total loss' for the unusable shipment, filed a claim with AHAC through its representative in the Philippines, the Philam Insurance Co., Inc. ('PHILAM') which recompensed SMITHKLINE for the whole insured amount of THIRTY NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE DOLLARS ($39,339.00). Thereafter, [respondents] filed an action for damages against the [petitioner] imputing negligence on either or both of them in the handling of the cargo.

"Trial ensued and ultimately concluded on March 18, 1997 with the [petitioner] being held solidarily liable for the loss as follows:

'WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondents] and [petitioner and its Co-Defendant Cargohaus] are directed to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the following:

1. Actual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of US$39,339.00 with interest from the time of the filing of the complaint to the time the same is fully paid.

2. Attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00 and

3. Costs of suit.

'SO ORDERED.'

"Aggrieved, [petitioner] appealed to [the CA]."5

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Test Report issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) was found by the CA to be inadmissible in evidence. Despite this ruling, the appellate court held that the shipping Receipts were a prima facie proof that the goods had indeed been delivered to the carrier in good condition. We quote from the ruling as follows:

"Where the plaintiff introduces evidence which shows prima facie that the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition [i.e., the shipping receipts], and that the carrier delivered the goods in a damaged condition, a presumption is raised that the damage occurred through the fault or negligence of the carrier, and this casts upon the carrier the burden of showing that the goods were not in good condition when delivered to the carrier, or that the damage was occasioned by some cause excepting the carrier from absolute liability. This the [petitioner] failed to discharge. x x x."6

Found devoid of merit was petitioner's claim that respondents had no personality to sue. This argument was supposedly not raised in the Answer or during trial.

Hence, this Petition.7

The Issues

In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:

"I.

Are the decision and resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals proper subject for review by the Honorable Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?

"II.

Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals – petitioner's claim that respondents have no personality to sue because the payment was made by the respondents to Smithkline when the insured under the policy is Burlington Air Express is devoid of merit – correct or not?

"III.

Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals that the goods were received in good condition, correct or not?

"IV.

Are Exhibits 'F' and 'G' hearsay evidence, and therefore, not admissible?

"V.

Is the Honorable Court of Appeals correct in ignoring and disregarding respondents' own admission that petitioner is not liable? and

"VI.

Is the Honorable Court of Appeals correct in ignoring the Warsaw Convention?"8

Simply stated, the issues are as follows: (1) Is the Petition proper for review by the Supreme Court? (2) Is Federal Express liable for damage to or loss of the insured goods?

This Court's Ruling

The Petition has merit.

Preliminary Issue:Propriety of Review

The correctness of legal conclusions drawn by the Court of Appeals from undisputed facts is a question of law cognizable by the Supreme Court.9

In the present case, the facts are undisputed. As will be shown shortly, petitioner is questioning the conclusions drawn from such facts. Hence, this case is a proper subject for review by this Court.

Main Issue:Liability for Damages

Petitioner contends that respondents have no personality to sue -- thus, no cause of action against it -- because the payment made to Smithkline was erroneous.

Pertinent to this issue is the Certificate of Insurance10 ("Certificate") that both opposing parties cite in support of their respective positions. They differ only in their interpretation of what their rights are under its terms. The determination of those rights involves a question of law, not a question of fact. "As distinguished from a question of law which exists 'when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts' -- 'there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts'; or when the 'query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstance, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.'"11

Proper Payee

The Certificate specifies that loss of or damage to the insured cargo is "payable to order x x x upon surrender of this Certificate." Such wording conveys the right of collecting on any such damage or loss, as fully as if the property were covered by a special policy in the name of the holder itself. At the back of the Certificate appears the signature of the representative of Burlington. This document has thus been duly indorsed in blank and is deemed a bearer instrument.

Since the Certificate was in the possession of Smithkline, the latter had the right of collecting or of being indemnified for loss of or damage to the insured shipment, as fully as if the property were covered by a special policy in the name of the holder. Hence, being the holder of the Certificate and having an insurable interest in the goods, Smithkline was the proper payee of the insurance proceeds.

Subrogation

Upon receipt of the insurance proceeds, the consignee (Smithkline) executed a subrogation Receipt12 in favor of respondents. The latter were thus authorized "to file claims and begin suit against any such carrier, vessel, person, corporation or government." Undeniably, the consignee had a legal right to receive the goods in the same condition it was delivered for transport to petitioner. If that right was violated, the consignee would have a cause of action against the person responsible therefor.

Upon payment to the consignee of an indemnity for the loss of or damage to the insured goods, the insurer's entitlement to subrogation pro tanto -- being of the highest equity -- equips it with a cause of action in case of a contractual breach or negligence.13 "Further, the insurer's subrogatory right to sue for recovery under the bill of lading in case of loss of or damage to the cargo is jurisprudentially upheld."14

In the exercise of its subrogatory right, an insurer may proceed against an erring carrier. To all intents and purposes, it stands in the place and in substitution of the consignee. A fortiori, both the insurer and the consignee are bound by the contractual stipulations under the bill of lading.15

Prescription of Claim

From the initial proceedings in the trial court up to the present, petitioner has tirelessly pointed out that respondents' claim and right of action are already barred. The latter, and even the consignee, never filed with the carrier any written notice or complaint regarding its claim for damage of or loss to the subject cargo within the period required by the Warsaw Convention and/or in the airway bill. Indeed, this fact has never been denied by respondents and is plainly evident from the records.

Airway Bill No. 11263825, issued by Burlington as agent of petitioner, states:

"6. No action shall be maintained in the case of damage to or partial loss of the shipment unless a written notice, sufficiently describing the goods concerned, the approximate date of the damage or loss, and the details of the claim, is presented by shipper or consignee to an office of Burlington within (14) days from the date the goods are placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery, or in the case of total loss (including non-delivery) unless presented within (120) days from the date of issue of the [Airway Bill]."16

Relevantly, petitioner's airway bill states:

"12./12.1 The person entitled to delivery must make a complaint to the carrier in writing in the case:

12.1.1 of visible damage to the goods, immediately after discovery of the damage and at the latest within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the goods;

12.1.2 of other damage to the goods, within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of the goods;

12.1.3 delay, within twenty-one (21) days of the date the goods are placed at his disposal; and

12.1.4 of non-delivery of the goods, within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of the issue of the air waybill.

12.2 For the purpose of 12.1 complaint in writing may be made to the carrier whose air waybill was used, or to the first carrier or to the last carrier or to the carrier who performed the transportation during which the loss, damage or delay took place."17

Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, on the other hand, provides:

"ART. 26. (1) Receipt by the person entitled to the delivery of baggage or goods without complaint shall be prima facie evidence that the same have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of transportation.

(2) In case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within 3 days from the date of receipt in the case of baggage and 7 days from the date of receipt in the case of goods. In case of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within 14 days from the date on which the baggage or goods have been placed at his disposal.

(3) Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of transportation or by separate notice in writing dispatched within the times aforesaid.

(4) Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on his part."18

Condition Precedent

In this jurisdiction, the filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefor actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of or damage to the goods.19 The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.20

The requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods is not an empty formalism. The fundamental reasons for such a stipulation are (1) to inform the carrier that the cargo has been damaged, and that it is being charged with liability therefor; and (2) to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. "This protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims."21

When an airway bill -- or any contract of carriage for that matter -- has a stipulation that requires a notice of claim for loss of or damage to goods shipped and the stipulation is not complied with, its enforcement can be prevented and the liability cannot be imposed on the carrier. To stress, notice is a condition precedent, and the carrier is not liable if notice is not given in accordance with the stipulation.22 Failure to comply with such a stipulation bars recovery for the loss or damage suffered.23

Being a condition precedent, the notice must precede a suit for enforcement.24 In the present case, there is neither an allegation nor a showing of respondents' compliance with this requirement within the prescribed period. While respondents may have had a cause of action then, they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply with the aforesaid condition precedent.

In view of the foregoing, we find no more necessity to pass upon the other issues raised by petitioner.

We note that respondents are not without recourse. Cargohaus, Inc. -- petitioner's co-defendant in respondents' Complaint below -- has been adjudged by the trial court as liable for, inter alia, "actual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of US $39,339."25 This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is already final and executory.26

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, and the assailed Decision REVERSED insofar as it pertains to Petitioner Federal Express Corporation. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 140349 June 29, 2005

SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals reversing the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch XIV, dismissing the complaint for damages for failure of the plaintiff to prove its case with a preponderance of evidence. Assailed as well is the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

THE FACTS

On 25 February 1992, Taiyo Yuden Philippines, Inc. (owner of the goods) and Delbros, Inc. (shipper) entered into a contract, evidenced by Bill of Lading No. CEB/SIN-008/92 issued by the latter in favor of the owner of the goods, for Delbros, Inc. to transport a shipment of goods consisting of three (3) wooden crates containing one hundred thirty-six (136) cartons of inductors and LC compound on board the V Singapore V20 from Cebu City to Singapore in favor of the consignee, Taiyo Yuden Singapore Pte, Ltd.

For the carriage of said shipment from Cebu City to Manila, Delbros, Inc. engaged the services of the vessel M/V Philippine Princess, owned and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (carrier). The vessel arrived at the North Harbor, Manila, on 24 February 1992.

During the unloading of the shipment, one crate containing forty-two (42) cartons dropped from the cargo hatch to the pier apron. The owner of the goods examined the dropped cargo, and upon an alleged finding that the contents of the crate were no longer usable for their intended purpose, they were rejected as a total loss and returned to Cebu City.

The owner of the goods filed a claim with herein petitioner-carrier for the recovery of the value of the rejected cargo which was refused by the latter. Thereafter, the owner of the goods sought payment from respondent First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (insurer) under a marine insurance policy issued to the former. Respondent-insurer paid the claim less thirty-five percent (35%) salvage value or P194, 220.31.

The payment of the insurance claim of the owner of the goods by the respondent-insurer subrogated the latter to whatever right or legal action the owner of the goods may have against Delbros, Inc. and petitioner-carrier, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. Thus, respondent-insurer then filed claims for reimbursement from Delbros, Inc. and petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. which were subsequently denied.

On 04 November 1992, respondent-insurer filed a suit for damages docketed as Civil Case No. 92-63337 with the trial court against Delbros, Inc. and herein petitioner-carrier. On 05 February 1993, petitioner-carrier filed its Answer with Counterclaim. Delbros, Inc. filed on 15 April 1993 its Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim, alleging that assuming the contents of the crate in question were truly in bad order, fault is with herein petitioner-carrier which was responsible for the unloading of the crates.

Petitioner-carrier filed its Answer to Delbros, Inc.’s cross-claim asserting that it observed extraordinary diligence in the handling, storage and general care of the shipment and that subsequent inspection of the shipment by the Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company showed that the contents of the third crate that had fallen were found to be in apparent sound condition, except that "2 cello bags each of 50 pieces ferri inductors No. LC FL 112270K-60 (c) were unaccounted for and missing as per packaging list."

After hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint for damages as well as the counterclaim filed by therein defendant Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and the cross-claim filed by Delbros, Inc. According to the RTC:

The plaintiff has failed to prove its case. The first witness for the plaintiff merely testified about the payment of the claim based on the documents accompanying the claim which were the Packing List, Commercial Invoices, Bill of Lading, Claims Statement, Marine Policies, Survey Report, Marine Risk Note, and the letter to Third Party carriers and shipping lines (Exhibit A-J).

The check was paid and delivered to the assured as evidenced by the check voucher and the subrogation receipt.

On cross-examination by counsel for the Sulpicio Lines, he said that their company paid the claim less 35% salvage value based on the adjuster report. This testimony is hearsay.

The second witness for the plaintiff, Arturo Valdez, testified, among others, that he, together with a co-surveyor and a representative of Sulpicio Lines had conducted a survey of the shipment at the

compound of Sulpicio Lines. He prepared a survey report (Exhibits G and G-1) and took a picture of shipment (Exhibit G-2).

On cross-examination, he said that two cartons were torn at the sides with top portion flaps opened and the 41 cartons were properly sealed and in good order conditions. Two cartons were already opened and slightly damaged. He merely looked at them but did not conduct an inspection of the contents. What he was referring to as slightly damaged were the cartons only and not the contents.

From the foregoing evidence, it is apparent that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case with a preponderance of evidence.

….

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Complaint, defendant Sulpicio Lines’ counterclaim and defendant Delbros Inc.’s cross-claim.4

A Motion for Reconsideration was then filed by herein respondent-insurer and subsequently denied by the trial court in an Order dated 07 February 1995 on the ground that it did not raise any new issue. Thus, respondent-insurer instituted an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the dismissal of the complaint by the lower court, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The decision appealed from is REVERSED. Defendants-appellees Delbros and Sulpicio Lines are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellant the sum of P194,220.31 representing actual damages, plus legal interest counted from the filing of the complaint until fully paid.5

The appellate court disposed of the issues in the case in this wise:

Furthermore, the evidence shows that one of the three crates fell during the unloading at the pier in Manila. The wooden crate which fell was damaged such that this particular crate was not anymore sent to Singapore and was instead shipped back to Cebu from Manila. Upon examination, it was found that two (2) cartons of the forty-two (42) cartons contained in this crate were externally damaged. They were torn at the sides and their top portions or flaps were open. These facts were admitted by all the parties. Defendant-appellees, however, insist that it was only the external packaging that was damaged, and that there was no actual damage to the goods such that would make them liable to the shipper. This theory is erroneous. When the goods are placed at a common carrier’s possession for delivery to a specified consignee, they are in good order and condition and are supposed to be transported and delivered to the consignee in the same state. In the case herein, the goods were received by defendant-appellee Delbros in Cebu properly packed in cardboard cartons and then placed in wooden crates, for delivery to the consignee in Singapore. However, before the shipment reached Singapore (while it was in Manila) one crate and 2 cartons contained therein were not anymore in their original state. They were no longer fit to be sent to Singapore.

….

As We have already found, there is damage suffered by the goods of the shipper. This consists in the destruction of one wooden crate and the tearing of two of the cardboard boxes therein rendering then unfit to be sent to Singapore. Defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines admits that this crate fell while it was being unloaded at the Manila pier. Falling of the crate was negligence on the part of defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines cannot exculpate itself from liability because it failed to prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees to prevent the damage.6

On 21 June 1999, herein petitioner-carrier filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals which was subsequently denied in a Resolution dated 13 October 1999. Hence, the instant petition.

During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Delbros, Inc. filed a manifestation stating that its appeal7 filed before this Court had been dismissed for being filed out of time and thus the case as against it was declared closed and terminated. As a consequence, it paid in full the amount of the damages awarded by the appellate court to the respondent-insurer. Before this Court, Delbros, Inc. prays for reimbursement, contribution, or indemnity from its co-defendant, herein petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for whatever it had paid to respondent-insurer in consonance with the decision of the appellate court declaring both Delbros, Inc. and petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. jointly and severally liable.

ISSUES

Petitioner-carrier raises the following issues in its petition:

1. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court justly and correctly dismissed the complaint against Sulpicio Lines, which dismissal is already final.

2. The Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal for failure of appellant to comply with the technical requirement of the Rules of Court.

RULING OF THE COURT

We shall first address the procedural issue raised by petitioner-carrier, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal for failure of respondent-insurer to attach a copy of the decision of the trial court to its appellant’s brief in violation of Rule 44, Section 13(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.8

A perusal of the records will show, however, that in a Resolution9 dated 13 August 1996, the Court of Appeals required herein respondent-insurer to submit seven (7) copies of the questioned decision within five (5) days from notice. Said Resolution was properly complied with.

As a rule, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the manner required by the pertinent rules for the perfection of an appeal. Nevertheless, this Court has allowed the filing of an appeal upon subsequent compliance with the requirements imposed by law,

where a strict application of the technical rules will impair the proper administration of justice. As enunciated by the Court in the case of Jaro v. Court of Appeals:10

There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz [336 SCRA 113] and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission [357SCRA 640], we ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized.11

We see no error, therefore, on the part of the Court of Appeals when it gave due course to the appeal after respondent-insurer had submitted copies of the RTC decision, albeit belatedly.

We now come to the substantial issues alleged by petitioner-carrier. The pivotal question to be considered in the resolution of this issue is whether or not, based on the evidence presented during the trial, the owner of the goods, respondent-insurer’s predecessor-in-interest, did incur damages, and if so, whether or not petitioner-carrier is liable for the same.

It cannot be denied that the shipment sustained damage while in the custody of petitioner-carrier. It is not disputed that one of the three (3) crates did fall from the cargo hatch to the pier apron while petitioner-carrier was unloading the cargo from its vessel. Neither is it impugned that upon inspection, it was found that two (2) cartons were torn on the side and the top flaps were open and that two (2) cello bags, each of 50 pieces ferri inductors, were missing from the cargo.

Petitioner-carrier contends that its liability, if any, is only to the extent of the cargo damage or loss and should not include the lack of fitness of the shipment for transport to Singapore due to the damaged packing. This is erroneous. Petitioner-carrier seems to belabor under the misapprehension that a distinction must be made between the cargo packaging and the contents of the cargo. According to it, damage to the packaging is not tantamount to damage to the cargo. It must be stressed that in the case at bar, the damage sustained by the packaging of the cargo while in petitioner-carrier’s custody resulted in its unfitness to be transported to its consignee in Singapore. Such failure to ship the cargo to its final destination because of the ruined packaging, indeed, resulted in damages on the part of the owner of the goods.

The falling of the crate during the unloading is evidence of petitioner-carrier’s negligence in handling the cargo. As a common carrier, it is expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the handling of goods placed in its possession for transport.12 The standard of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is considerably more demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence, i.e., the diligence of a good paterfamilias established in respect of the ordinary relations between members of society.13 A common carrier is bound to transport its cargo and its passengers safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all circumstances."14 The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding the damage to, or destruction of, the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery.15 It requires common carriers

to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires."16

Thus, when the shipment suffered damages as it was being unloaded, petitioner-carrier is presumed to have been negligent in the handling of the damaged cargo. Under Articles 173517 and 175218 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods under Article 1735, the common carrier must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 173319 of the Civil Code.20

Petitioner-carrier miserably failed to adduce any shred of evidence of the required extraordinary diligence to overcome the presumption that it was negligent in transporting the cargo.

Coming now to the issue of the extent of petitioner-carrier’s liability, it is undisputed that respondent-insurer paid the owner of the goods under the insurance policy the amount of P194,220.31 for the alleged damages the latter has incurred. Neither is there dispute as to the fact that Delbros, Inc. paid P194,220.31 to respondent-insurer in satisfaction of the whole amount of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals. The question then is: To what extent is Sulpicio Lines, Inc., as common carrier, liable for the damages suffered by the owner of the goods?

Upon respondent-insurer’s payment of the alleged amount of loss suffered by the insured (the owner of the goods), the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the insured may have against the common carrier whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss.21 Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim, including its remedies or securities.22 The rights to which the subrogee succeeds are the same as, but not greater than, those of the person for whom he is substituted, that is, he cannot acquire any claim, security or remedy the subrogor did not have.23 In other words, a subrogee cannot succeed to a right not possessed by the subrogor.24 A subrogee in effect steps into the shoes of the insured and can recover only if the insured likewise could have recovered.25

As found by the Court of Appeals, there was damage suffered by the goods which consisted in the destruction of one wooden crate and the tearing of two (2) cardboard boxes therein which rendered them unfit to be sent to Singapore.26 The falling of the crate was negligence on the part of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for which it cannot exculpate itself from liability because it failed to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence.27

Hence, we uphold the ruling of the appellate court that herein petitioner-carrier is liable to pay the amount paid by respondent-insurer for the damages sustained by the owner of the goods.

As stated in the manifestation filed by Delbros, Inc., however, respondent-insurer had already been paid the full amount granted by the Court of Appeals, hence, it will be tantamount to unjust enrichment for respondent-insurer to again recover damages from herein petitioner-carrier.

With respect to Delbros, Inc.’s prayer contained in its manifestation that, in case the decision in the instant case be adverse to petitioner-carrier, a pronouncement as to the matter of reimbursement, indemnification or contribution in favor of Delbros, Inc. be included in the decision, this Court will not pass upon said issue since Delbros, Inc. has no personality before this Court, it not being a party to the instant case. Notwithstanding, this shall not bar any action Delbros, Inc. may institute against petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. with respect to the damages the latter is liable to pay.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 May 1999 and its Resolution dated 13 October 1999 are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner, vs.TANTUCO ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.

PUNO, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52221 promulgated on January 14, 1999, which affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Lucena City in Civil Case No. 92-51 dated October 16, 1995.

Respondent Tantuco Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in the coconut oil milling and refining industry. It owns two oil mills. Both are located at factory compound at Iyam, Lucena City. It appears that respondent commenced its business operations with only one oil mill. In 1988, it started operating its second oil mill. The latter came to be commonly referred to as the new oil mill.

The two oil mills were separately covered by fire insurance policies issued by petitioner American Home Assurance Co., Philippine Branch.1 The first oil mill was insured for three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) under Policy No. 306-7432324-3 for the period March 1, 1991 to 1992.2 The new oil mill was insured for six million pesos (P6,000,000.00) under Policy No. 306-7432321-9 for the same term.3 Official receipts indicating payment for the full amount of the premium were issued by the petitioner's agent.4

A fire that broke out in the early morning of September 30,1991 gutted and consumed the new oil mill. Respondent immediately notified the petitioner of the incident. The latter then sent its appraisers who inspected the burned premises and the properties destroyed. Thereafter, in a letter dated October 15, 1991, petitioner rejected respondent's claim for the insurance proceeds on the ground that no policy was issued by it covering the burned oil mill. It stated that the description of the insured establishment referred to another building thus: "Our policy nos. 306-7432321-9 (Ps 6M) and 306-7432324-4 (Ps 3M) extend insurance coverage to your oil mill under Building No. 5, whilst the affected oil mill was under Building No. 14. "5

A complaint for specific performance and damages was consequently instituted by the respondent with the RTC, Branch 53 of Lucena City. On October 16, 1995, after trial, the lower court rendered a Decision finding the petitioner liable on the insurance policy thus:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering defendant to pay plaintiff:

(a) P4,406,536.40 representing damages for loss by fire of its insured property with interest at the legal rate;

(b) P80,000.00 for litigation expenses;

(c) P300,000.00 for and as attorney's fees; and

(d) Pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."6

Petitioner assailed this judgment before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court upheld the same in a Decision promulgated on January 14, 1999, the pertinent portion of which states:

"WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the trial court's Decision dated October 16, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED."7

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The motion, however, was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution promulgated on June 10, 1999.

Hence, the present course of action, where petitioner ascribes to the appellate court the following errors:

"(1) The Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion that the issue of non-payment of the premium was beyond its jurisdiction because it was raised for the first time on appeal."8

"(2) The Court of Appeals erred in its legal interpretation of 'Fire Extinguishing Appliances Warranty' of the policy."9

"(3) With due respect, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals giving no regard to the parole evidence rule and the principle of estoppel is erroneous."10

The petition is devoid of merit.

The primary reason advanced by the petitioner in resisting the claim of the respondent is that the burned oil mill is not covered by any insurance policy. According to it, the oil mill insured is specifically described in the policy by its boundaries in the following manner:

"Front: by a driveway thence at 18 meters distance by Bldg. No. 2.

Right: by an open space thence by Bldg. No. 4.

Left: Adjoining thence an imperfect wall by Bldg. No. 4.

Rear: by an open space thence at 8 meters distance."

However, it argues that this specific boundary description clearly pertains, not to the burned oil mill, but to the other mill. In other words, the oil mill gutted by fire was not the one described by the specific boundaries in the contested policy.

What exacerbates respondent's predicament, petitioner posits, is that it did not have the supposed wrong description or mistake corrected. Despite the fact that the policy in question was issued way back in 1988, or about three years before the fire, and despite the "Important Notice" in the policy that "Please read and examine the policy and if incorrect, return it immediately for alteration," respondent apparently did not call petitioner's attention with respect to the misdescription.

By way of conclusion, petitioner argues that respondent is "barred by the parole evidence rule from presenting evidence (other than the policy in question) of its self-serving intention (sic) that it intended really to insure the burned oil mill," just as it is "barred by estoppel from claiming that the description of the insured oil mill in the policy was wrong, because it retained the policy without having the same corrected before the fire by an endorsement in accordance with its Condition No. 28."

These contentions can not pass judicial muster.

In construing the words used descriptive of a building insured, the greatest liberality is shown by the courts in giving effect to the insurance.11 In view of the custom of insurance agents to examine buildings before writing policies upon them, and since a mistake as to the identity and character of the building is extremely unlikely, the courts are inclined to consider that the policy of insurance covers any building which the parties manifestly intended to insure, however inaccurate the description may be.12

Notwithstanding, therefore, the misdescription in the policy, it is beyond dispute, to our mind, that what the parties manifestly intended to insure was the new oil mill. This is obvious from the categorical statement embodied in the policy, extending its protection:

"On machineries and equipment with complete accessories usual to a coconut oil mill including stocks of copra, copra cake and copra mills whilst contained in the new oil mill building, situate (sic) at UNNO. ALONG NATIONAL HIGH WAY, BO. IYAM, LUCENA CITY UNBLOCKED.''13 (emphasis supplied.)

If the parties really intended to protect the first oil mill, then there is no need to specify it as new.

Indeed, it would be absurd to assume that respondent would protect its first oil mill for different amounts and leave uncovered its second one. As mentioned earlier, the first oil mill is already covered under Policy No. 306-7432324-4 issued by the petitioner. It is unthinkable for respondent to obtain the other policy from the very same company. The latter ought to know that a second agreement over that same realty results in its over insurance.

The imperfection in the description of the insured oil mill's boundaries can be attributed to a misunderstanding between the petitioner's general agent, Mr. Alfredo Borja, and its policy issuing clerk, who made the error of copying the boundaries of the first oil mill when typing the policy to be issued for the new one. As testified to by Mr. Borja:

"Atty. G. Camaligan:

Q: What did you do when you received the report?

A: I told them as will be shown by the map the intention really of Mr. Edison Tantuco is to cover the new oil mill that is why when I presented the existing policy of the old policy, the policy issuing clerk just merely (sic) copied the wording from the old policy and what she typed is that the description of the boundaries from the old policy was copied but she inserted covering the new oil mill and to me at that time the important thing is that it covered the new oil mill because it is just within one compound and there are only two oil mill[s] and so just enough, I had the policy prepared. In fact, two policies were prepared having the same date one for the old one and the other for the new oil mill and exactly the same policy period, sir."14 (emphasis supplied)

It is thus clear that the source of the discrepancy happened during the preparation of the written contract.

These facts lead us to hold that the present case falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the parole evidence rule. Under the Rules of Court, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, among others, its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.15 Here, the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. Thus, while the contract explicitly stipulated that it was for the insurance of the new oil mill, the boundary description written on the policy concededly pertains to the first oil mill. This irreconcilable difference can only be clarified by admitting evidence aliunde, which will explain the imperfection and clarify the intent of the parties.

Anent petitioner's argument that the respondent is barred by estoppel from claiming that the description of the insured oil mill in the policy was wrong, we find that the same proceeds from a wrong assumption. Evidence on record reveals that respondent's operating manager, Mr. Edison Tantuco, notified Mr. Borja (the petitioner's agent with whom respondent negotiated for the contract) about the inaccurate description in the policy. However, Mr. Borja assured Mr. Tantuco that the use of the adjective new will distinguish the insured property. The assurance convinced respondent, despite the impreciseness in the specification of the boundaries, the insurance will cover the new oil mill. This can be seen from the testimony on cross of Mr. Tantuco:

"ATTY. SALONGA:

Q: You mentioned, sir, that at least in so far as Exhibit A is concern you have read what the policy contents. (sic)

Kindly take a look in the page of Exhibit A which was marked as Exhibit A-2 particularly the boundaries of the property insured by the insurance policy Exhibit A, will you tell us as the manager of the company whether the boundaries stated in Exhibit A-2 are the boundaries of the old (sic) mill that was burned or not.

A: It was not, I called up Mr. Borja regarding this matter and he told me that what is important is the word new oil mill. Mr. Borja said, as a matter of fact, you can never insured (sic) one property with two (2) policies, you will only do that if you will make to increase the amount and it is by indorsement not by another policy, sir.,16

We again stress that the object of the court in construing a contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties to the contract and to enforce the agreement which the parties have entered into. In determining what the parties intended, the courts will read and construe the policy as a whole and if possible, give effect to all the parts of the contract, keeping in mind always, however, the prime rule that in the event of doubt, this doubt is to be resolved against the insurer. In determining the intent of the parties to the contract, the courts will consider the purpose and object of the contract.17

In a further attempt to avoid liability, petitioner claims that respondent forfeited the renewal policy for its failure to pay the full amount of the premium and breach of the Fire Extinguishing Appliances Warranty.

The amount of the premium stated on the face of the policy was P89,770.20. From the admission of respondent's own witness, Mr. Borja, which the petitioner cited, the former only paid it P75,147.00, leaving a difference of P14,623.20. The deficiency, petitioner argues, suffices to invalidate the policy, in accordance with Section 77 of the Insurance Code.18

The Court of Appeals refused to consider this contention of the petitioner. It held that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal, hence, beyond its jurisdiction to resolve, pursuant to Rule 46, Section 18 of the Rules of Court.19

Petitioner, however, contests this finding of the appellate court. It insists that the issue was raised in paragraph 24 of its Answer, viz.:

"24. Plaintiff has not complied with the condition of the policy and renewal certificate that the renewal premium should be paid on or before renewal date."

Petitioner adds that the issue was the subject of the cross-examination of Mr. Borja, who acknowledged that the paid amount was lacking by P14,623.20 by reason of a discount or rebate, which rebate under Sec. 361 of the Insurance Code is illegal.

The argument fails to impress. It is true that the asseverations petitioner made in paragraph 24 of its Answer ostensibly spoke of the policy's condition for payment of the renewal premium on time and respondent's non-compliance with it. Yet, it did not contain any specific and definite allegation that respondent did not pay the premium, or that it did not pay the full amount, or that it did not pay the amount on time.

Likewise, when the issues to be resolved in the trial court were formulated at the pre-trial proceedings, the question of the supposed inadequate payment was never raised. Most significant to point, petitioner fatally neglected to present, during the whole course of the trial, any witness to testify that respondent indeed failed to pay the full amount of the premium. The thrust of the cross-examination of Mr. Borja, on the other hand, was not for the purpose of proving this fact. Though it briefly touched on the alleged deficiency, such was made in the course of discussing a discount or rebate, which the agent apparently gave the respondent. Certainly, the whole tenor of Mr. Borja's testimony, both during direct and cross examinations, implicitly assumed a valid and subsisting insurance policy. It must be remembered that he was called to the stand basically to demonstrate that an existing policy issued by the petitioner covers the burned building.

Finally, petitioner contends that respondent violated the express terms of the Fire Extinguishing Appliances Warranty. The said warranty provides:

"WARRANTED that during the currency of this Policy, Fire Extinguishing Appliances as mentioned below shall be maintained in efficient working order on the premises to which insurance applies:

- PORTABLE EXTINGUISHERS

- INTERNAL HYDRANTS

- EXTERNAL HYDRANTS

- FIRE PUMP

- 24-HOUR SECURITY SERVICES

BREACH of this warranty shall render this policy null and void and the Company shall no longer be liable for any loss which may occur."20

Petitioner argues that the warranty clearly obligates the insured to maintain all the appliances specified therein. The breach occurred when the respondent failed to install internal fire hydrants inside the burned building as warranted. This fact was admitted by the oil mill's expeller operator, Gerardo Zarsuela.

Again, the argument lacks merit. We agree with the appellate court's conclusion that the aforementioned warranty did not require respondent to provide for all the fire extinguishing appliances enumerated therein. Additionally, we find that neither did it require that the appliances are restricted to those mentioned in the warranty. In other words, what the warranty mandates is that respondent should maintain in efficient working condition within the premises of the insured property, fire fighting equipments such as, but not limited to, those identified in the list, which will serve as the oil mill's first line of defense in case any part of it bursts into flame.

To be sure, respondent was able to comply with the warranty. Within the vicinity of the new oil mill can be found the following devices: numerous portable fire extinguishers, two fire hoses,21 fire hydrant,22

and an emergency fire engine.23 All of these equipments were in efficient working order when the fire occurred.

It ought to be remembered that not only are warranties strictly construed against the insurer, but they should, likewise, by themselves be reasonably interpreted.24 That reasonableness is to be ascertained in light of the factual conditions prevailing in each case. Here, we find that there is no more need for an internal hydrant considering that inside the burned building were: (1) numerous portable fire extinguishers, (2) an emergency fire engine, and (3) a fire hose which has a connection to one of the external hydrants.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, finding no reversible error in the impugned Decision, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39836 promulgated on June 17, 1996, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of Five Million Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Five Pesos and Fifty-Seven Centavos (P5,096,635.57) and costs and the Resolution2 dated January 21, 1997 which denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The facts show that Caltex Philippines (Caltex for brevity) entered into a contract of affreightment with the petitioner, Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., for a period of one year whereby the said common carrier agreed to transport Caltex’s industrial fuel oil from the Batangas-Bataan Refinery to different parts of the country. Under the contract, petitioner took on board its vessel, MT Maysun 2,277.314 kiloliters of industrial fuel oil of Caltex to be delivered to the Caltex Oil Terminal in Zamboanga City. The shipment was insured with the private respondent, American Home Assurance Corporation.

On August 14, 1986, MT Maysum set sail from Batangas for Zamboanga City. Unfortunately, the vessel sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay Gulf in the Visayas taking with it the entire cargo of fuel oil.

Subsequently, private respondent paid Caltex the sum of Five Million Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Five Pesos and Fifty-Seven Centavos (P5,096,635.67) representing the insured value of the lost cargo. Exercising its right of subrogation under Article 2207 of the New Civil Code, the private respondent demanded of the petitioner the same amount it paid to Caltex.1âwphi1.nêt

Due to its failure to collect from the petitioner despite prior demand, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, for collection of a sum of money. After the trial and upon analyzing the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered a decision on November 29, 1990 dismissing the complaint against herein petitioner without pronouncement as to cost. The trial court found that the vessel, MT Maysum, was seaworthy to undertake the voyage as determined by the Philippine Coast Guard per Survey Certificate Report No. M5-016-MH upon inspection during its annual dry-docking and that the incident was caused by unexpected inclement weather condition or force majeure, thus exempting the common carrier (herein petitioner) from liability for the loss of its cargo.3

The decision of the trial court, however, was reversed, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court gave credence to the weather report issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA for brevity) which showed that from 2:00 o’clock to 8:oo o’clock in the morning on August 16, 1986, the wind speed remained at 10 to 20 knots per hour while the waves measured from .7 to two (2) meters in height only in the vicinity of the Panay Gulf where the subject vessel sank, in contrast to herein petitioner’s allegation that the waves were twenty (20) feet high. In the absence of any explanation as to what may have caused the sinking of the vessel coupled with the finding that the same was improperly manned, the appellate court ruled that the petitioner is liable on its obligation as common carrier4 to herein private respondent insurance company as subrogee of Caltex. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of herein petitioner was denied by the appellate court.

Petitioner raised the following assignments of error in support of the instant petition,5 to wit:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REBUTTING THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT THE VESSEL MT "MAYSUN" WAS SEAWORTHY.

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOME INSURANCE CORPORATION V. COURT OF APPEALS.

Petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. invokes the provision of Section 113 of the Insurance Code of the Philippines, which states that in every marine insurance upon a ship or freight, or freightage, or upon any thin which is the subject of marine insurance there is an implied warranty by the shipper that the ship is seaworthy. Consequently, the insurer will not be liable to the assured for any loss under the policy in case the vessel would later on be found as not seaworthy at the inception of the insurance. It theorized that when private respondent paid Caltex the value of its lost cargo, the act of the private respondent is equivalent to a tacit recognition that the ill-fated vessel was seaworthy; otherwise, private

respondent was not legally liable to Caltex due to the latter’s breach of implied warranty under the marine insurance policy that the vessel was seaworthy.

The petitioner also alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that MT Maysun was not seaworthy on the ground that the marine officer who served as the chief mate of the vessel, Francisco Berina, was allegedly not qualified. Under Section 116 of the Insurance Code of the Philippines, the implied warranty of seaworthiness of the vessel, which the private respondent admitted as having been fulfilled by its payment of the insurance proceeds to Caltex of its lost cargo, extends to the vessel’s complement. Besides, petitioner avers that although Berina had merely a 2nd officer’s license, he was qualified to act as the vessel’s chief officer under Chapter IV(403), Category III(a)(3)(ii)(aa) of the Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations. In fact, all the crew and officers of MT Maysun were exonerated in the administrative investigation conducted by the Board of Marine Inquiry after the subject accident.6

In any event, petitioner further avers that private respondent failed, for unknown reason, to present in evidence during the trial of the instant case the subject marine cargo insurance policy it entered into with Caltex. By virtue of the doctrine laid down in the case of Home Insurance Corporation vs. CA,7 the failure of the private respondent to present the insurance policy in evidence is allegedly fatal to its claim inasmuch as there is no way to determine the rights of the parties thereto.

Hence, the legal issues posed before the Court are:

I

Whether or not the payment made by the private respondent to Caltex for the insured value of the lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was seaworthy, thus precluding any action for recovery against the petitioner.

II

Whether or not the non-presentation of the marine insurance policy bars the complaint for recovery of sum of money for lack of cause of action.

We rule in the negative on both issues.

The payment made by the private respondent for the insured value of the lost cargo operates as waiver of its (private respondent) right to enforce the term of the implied warranty against Caltex under the marine insurance policy. However, the same cannot be validly interpreted as an automatic admission of the vessel’s seaworthiness by the private respondent as to foreclose recourse against the petitioner for any liability under its contractual obligation as a common carrier. The fact of payment grants the private respondent subrogatory right which enables it to exercise legal remedies that would otherwise be available to Caltex as owner of the lost cargo against the petitioner common carrier.8 Article 2207 of the New civil Code provides that:

Art. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the

insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.

The right of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is designed to promote and to accomplish justice and is the mode which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice and good conscience ought to pay.9 It is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.10 Consequently, the payment made by the private respondent (insurer) to Caltex (assured) operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against the petitioner.

From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstance of each case.11 In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity.12 In all other cases, 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.13

In order to escape liability for the loss of its cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex, petitioner attributes the sinking of MT Maysun to fortuitous even or force majeure. From the testimonies of Jaime Jarabe and Francisco Berina, captain and chief mate, respectively of the ill-fated vessel, it appears that a sudden and unexpected change of weather condition occurred in the early morning of August 16, 1986; that at around 3:15 o’clock in the morning a squall ("unos") carrying strong winds with an approximate velocity of 30 knots per hour and big waves averaging eighteen (18) to twenty (20) feet high, repeatedly buffeted MT Maysun causing it to tilt, take in water and eventually sink with its cargo.14 This tale of strong winds and big waves by the said officers of the petitioner however, was effectively rebutted and belied by the weather report15 from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the independent government agency charged with monitoring weather and sea conditions, showing that from 2:00 o’clock to 8:00 o’clock in the morning on August 16, 1986, the wind speed remained at ten (10) to twenty (20) knots per hour while the height of the waves ranged from .7 to two (2) meters in the vicinity of Cuyo East Pass and Panay Gulf where the subject vessel sank. Thus, as the appellate court correctly ruled, petitioner’s vessel, MT Maysun, sank with its entire cargo for the reason that it was not seaworthy. There was no squall or bad weather or extremely poor sea condition in the vicinity when the said vessel sank.

The appellate court also correctly opined that the petitioner’s witnesses, Jaime Jarabe and Francisco Berina, ship captain and chief mate, respectively, of the said vessel, could not be expected to testify against the interest of their employer, the herein petitioner common carrier.

Neither may petitioner escape liability by presenting in evidence certificates16 that tend to show that at the time of dry-docking and inspection by the Philippine Coast Guard, the vessel MT Maysun, was fit for voyage. These pieces of evidence do not necessarily take into account the actual condition of the vessel at the time of the commencement of the voyage. As correctly observed by the Court of appeals:

At the time of dry-docking and inspection, the ship may have appeared fit. The certificates issued, however, do not negate the presumption of unseaworthiness triggered by an unexplained sinking. Of certificates issued in this regard, authorities are likewise clear as to their probative value, (thus):

Seaworthiness relates to a vessel’s actual condition. Neither the granting of classification or the issuance of certificates established seaworthiness. (2-A Benedict on Admiralty, 7-3, Sec. 62).

And also:

Authorities are clear that diligence in securing certificates of seaworthiness does not satisfy the vessel owner’s obligation. Also securing the approval of the shipper of the cargo, or his surveyor, of the condition of the vessel or her stowage does not establish due diligence if the vessel was in fact unseaworthy, for the cargo owner has no obligation in relation to seaworthiness. (Ibid.)17

Additionally, the exoneration of MT Maysun’s officers and crew by the Board of Marine Inquiry merely concerns their respective administrative liabilities. It does not in any way operate to absolve the petitioner common carrier from its civil liabilities. It does not in any way operate to absolve the petitioner common carrier from its civil liability arising from its failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was transporting and for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, the determination of which properly belongs to the courts.18 In the case at bar, petitioner is liable for the insured value of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex for its failure to rebut the presumption of fault or negligence as common carrier19 occasioned by the unexplained sinking of its vessel, MT Maysun, while in transit.

Anent the second issue, it is our view and so hold that the presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in this case before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of herein private respondent as insurer and Caltex, as the assured shipper of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.20

The presentation of the insurance policy was necessary in the case of Home Insurance Corporation v. CA21 (a case cited by petitioner) because the shipment therein (hydraulic engines) passed through several stages with different parties involved in each stage. 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 or arrival; fifth, from the port of arrival to the arrastre operator; sixth, from the arrastre operator to the hauler, Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc. (private respondent therein); and lastly, from the hauler to the

consignee. We emphasized in that case that 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. Ordinarily, it cannot be held responsible for the handling of the cargo before it actually received it. The insurance contract, which was not presented in evidence in that case would have indicated the scope of the insurer’s liability, if any, since no evidence was adduced indicating at what stage in the handling process the damage to the cargo was sustained.

Hence, our ruling on the presentation of the insurance policy in the said case of Home Insurance Corporation is not applicable to the case at bar. In contrast, there is no doubt that the cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex, in the case at bar, was lost while on board petitioner’s vessel, MT Maysun, which sank while in transit in the vicinity of Panay Gulf and Cuyo East Pass in the early morning of August 16, 1986.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 17, 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39836 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêt

G.R. No. 151890 June 20, 2006

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE INC., petitioner, vs.TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC., Respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 151991 June 20, 2006

TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J:

This is a consolidation of two separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (PRUDENTIAL) in G.R. No. 151890 and Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. (TRANS-ASIA) in G.R. No. 151991, assailing the Decision1 dated 6 November 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 68278, which reversed the Judgment2 dated 6 June 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-20709. The 29 January 2002 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals, denying PRUDENTIAL’s Motion for Reconsideration and TRANS-ASIA’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the 6 November 2001 Decision, is likewise sought to be annulled and set aside.

The Facts

The material antecedents as found by the court a quo and adopted by the appellate court are as follows:

Plaintiff [TRANS-ASIA] is the owner of the vessel M/V Asia Korea. In consideration of payment of premiums, defendant [PRUDENTIAL] insured M/V Asia Korea for loss/damage of the hull and machinery arising from perils, inter alia, of fire and explosion for the sum of P40 Million, beginning [from] the period [of] July 1, 1993 up to July 1, 1994. This is evidenced by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363 (Exhibits "A" to "A-11"). On October 25, 1993, while the policy was in force, a fire broke out while [M/V Asia Korea was] undergoing repairs at the port of Cebu. On October 26, 1993 plaintiff [TRANS-ASIA] filed its notice of claim for damage sustained by the vessel. This is evidenced by a letter/formal claim of even date (Exhibit "B"). Plaintiff [TRANS-ASIA] reserved its right to subsequently notify defendant [PRUDENTIAL] as to the full amount of the claim upon final survey and determination by average adjuster Richard Hogg International (Phil.) of the damage sustained by reason of fire. An adjuster’s report on the fire in question was submitted by Richard Hogg International together with the U-Marine Surveyor Report (Exhibits "4" to "4-115").

On May 29, 1995[,] plaintiff [TRANS-ASIA] executed a document denominated "Loan and Trust receipt", a portion of which read (sic):

"Received from Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., the sum of PESOS THREE MILLION ONLY (P3,000,000.00) as a loan without interest under Policy No. MH 93/1353 [sic], repayable only in the event and to the extent that any net recovery is made by Trans-Asia Shipping Corporation, from any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or other parties, on account of loss by any casualty for which they may be liable occasioned by the 25 October 1993: Fire on Board." (Exhibit "4")

In a letter dated 21 April 1997 defendant [PRUDENTIAL] denied plaintiff’s claim (Exhibit "5"). The letter reads:

"After a careful review and evaluation of your claim arising from the above-captioned incident, it has been ascertained that you are in breach of policy conditions, among them "WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED". Accordingly, we regret to advise that your claim is not compensable and hereby DENIED."

This was followed by defendant’s letter dated 21 July 1997 requesting the return or payment of the P3,000,000.00 within a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the letter (Exhibit "6").4

Following this development, on 13 August 1997, TRANS-ASIA filed a Complaint5 for Sum of Money against PRUDENTIAL with the RTC of Cebu City, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-20709, wherein TRANS-ASIA sought the amount of P8,395,072.26 from PRUDENTIAL, alleging that the same represents the balance of the indemnity due upon the insurance policy in the total amount of P11,395,072.26. TRANS-ASIA similarly sought interest at 42% per annum citing Section 2436 of Presidential Decreee No. 1460, otherwise known as the "Insurance Code," as amended.

In its Answer,7 PRUDENTIAL denied the material allegations of the Complaint and interposed the defense that TRANS-ASIA breached insurance policy conditions, in particular: "WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED

AND CLASS MAINTAINED." PRUDENTIAL further alleged that it acted as facts and law require and incurred no liability to TRANS-ASIA; that TRANS-ASIA has no cause of action; and, that its claim has been effectively waived and/or abandoned, or it is estopped from pursuing the same. By way of a counterclaim, PRUDENTIAL sought a refund of P3,000,000.00, which it allegedly advanced to TRANS-ASIA by way of a loan without interest and without prejudice to the final evaluation of the claim, including the amounts of P500,000.00, for survey fees and P200,000.00, representing attorney’s fees.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 6 June 2000, the court a quo rendered Judgment8 finding for (therein defendant) PRUDENTIAL. It ruled that a determination of the parties’ liabilities hinged on whether TRANS-ASIA violated and breached the policy conditions on WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. It interpreted the provision to mean that TRANS-ASIA is required to maintain the vessel at a certain class at all times pertinent during the life of the policy. According to the court a quo, TRANS-ASIA failed to prove compliance of the terms of the warranty, the violation thereof entitled PRUDENTIAL, the insured party, to rescind the contract.9

Further, citing Section 10710 of the Insurance Code, the court a quo ratiocinated that the concealment made by TRANS-ASIA that the vessel was not adequately maintained to preserve its class was a material concealment sufficient to avoid the policy and, thus, entitled the injured party to rescind the contract. The court a quo found merit in PRUDENTIAL’s contention that there was nothing in the adjustment of the particular average submitted by the adjuster that would show that TRANS-ASIA was not in breach of the policy. Ruling on the denominated loan and trust receipt, the court a quo said that in substance and in form, the same is a receipt for a loan. It held that if TRANS-ASIA intended to receive the amount of P3,000,000.00 as advance payment, it should have so clearly stated as such.

The court a quo did not award PRUDENTIAL’s claim for P500,000.00, representing expert survey fees on the ground of lack of sufficient basis in support thereof. Neither did it award attorney’s fees on the rationalization that the instant case does not fall under the exceptions stated in Article 220811 of the Civil Code. However, the court a quo granted PRUDENTIAL’s counterclaim stating that there is factual and legal basis for TRANS-ASIA to return the amount of P3,000,000.00 by way of loan without interest.

The decretal portion of the Judgment of the RTC reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for its failure to prove a cause of action.

On defendant’s counterclaim, plaintiff is directed to return the sum of P3,000,000.00 representing the loan extended to it by the defendant, within a period of ten (10) days from and after this judgment shall have become final and executory.12

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal by TRANS-ASIA, the Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision of 6 November 2001, reversed the 6 June 2000 Judgment of the RTC.

On the issue of TRANS-ASIA’s alleged breach of warranty of the policy condition CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, the Court of Appeals ruled that PRUDENTIAL, as the party asserting the non-compensability of the loss had the burden of proof to show that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty, which burden it failed to discharge. PRUDENTIAL cannot rely on the lack of certification to the effect that TRANS-ASIA was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED as its sole basis for reaching the conclusion that the warranty was breached. The Court of Appeals opined that the lack of a certification does not necessarily mean that the warranty was breached by TRANS-ASIA. Instead, the Court of Appeals considered PRUDENTIAL’s admission that at the time the insurance contract was entered into between the parties, the vessel was properly classed by Bureau Veritas, a classification society recognized by the industry. The Court of Appeals similarly gave weight to the fact that it was the responsibility of Richards Hogg International (Phils.) Inc., the average adjuster hired by PRUDENTIAL, to secure a copy of such certification to support its conclusion that mere absence of a certification does not warrant denial of TRANS-ASIA’s claim under the insurance policy.

In the same token, the Court of Appeals found the subject warranty allegedly breached by TRANS-ASIA to be a rider which, while contained in the policy, was inserted by PRUDENTIAL without the intervention of TRANS-ASIA. As such, it partakes of a nature of a contract d’adhesion which should be construed against PRUDENTIAL, the party which drafted the contract. Likewise, according to the Court of Appeals, PRUDENTIAL’s renewal of the insurance policy from noon of 1 July 1994 to noon of 1 July 1995, and then again, until noon of 1 July 1996 must be deemed a waiver by PRUDENTIAL of any breach of warranty committed by TRANS-ASIA.

Further, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the ruling of the court a quo, interpreted the transaction between PRUDENTIAL and TRANS-ASIA as one of subrogation, instead of a loan. The Court of Appeals concluded that TRANS-ASIA has no obligation to pay back the amount of P3,000.000.00 to PRUDENTIAL based on its finding that the aforesaid amount was PRUDENTIAL’s partial payment to TRANS-ASIA’s claim under the policy. Finally, the Court of Appeals denied TRANS-ASIA’s prayer for attorney’s fees, but held TRANS-ASIA entitled to double interest on the policy for the duration of the delay of payment of the unpaid balance, citing Section 24413 of the Insurance Code.

Finding for therein appellant TRANS-ASIA, the Court of Appeals ruled in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing consideration, We find for Appellant. The instant appeal is ALLOWED and the Judgment appealed from REVERSED. The P3,000,000.00 initially paid by appellee Prudential Guarantee Assurance Incorporated to appellant Trans-Asia and covered by a "Loan and Trust Receipt" dated 29 May 1995 is HELD to be in partial settlement of the loss suffered by appellant and covered by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363 issued by appellee. Further, appellee is hereby ORDERED to pay appellant the additional amount of P8,395,072.26 representing the balance of the loss suffered by the latter as recommended by the average adjuster Richard Hogg International (Philippines) in its Report, with double interest starting from the time Richard Hogg’s Survey Report was completed, or on 13 August 1996, until the same is fully paid.

All other claims and counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.

All costs against appellee.14

Not satisfied with the judgment, PRUDENTIAL and TRANS-ASIA filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Partial Motion for Reconsideration thereon, respectively, which motions were denied by the Court of Appeals in the Resolution dated 29 January 2002.

The Issues

Aggrieved, PRUDENTIAL filed before this Court a Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. 151890, relying on the following grounds, viz:

I.

THE AWARD IS GROSSLY UNCONSCIONABLE.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION BY TRANS-ASIA OF A MATERIAL WARRANTY, NAMELY, WARRANTY CLAUSE NO. 5, OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PRUDENTIAL, AS INSURER HAD THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE ASSURED, TRANS-ASIA, VIOLATED A MATERIAL WARRANTY.

IV.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE WARRANTY CLAUSE EMBODIED IN THE INSURANCE POLICY CONTRACT WAS A MERE RIDER.

V.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED RENEWALS OF THE POLICY CONSTITUTED A WAIVER ON THE PART OF PRUDENTIAL OF THE BREACH OF THE WARRANTY BY TRANS-ASIA.

VI.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE "LOAN AND TRUST RECEIPT" EXECUTED BY TRANS-ASIA IS AN ADVANCE ON THE POLICY, THUS CONSTITUTING PARTIAL PAYMENT THEREOF.

VII.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCEPTANCE BY PRUDENTIAL OF THE FINDINGS OF RICHARDS HOGG IS INDICATIVE OF A WAIVER ON THE PART OF PRUDENTIAL OF ANY VIOLATION BY TRANS-ASIA OF THE WARRANTY.

VIII.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRRED (sic) IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT, IN FINDING THAT PRUDENTIAL "UNJUSTIFIABLY REFUSED" TO PAY THE CLAIM AND IN ORDERING PRUDENTIAL TO PAY TRANS-ASIA P8,395,072.26 PLUS DOUBLE INTEREST FROM 13 AUGUST 1996, UNTIL [THE] SAME IS FULLY PAID.15

Similarly, TRANS-ASIA, disagreeing in the ruling of the Court of Appeals filed a Petition for Review docketed as G.R. No. 151991, raising the following grounds for the allowance of the petition, to wit:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PETITIONER TRANS-ASIA ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CAN ONLY BE AWARDED IN THE CASES ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE 2208 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AND THERE BEING NO BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT PRUDENTIAL IN DENYING HEREIN PETITIONER TRANS-ASIA’S INSURANCE CLAIM.

II.

THE "DOUBLE INTEREST" REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION DATED 06 NOVEMBER 2001 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN DOUBLE INTEREST BASED ON THE LEGAL INTEREST OF 12%, OR INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 24% PER ANNUM.16

In our Resolution of 2 December 2002, we granted TRANS-ASIA’s Motion for Consolidation17 of G.R. Nos. 151890 and 151991;18 hence, the instant consolidated petitions.

In sum, for our main resolution are: (1) the liability, if any, of PRUDENTIAL to TRANS-ASIA arising from the subject insurance contract; (2) the liability, if any, of TRANS-ASIA to PRUDENTIAL arising from the transaction between the parties as evidenced by a document denominated as "Loan and Trust Receipt," dated 29 May 1995; and (3) the amount of interest to be imposed on the liability, if any, of either or both parties.

Ruling of the Court

Prefatorily, it must be emphasized that in a petition for review, only questions of law, and not questions of fact, may be raised.19 This rule may be disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record.20 In the case at bar, we find an incongruence between the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the court a quo, thus, in our determination of the issues, we are constrained to assess the evidence adduced by the parties to make appropriate findings of facts as are necessary.

I.

A. PRUDENTIAL failed to establish that TRANS-ASIA violated and breached the policy condition on WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, as contained in the subject insurance contract.

In resisting the claim of TRANS-ASIA, PRUDENTIAL posits that TRANS-ASIA violated an express and material warranty in the subject insurance contract, i.e., Marine Insurance Policy No. MH93/1363, specifically Warranty Clause No. 5 thereof, which stipulates that the insured vessel, "M/V ASIA KOREA"

is required to be CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. According to PRUDENTIAL, on 25 October 1993, or at the time of the occurrence of the fire, "M/V ASIA KOREA" was in violation of the warranty as it was not CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. PRUDENTIAL submits that Warranty Clause No. 5 was a condition precedent to the recovery of TRANS-ASIA under the policy, the violation of which entitled PRUDENTIAL to rescind the contract under Sec. 7421 of the Insurance Code.

The warranty condition CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED was explained by PRUDENTIAL’s Senior Manager of the Marine and Aviation Division, Lucio Fernandez. The pertinent portions of his testimony on direct examination is reproduced hereunder, viz:

ATTY. LIM

Q Please tell the court, Mr. Witness, the result of the evaluation of this claim, what final action was taken?

A It was eventually determined that there was a breach of the policy condition, and basically there is a breach of policy warranty condition and on that basis the claim was denied.

Q To refer you (sic) the "policy warranty condition," I am showing to you a policy here marked as Exhibits "1", "1-A" series, please point to the warranty in the policy which you said was breached or violated by the plaintiff which constituted your basis for denying the claim as you testified.

A Warranted Vessel Classed and Class Maintained.

ATTY. LIM

Witness pointing, Your Honor, to that portion in Exhibit "1-A" which is the second page of the policy below the printed words: "Clauses, Endorsements, Special Conditions and Warranties," below this are several typewritten clauses and the witness pointed out in particular the clause reading: "Warranted Vessel Classed and Class Maintained."

COURT

Q Will you explain that particular phrase?

A Yes, a warranty is a condition that has to be complied with by the insured. When we say a class warranty, it must be entered in the classification society.

COURT

Slowly.

WITNESS

(continued)

A A classification society is an organization which sets certain standards for a vessel to maintain in order to maintain their membership in the classification society. So, if they failed to meet that standard, they are considered not members of that class, and thus breaching the warranty, that requires them to maintain membership or to maintain their class on that classification society. And it is not sufficient that the member of this classification society at the time of a loss, their membership must be continuous for the whole length of the policy such that during the effectivity of the policy, their classification is suspended, and then thereafter, they get reinstated, that again still a breach of the warranty that they maintained their class (sic). Our maintaining team membership in the classification society thereby maintaining the standards of the vessel (sic).

ATTY. LIM

Q Can you mention some classification societies that you know?

A Well we have the Bureau Veritas, American Bureau of Shipping, D&V Local Classification Society, The Philippine Registration of Ships Society, China Classification, NKK and Company Classification Society, and many others, we have among others, there are over 20 worldwide. 22

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the party which alleges a fact as a matter of defense has the burden of proving it. PRUDENTIAL, as the party which asserted the claim that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty in the policy, has the burden of evidence to establish the same. Hence, on the part of PRUDENTIAL lies the initiative to show proof in support of its defense; otherwise, failing to establish the same, it remains self-serving. Clearly, if no evidence on the alleged breach of TRANS-ASIA of the subject warranty is shown, a fortiori, TRANS-ASIA would be successful in claiming on the policy. It follows that PRUDENTIAL bears the burden of evidence to establish the fact of breach.

In our rule on evidence, TRANS-ASIA, as the plaintiff below, necessarily has the burden of proof to show proof of loss, and the coverage thereof, in the subject insurance policy. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.23 TRANS-ASIA was able to establish proof of loss and the coverage of the loss, i.e., 25 October 1993: Fire on Board. Thereafter, the burden of evidence shifted to PRUDENTIAL to counter TRANS-ASIA’s case, and to prove its special and affirmative defense that TRANS-ASIA was in violation of the particular condition on CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED.

We sustain the findings of the Court of Appeals that PRUDENTIAL was not successful in discharging the burden of evidence that TRANS-ASIA breached the subject policy condition on CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED.

Foremost, PRUDENTIAL, through the Senior Manager of its Marine and Aviation Division, Lucio Fernandez, made a categorical admission that at the time of the procurement of the insurance contract in July 1993, TRANS-ASIA’s vessel, "M/V Asia Korea" was properly classed by Bureau Veritas, thus:

Q Kindly examine the records particularly the policy, please tell us if you know whether M/V Asia Korea was classed at the time (sic) policy was procured perthe (sic) insurance was procured that Exhibit "1" on 1st July 1993 (sic).

WITNESS

A I recall that they were classed.

ATTY. LIM

Q With what classification society?

A I believe with Bureau Veritas.24

As found by the Court of Appeals and as supported by the records, Bureau Veritas is a classification society recognized in the marine industry. As it is undisputed that TRANS-ASIA was properly classed at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, thus, it becomes incumbent upon PRUDENTIAL to show evidence that the status of TRANS-ASIA as being properly CLASSED by Bureau Veritas had shifted in violation of the warranty. Unfortunately, PRUDENTIAL failed to support the allegation.

We are in accord with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the lack of a certification in PRUDENTIAL’s records to the effect that TRANS-ASIA’s "M/V Asia Korea" was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED at the time of the occurrence of the fire cannot be tantamount to the conclusion that TRANS-ASIA in fact breached the warranty contained in the policy. With more reason must we sustain the findings of the Court of Appeals on the ground that as admitted by PRUDENTIAL, it was likewise the responsibility of the average adjuster, Richards Hogg International (Phils.), Inc., to secure a copy of such certification, and the alleged breach of TRANS-ASIA cannot be gleaned from the average adjuster’s survey report, or adjustment of particular average per "M/V Asia Korea" of the 25 October 1993 fire on board.

We are not unmindful of the clear language of Sec. 74 of the Insurance Code which provides that, "the violation of a material warranty, or other material provision of a policy on the part of either party thereto, entitles the other to rescind." It is generally accepted that "[a] warranty is a statement or promise set forth in the policy, or by reference incorporated therein, the untruth or non-fulfillment of which in any respect, and without reference to whether the insurer was in fact prejudiced by such untruth or non-fulfillment, renders the policy voidable by the insurer."25 However, it is similarly indubitable that for the breach of a warranty to avoid a policy, the same must be duly shown by the party alleging the same. We cannot sustain an allegation that is unfounded. Consequently, PRUDENTIAL, not having shown that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty condition, CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, it remains that TRANS-ASIA must be allowed to recover its rightful claims on the policy.

B. Assuming arguendo that TRANS-ASIA violated the policy condition on WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, PRUDENTIAL made a valid waiver of the same.

The Court of Appeals, in reversing the Judgment of the RTC which held that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty provision on CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, underscored that PRUDENTIAL can be deemed to have made a valid waiver of TRANS-ASIA’s breach of warranty as alleged, ratiocinating, thus:

Third, after the loss, Prudential renewed the insurance policy of Trans-Asia for two (2) consecutive years, from noon of 01 July 1994 to noon of 01 July 1995, and then again until noon of 01 July 1996. This renewal is deemed a waiver of any breach of warranty.26

PRUDENTIAL finds fault with the ruling of the appellate court when it ruled that the renewal policies are deemed a waiver of TRANS-ASIA’s alleged breach, averring herein that the subsequent policies, designated as MH94/1595 and MH95/1788 show that they were issued only on 1 July 1994 and 3 July 1995, respectively, prior to the time it made a request to TRANS-ASIA that it be furnished a copy of the certification specifying that the insured vessel "M/V Asia Korea" was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. PRUDENTIAL posits that it came to know of the breach by TRANS-ASIA of the subject warranty clause only on 21 April 1997. On even date, PRUDENTIAL sent TRANS-ASIA a letter of denial, advising the latter that their claim is not compensable. In fine, PRUDENTIAL would have this Court believe that the issuance of the renewal policies cannot be a waiver because they were issued without knowledge of the alleged breach of warranty committed by TRANS-ASIA.27

We are not impressed. We do not find that the Court of Appeals was in error when it held that PRUDENTIAL, in renewing TRANS-ASIA’s insurance policy for two consecutive years after the loss covered by Policy No. MH93/1363, was considered to have waived TRANS-ASIA’s breach of the subject warranty, if any. Breach of a warranty or of a condition renders the contract defeasible at the option of the insurer; but if he so elects, he may waive his privilege and power to rescind by the mere expression of an intention so to do. In that event his liability under the policy continues as before.28 There can be no clearer intention of the waiver of the alleged breach than the renewal of the policy insurance granted by PRUDENTIAL to TRANS-ASIA in MH94/1595 and MH95/1788, issued in the years 1994 and 1995, respectively.

To our mind, the argument is made even more credulous by PRUDENTIAL’s lack of proof to support its allegation that the renewals of the policies were taken only after a request was made to TRANS-ASIA to furnish them a copy of the certificate attesting that "M/V Asia Korea" was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. Notwithstanding PRUDENTIAL’s claim that no certification was issued to that effect, it renewed the policy, thereby, evidencing an intention to waive TRANS-ASIA’s alleged breach. Clearly, by granting the renewal policies twice and successively after the loss, the intent was to benefit the insured, TRANS-ASIA, as well as to waive compliance of the warranty.

The foregoing finding renders a determination of whether the subject warranty is a rider, moot, as raised by the PRUDENTIAL in its assignment of errors. Whether it is a rider will not effectively alter the result for the reasons that: (1) PRUDENTIAL was not able to discharge the burden of evidence to show that TRANS-ASIA committed a breach, thereof; and (2) assuming arguendo the commission of a breach by TRANS-ASIA, the same was shown to have been waived by PRUDENTIAL.

II.

A. The amount of P3,000,000.00 granted by PRUDENTIAL to TRANS- ASIA via a transaction between the parties evidenced by a document denominated as "Loan and Trust Receipt," dated 29 May 1995 constituted partial payment on the policy.

It is undisputed that TRANS-ASIA received from PRUDENTIAL the amount of P3,000,000.00. The same was evidenced by a transaction receipt denominated as a "Loan and Trust Receipt," dated 29 May 1995, reproduced hereunder:

LOAN AND TRUST RECEIPT

Claim File No. MH-93-025 May 29, 1995P3,000,000.00Check No. PCIB066755

Received FROM PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC., the sum of PESOS THREE MILLION ONLY (P3,000,000.00) as a loan without interest, under Policy No. MH93/1353, repayable only in the event and to the extent that any net recovery is made by TRANS ASIA SHIPPING CORP., from any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or other parties, on account of loss by any casualty for which they may be liable, occasioned by the 25 October 1993: Fire on Board.

As security for such repayment, we hereby pledge to PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC. whatever recovery we may make and deliver to it all documents necessary to prove our interest in said property. We also hereby agree to promptly prosecute suit against such persons, corporation or corporations through whose negligence the aforesaid loss was caused or who may otherwise be responsible therefore, with all due diligence, in our own name, but at the expense of and under the exclusive direction and control of PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC.

TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING CORPORATION29

PRUDENTIAL largely contends that the "Loan and Trust Receipt" executed by the parties evidenced a loan of P3,000,000.00 which it granted to TRANS-ASIA, and not an advance payment on the policy or a partial payment for the loss. It further submits that it is a customary practice for insurance companies in this country to extend loans gratuitously as part of good business dealing with their assured, in order to afford their assured the chance to continue business without embarrassment while awaiting outcome of the settlement of their claims.30 According to PRUDENTIAL, the "Trust and Loan Agreement" did not subrogate to it whatever rights and/or actions TRANS-ASIA may have against third persons, and it cannot by no means be taken that by virtue thereof, PRUDENTIAL was granted irrevocable power of attorney by TRANS-ASIA, as the sole power to prosecute lies solely with the latter.

The Court of Appeals held that the real character of the transaction between the parties as evidenced by the "Loan and Trust Receipt" is that of an advance payment by PRUDENTIAL of TRANS-ASIA’s claim on the insurance, thus:

The Philippine Insurance Code (PD 1460 as amended) was derived from the old Insurance Law Act No. 2427 of the Philippine Legislature during the American Regime. The Insurance Act was lifted verbatim

from the law of California, except Chapter V thereof, which was taken largely from the insurance law of New York. Therefore, ruling case law in that jurisdiction is to Us persuasive in interpreting provisions of our own Insurance Code. In addition, the application of the adopted statute should correspond in fundamental points with the application in its country of origin x x x.

x x x x

Likewise, it is settled in that jurisdiction that the (sic) notwithstanding recitals in the Loan Receipt that the money was intended as a loan does not detract from its real character as payment of claim, thus:

"The receipt of money by the insured employers from a surety company for losses on account of forgery of drafts by an employee where no provision or repayment of the money was made except upon condition that it be recovered from other parties and neither interest nor security for the asserted debts was provided for, the money constituted the payment of a liability and not a mere loan, notwithstanding recitals in the written receipt that the money was intended as a mere loan."

What is clear from the wordings of the so-called "Loan and Trust Receipt Agreement" is that appellant is obligated to hand over to appellee "whatever recovery (Trans Asia) may make and deliver to (Prudential) all documents necessary to prove its interest in the said property." For all intents and purposes therefore, the money receipted is payment under the policy, with Prudential having the right of subrogation to whatever net recovery Trans-Asia may obtain from third parties resulting from the fire. In the law on insurance, subrogation is an equitable assignment to the insurer of all remedies which the insured may have against third person whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss covered by the insurance policy, which is created as the legal effect of payment by the insurer as an assignee in equity. The loss in the first instance is that of the insured but after reimbursement or compensation, it becomes the loss of the insurer. It has been referred to as the doctrine of substitution and rests on the principle that substantial justice should be attained regardless of form, that is, its basis is the doing of complete, essential, and perfect justice between all the parties without regard to form.31

We agree. Notwithstanding its designation, the tenor of the "Loan and Trust Receipt" evidences that the real nature of the transaction between the parties was that the amount of P3,000,000.00 was not intended as a loan whereby TRANS-ASIA is obligated to pay PRUDENTIAL, but rather, the same was a partial payment or an advance on the policy of the claims due to TRANS-ASIA.

First, the amount of P3,000,000.00 constitutes an advance payment to TRANS-ASIA by PRUDENTIAL, subrogating the former to the extent of "any net recovery made by TRANS ASIA SHIPPING CORP., from any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or other parties, on account of loss by any casualty for which they may be liable, occasioned by the 25 October 1993: Fire on Board."32

Second, we find that per the "Loan and Trust Receipt," even as TRANS-ASIA agreed to "promptly prosecute suit against such persons, corporation or corporations through whose negligence the aforesaid loss was caused or who may otherwise be responsible therefore, with all due diligence" in its name, the prosecution of the claims against such third persons are to be carried on "at the expense of and under the exclusive direction and control of PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC."33 The

clear import of the phrase "at the expense of and under the exclusive direction and control" as used in the "Loan and Trust Receipt" grants solely to PRUDENTIAL the power to prosecute, even as the same is carried in the name of TRANS-ASIA, thereby making TRANS-ASIA merely an agent of PRUDENTIAL, the principal, in the prosecution of the suit against parties who may have occasioned the loss.

Third, per the subject "Loan and Trust Receipt," the obligation of TRANS-ASIA to repay PRUDENTIAL is highly speculative and contingent, i.e., only in the event and to the extent that any net recovery is made by TRANS-ASIA from any person on account of loss occasioned by the fire of 25 October 1993. The transaction, therefore, was made to benefit TRANS-ASIA, such that, if no recovery from third parties is made, PRUDENTIAL cannot be repaid the amount. Verily, we do not think that this is constitutive of a loan.34 The liberality in the tenor of the "Loan and Trust Receipt" in favor of TRANS-ASIA leads to the conclusion that the amount of P3,000,000.00 was a form of an advance payment on TRANS-ASIA’s claim on MH93/1353.

III.

A. PRUDENTIAL is directed to pay TRANS-ASIA the amount of P8,395,072.26, representing the balance of the loss suffered by TRANS-ASIA and covered by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363.

Our foregoing discussion supports the conclusion that TRANS-ASIA is entitled to the unpaid claims covered by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363, or a total amount of P8,395,072.26.

B. Likewise, PRUDENTIAL is directed to pay TRANS-ASIA, damages in the form of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of P8,395,072.26.

The Court of Appeals denied the grant of attorney’s fees. It held that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded absent a showing of bad faith on the part of PRUDENTIAL in rejecting TRANS-ASIA’s claim, notwithstanding that the rejection was erroneous. According to the Court of Appeals, attorney’s fees can be awarded only in the cases enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code which finds no application in the instant case.

We disagree. Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code grants damages consisting of attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the insured after a finding by the Insurance Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, of an unreasonable denial or withholding of the payment of the claims due. Moreover, the law imposes an interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board on the amount of the claim due the insured from the date following the time prescribed in Section 24235 or in Section 243,36 as the case may be, until the claim is fully satisfied. Finally, Section 244 considers the failure to pay the claims within the time prescribed in Sections 242 or 243, when applicable, as prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment.

To the mind of this Court, Section 244 does not require a showing of bad faith in order that attorney’s fees be granted. As earlier stated, under Section 244, a prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment of the claim is created by failure of the insurer to pay the claim within the time fixed in both Sections 242 and 243 of the Insurance Code. As established in Section 244, by reason of the delay and

the consequent filing of the suit by the insured, the insurers shall be adjudged to pay damages which shall consist of attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the insured.37

Section 244 reads:

In case of any litigation for the enforcement of any policy or contract of insurance, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, to make a finding as to whether the payment of the claim of the insured has been unreasonably denied or withheld; and in the affirmative case, the insurance company shall be adjudged to pay damages which shall consist of attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the insured person by reason of such unreasonable denial or withholding of payment plus interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the insured, from the date following the time prescribed in section two hundred forty-two or in section two hundred forty-three, as the case may be, until the claim is fully satisfied; Provided, That the failure to pay any such claim within the time prescribed in said sections shall be considered prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment.

Sections 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code apply when the court finds an unreasonable delay or refusal in the payment of the insurance claims.

In the case at bar, the facts as found by the Court of Appeals, and confirmed by the records show that there was an unreasonable delay by PRUDENTIAL in the payment of the unpaid balance of P8,395,072.26 to TRANS-ASIA. On 26 October 1993, a day after the occurrence of the fire in "M/V Asia Korea", TRANS-ASIA filed its notice of claim. On 13 August 1996, the adjuster, Richards Hogg International (Phils.), Inc., completed its survey report recommending the amount of P11,395,072.26 as the total indemnity due to TRANS-ASIA.38 On 21 April 1997, PRUDENTIAL, in a letter39 addressed to TRANS-ASIA denied the latter’s claim for the amount of P8,395,072.26 representing the balance of the total indemnity. On 21 July 1997, PRUDENTIAL sent a second letter40 to TRANS-ASIA seeking a return of the amount of P3,000,000.00. On 13 August 1997, TRANS-ASIA was constrained to file a complaint for sum of money against PRUDENTIAL praying, inter alia, for the sum of P8,395,072.26 representing the balance of the proceeds of the insurance claim.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, there was an unreasonable delay on the part of PRUDENTIAL to pay TRANS-ASIA, as in fact, it refuted the latter’s right to the insurance claims, from the time proof of loss was shown and the ascertainment of the loss was made by the insurance adjuster. Evidently, PRUDENTIAL’s unreasonable delay in satisfying TRANS-ASIA’s unpaid claims compelled the latter to file a suit for collection.

Succinctly, an award equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the unpaid proceeds of the policy as attorney’s fees to TRANS-ASIA is reasonable under the circumstances, or otherwise stated, ten percent (10%) of P8,395,072.26. In the case of Cathay Insurance, Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,41 where a finding of an unreasonable delay under Section 244 of the Insurance Code was made by this Court, we grant an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total proceeds. We find no reason to deviate from this judicial precedent in the case at bar.

C. Further, the aggregate amount (P8,395,072.26 plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees) shall be imposed double interest in accordance with Section 244 of the Insurance Code.

Section 244 of the Insurance Code is categorical in imposing an interest twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board due the insured, from the date following the time prescribed in Section 242 or in Section 243, as the case may be, until the claim is fully satisfied. In the case at bar, we find Section 243 to be applicable as what is involved herein is a marine insurance, clearly, a policy other than life insurance.

Section 243 is hereunder reproduced:

SEC. 243. The amount of any loss or damage for which an insurer may be liable, under any policy other than life insurance policy, shall be paid within thirty days after proof of loss is received by the insurer and ascertainment of the loss or damage is made either by agreement between the insured and the insurer or by arbitration; but if such ascertainment is not had or made within sixty days after such receipt by the insurer of the proof of loss, then the loss or damage shall be paid within ninety days after such receipt. Refusal or failure to pay the loss or damage within the time prescribed herein will entitle the assured to collect interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of the delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board, unless such failure or refusal to pay is based on the ground that the claim is fraudulent.

As specified, the assured is entitled to interest on the proceeds for the duration of the delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board except when the failure or refusal of the insurer to pay was founded on the ground that the claim is fraudulent.

D. The term "double interest" as used in the Decision of the Court of Appeals must be interpreted to mean 24% per annum.

PRUDENTIAL assails the award of interest, granted by the Court of Appeals, in favor of TRANS-ASIA in the assailed Decision of 6 November 2001. It is PRUDENTIAL’s stance that the award is extortionate and grossly unsconscionable. In support thereto, PRUDENTIAL makes a reference to TRANS-ASIA’s prayer in the Complaint filed with the court a quo wherein the latter sought, "interest double the prevailing rate of interest of 21% per annum now obtaining in the banking business or plus 42% per annum pursuant to Article 243 of the Insurance Code x x x."42

The contention fails to persuade. It is settled that an award of double interest is lawful and justified under Sections 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code.43 In Finman General Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals,44 this Court held that the payment of 24% interest per annum is authorized by the Insurance Code.45 There is no gainsaying that the term "double interest" as used in Sections 243 and 244 can only be interpreted to mean twice 12% per annum or 24% per annum interest, thus:

The term "ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board" means the legal rate of interest of twelve per centum per annum (12%) as prescribed by the Monetary Board in C.B. Circular No. 416, pursuant to P.D. No. 116, amending the Usury Law; so that when Sections 242, 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code

provide that the insurer shall be liable to pay interest "twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board", it means twice 12% per annum or 24% per annum interest on the proceeds of the insurance.46

E. The payment of double interest should be counted from 13 September 1996.

The Court of Appeals, in imposing double interest for the duration of the delay of the payment of the unpaid balance due TRANS-ASIA, computed the same from 13 August 1996 until such time when the amount is fully paid. Although not raised by the parties, we find the computation of the duration of the delay made by the appellate court to be patently erroneous.

To be sure, Section 243 imposes interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of the delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board. Significantly, Section 243 mandates the payment of any loss or damage for which an insurer may be liable, under any policy other than life insurance policy, within thirty days after proof of loss is received by the insurer and ascertainment of the loss or damage is made either by agreement between the insured and the insurer or by arbitration. It is clear that under Section 243, the insurer has until the 30th day after proof of loss and ascertainment of the loss or damage to pay its liability under the insurance, and only after such time can the insurer be held to be in delay, thereby necessitating the imposition of double interest.

In the case at bar, it was not disputed that the survey report on the ascertainment of the loss was completed by the adjuster, Richard Hoggs International (Phils.), Inc. on 13 August 1996. PRUDENTIAL had thirty days from 13 August 1996 within which to pay its liability to TRANS-ASIA under the insurance policy, or until 13 September 1996. Therefore, the double interest can begin to run from 13 September 1996 only.

IV.

A. An interest of 12% per annum is similarly imposed on the TOTAL amount of liability adjudged in section III herein, computed from the time of finality of judgment until the full satisfaction thereof in conformity with this Court’s ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.

This Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,47 inscribed the rule of thumb48 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 forbearance49 of credit.

We find application of the rule in the case at bar proper, thus, a rate of 12% per annum from the finality of judgment until the full satisfaction thereof must be imposed on the total amount of liability adjudged to PRUDENTIAL. It is clear that the interim period from the finality of judgment until the satisfaction of the same is deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit, hence, the imposition of the aforesaid interest.

Fallo

WHEREFORE, the Petition in G.R. No. 151890 is DENIED. However, the Petition in G.R. No. 151991 is GRANTED, thus, we award the grant of attorney’s fees and make a clarification that the term "double interest" as used in the 6 November 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 68278 should be construed to mean interest at the rate of 24% per annum, with a further clarification, that the same should be computed from 13 September 1996 until fully paid. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 68278, dated 6 November 2001 and 29 January 2002, respectively, are, thus, MODIFIED in the following manner, to wit:

1. PRUDENTIAL is DIRECTED to PAY TRANS-ASIA the amount of P8,395,072.26, representing the balance of the loss suffered by TRANS-ASIA and covered by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363;

2. PRUDENTIAL is DIRECTED further to PAY TRANS-ASIA damages in the form of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the amount of P8,395,072.26;

3. The aggregate amount (P8,395,072.26 plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees) shall be imposed double interest at the rate of 24% per annum to be computed from 13 September 1996 until fully paid; and

4. An interest of 12% per annum is similarly imposed on the TOTAL amount of liability adjudged as abovestated in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) herein, computed from the time of finality of judgment until the full satisfaction thereof.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 13983 September 1, 1919

LA RAZON SOCIAL "GO TIAOCO Y HERMANOS," plaintiff-appellant, vs.UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD., defendant-appellee.

P. E. del Rosario and W. F. Mueller for appellant.Crossfield and O'Brien for appellee.

STREET, J.:

This is an action on a policy of marine insurance issued by the Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd., upon a cargo of rice belonging to the plaintiffs, Go Tiaoco Brothers, which was transported in the early days of May, 1915, on the steamship Hondagua from the port of Saigon to Cebu. On discharging the rice from one of the compartments in the after hold, upon arrival at Cebu, it was discovered that one thousand four hundred seventy-three sacks and been damages by sea water. The loss so resulting to the owners of rice, after proper deduction had been made for the portion saved, was three thousand eight hundred seventy five pesos and twenty-five centavos (P3,875.25). The trial court found that the inflow of the sea water during the voyage was due to a defect in one of the drain pipes of the ship and

concluded that the loss was not covered by the policy of insurance. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed.

The facts with reference to the manner in which the sea water effected entrance into the hold may be summarized as follows, substantially in accordance with the findings of the trial court:

The drain pipe which served as a discharge from the water closet passed down through the compartment where the rice in question was stowed and thence out to sea through the wall of the compartment, which was a part of the wall of the ship. The joint or elbow where the pipe changed its direction was of cast iron; and in course of time it had become corroded and abraded until a longitudinal opening had appeared in the pipe about one inch in length. This hole had been in existence before the voyage was begun, and an attempt had been made to repair it by filling with cement and bolting over it a strip of iron. The effect of loading the boat was to submerge the vent, or orifice, of the pipe until it was about 18 inches or 2 feet below the level of the sea. As a consequence the sea water rose in the pipe. Navigation under these conditions resulted in the washing out of the cement-filling from the action of the sea water, thus permitting the continued flow of the salt water into the compartment of rice.

The court found in effect that the opening above described had resulted in course of time from ordinary wear and tear and not from the straining of the ship in rough weather on that voyage. The court also found that the repairs that had been made on the pipe were slovenly and defective and that, by reason of the condition of this pipe, the ship was not properly equipped to receive the rice at the time the voyage was begun. For this reason the court held that the ship was unseaworthy.

The policy of insurance was signed upon a form long in use among companies engaged in maritime insurance. It purports to insure the cargo from the following among other risks: "Perils . . . of the seas, men of war, fire, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, jettisons, . . . barratry of the master and mariners, and of all other perils, losses, and misfortunes that have or shall come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said goods and merchandise or any part thereof."

The question whether the insurer is liable on this policy for the loss caused in the manner above stated presents two phases which are in a manner involved with each other. One has reference to the meaning of the expression "perils of the seas and all other perils, losses, and misfortunes," as used in the policy; the other has reference to the implied warranty, on the part of the insured, as to the seaworthiness of the ship.

The meaning of the expression "perils . . . of the seas . . . and all other perils, losses, and misfortunes," used in describing the risks covered by policies of marine insurance, has been the subject of frequent discussion; and certain propositions relative thereto are now so generally accepted as to be considered definitely settled.

In the first place it is determined that the words "all other perils, losses, and misfortunes" are to be interpreted as covering risks which are of like kind (ejusdem generis) with the particular risks which are enumerated in the preceding part of the same clause of the contract. "According to the ordinary rules of construction," said Lord Macnaghten in Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. vs. Hamilton, Fraser &

Co. ([1887]), 12 A. C., 484, 501), "these words must be interpreted with reference to the words which immediately precede them. They were no doubt inserted in order to prevent disputes founded on nice distinctions. Their office is to cover in terms whatever may be within the spirit of the cases previously enumerated, and so they have a greater or less effect as a narrower or broader view is taken of those cases. For example, if the expression 'perils of the seas' is given its widest sense the general words have little or no effect as applied to that case. If no the other hand that expression is to receive a limited construction, as apparently it did in Cullen vs. Butler (5 M. & S., 461), and loss by perils of the seas is to be confined to loss ex marinae tempestatis discrimine, the general words become most important. But still, ever since the case of Cullen vs. Butler, when they first became the subject of judicial construction, they have always been held or assumed to be restricted to cases 'akin to' or resembling' or 'of the same kind as' those specially mentioned. I see no reason for departing from this settled rule. In marine insurance it is above all things necessary to abide by settled rules and to avoid anything like novel refinements or a new departure."

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." The insurer undertakes to insure against perils of the sea and similar perils, not against perils of the ship. As was well said by Lord Herschell in Wilson, Sons & Co. vs. Owners of Cargo per the Xantho ([1887], 12 A. C., 503,509), there must, in order to make the insurer liable, be "some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure. The purpose of the policy is to secure an indemnity against accidents which may happen, not against events which must happen."

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 results from perils of the sea.

The first of the two decisions of the House of Lords from which we have quoted (Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. vs. Hamilton, Fraser & Co. [1887], 12 A. C., 484) arose upon the following state of facts: In March, 1884, the Inchmaree was lying at anchor off Diamond Island and was about to start upon her voyage. To this end it became necessary to fill up her boilers. There was a donkey-engine with a donkey-pump on board, and the donkey-engine was set to pump up water from the sea into the boilers. Those in charge of the operation did not take the precaution of making sure that the valve of the aperture leading into one of the boilers was open. This valve happened to be closed. The result was that the water being unable to make its way into the boiler was forced back and split the air-chamber and so disabled the pump. It was held that whether the injury occurred through negligence or accidentally without negligence, it was not covered by the policy, since the loss did not fall either under the words "perils of the seas" or under the more general words "all other perils, losses, and misfortunes." Lord Bramwell, in the course of his opinion quoted with approbation as definition given by Lopes L.J. in

Pandorf vs. Hamilton (16 Q. B. D., 629), which is as follows: In a sea-worthy ship damage to goods caused by the action of the sea during transit not attributable to the fault of anybody, is a damage from a peril of the sea.

The second of the decision from the House of Lords from which we have quoted (Wilson, Son & Co. vs. owners of Cargo per the Xantho [1887], 12 A. C., 503) arose upon the following facts: The owners of certain cargo embarked the same upon the steamship Xantho. A collision took place in a fog between this vessel and another ship, Valuta. An action was thereupon instituted by the owners of the cargo against the owners of the Xantho. It was held that if the collision occurred without fault on the part of the carrying ship, the owners were not liable for the value of the cargo lost by such collision.

Still another case was decided in the House of Lords upon the same date as the preceding two, which is equally instructive as the others upon the question now under consideration. We refer to Hamilton, Fraser & Co. vs. Pandorf & Co. ([1887], 12 A. C., 518), where it appeared that rice was shipped under a charter party and bills of lading which expected "dangers and accident of the sea." During the voyage rats gnawed a hole in a pipe on board the ship, whereby sea water effected an entrance into the ship's hold and damaged the rice. It appeared that there was no neglect or default on the part of the shipowners or their servants in the matter of attending to the cargo. It was held that this loss resulted from an accident or peril of the sea and that the shipowners were not responsible. Said Bramwell: "No question of negligence exists in this case. The damage was caused by the sea in the course of navigation with no default in any one. I am, therefore, of opinion that the damage was caused by peril of the sea within the meaning of the bill of lading." The point which discriminates this decision from that now before us is that in the present case the negligence of the shipowners must be accepted as established. Undoubtedly, if in Hamilton, Fraser & Co. vs. Pandorf & Co. [1887], 12 A. C., 518), it had appeared that this hold had been gnawed by the rats prior to this voyage and the owners, after having their attention directed to it, had failed to make adequate repairs, the ship would have been liable.

The three decisions in the House of Lords above referred to contain elaborate discussions concerning the liability of shipowners and insurers, respectively, for damage happening to cargo in the course of a sea voyage; and it would be presumptuous for us to undertake to add to what has been there said by the learned judges of that high court. Suffice it to say that upon the authority of those cases there is no room to doubt the liability of the shipowner for such a loss as occurred in this case. By parity of reasoning the insurer is not liable; for, generally speaking, the shipowner excepts the perils of the sea from his engagement under the bill of lading, while this is the very peril against which the insurer intends to give protection. As applied to the present case it results that the owners of the damages rice must look to the shipowner for redress and not to the insurer.

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 rule is accepted in our own Insurance Law (Act No. 2427, sec. 106). It is also well settled that a ship which is seaworthy for the purpose of insurance upon the ship may yet be unseaworthy for the purpose of insurance upon the cargo (Act No. 2427, sec. 106). In Steel vs. State Line

Steamship Co. ([1877], L. R. 3 A. C., 72), a cargo of wheat was laden upon a ship which had a port-hole insecurely fastened at the time of the lading. This port-hole was about one foot above the water line; and in the course of the voyage sea water entered the compartment where the wheat was stores and damaged the cargo. It was held that the ship was unseaworthy with reference to the cargo in question. In Gilroy, Sons & Co. vs. Price & Co. ([1893], 18 A. C., 56), a cargo of jute was shipped. During the voyage the vessel encountered stormy weather, as a consequence of which the cargo shifted its position and broke a pipe leading down through the hold from the water closet, with result that water entered the vessel and the jute was damaged. It was found that the cargo was improperly stowed and that the owners of the ship were chargeable with negligence for failure to protect the pipe by putting a case over it. It was accordingly held that the ship was unseaworthy.

From what has been said it follows that the trial court committed no error in absolving the defendant from the complaint. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs.

G.R. No. 119599 March 20, 1997

MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TKC MARKETING CORPORATION, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 43023 1 which affirmed, with slight modification, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 15.

Private respondent TKC Marketing Corp. was the owner/consignee of some 3,189.171 metric tons of soya bean meal which was loaded on board the ship MV Al Kaziemah on or about September 8, 1989 for carriage from the port of Rio del Grande, Brazil, to the port of Manila. Said cargo was insured against the risk of loss by petitioner Malayan Insurance Corporation for which it issued two (2) Marine Cargo policy Nos. M/LP 97800305 amounting to P18,986,902.45 and M/LP 97800306 amounting to P1,195,005.45, both dated September 1989.

While the vessel was docked in Durban, South Africa on September 11, 1989 enroute to Manila, the civil authorities arrested and detained it because of a lawsuit on a question of ownership and possession. As a result, private respondent notified petitioner on October 4, 1989 of the arrest of the vessel and made a formal claim for the amount of US$916,886.66, representing the dollar equivalent on the policies, for non-delivery of the cargo. Private respondent likewise sought the assistance of petitioner on what to do with the cargo.

Petitioner replied that the arrest of the vessel by civil authority was not a peril covered by the policies. Private respondent, accordingly, advised petitioner that it might tranship the cargo and requested an extension of the insurance coverage until actual transhipment, which extension was approved upon

payment of additional premium. The insurance coverage was extended under the same terms and conditions embodied in the original policies while in the process of making arrangements for the transhipment of the cargo from Durban to Manila, covering the period October 4 - December 19, 1989.

However, on December 11, 1989, the cargo was sold in Durban, South Africa, for US$154.40 per metric ton or a total of P10,304,231.75 due to its perishable nature which could no longer stand a voyage of twenty days to Manila and another twenty days for the discharge thereof. On January 5, 1990, private respondent forthwith reduced its claim to US$448,806.09 (or its peso equivalent of P9,879,928.89 at the exchange rate of P22.0138 per $1.00) representing private respondent's loss after the proceeds of the sale were deducted from the original claim of $916,886.66 or P20,184,159.55.

Petitioner maintained its position that the arrest of the vessel by civil authorities on a question of ownership was an excepted risk under the marine insurance policies. This prompted private respondent to file a complaint for damages praying that aside from its claim, it be reimbursed the amount of P128,770.88 as legal expenses and the interest it paid for the loan it obtained to finance the shipment totalling P942,269.30. In addition, private respondent asked for moral damages amounting to P200,000.00, exemplary damages amounting to P200,000.00 and attorney's fees equivalent to 30% of what will be awarded by the court.

The lower court decided in favor of private respondent and required petitioner to pay, aside from the insurance claim, consequential and liquidated damages amounting to P1,024,233.88, exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00, reimbursement in the amount equivalent to 10% of whatever is recovered as attorney's fees as well as the costs of the suit. On private respondent's motion for reconsideration, petitioner was also required to further pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on all amounts due and owing to the private respondent by virtue of the lower court decision counted from the inception of this case until the same is paid.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court stating that with the deletion of Clause 12 of the policies issued to private respondent, the same became automatically covered under subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses. The arrests, restraints or detainments contemplated in the former clause were those effected by political or executive acts. Losses occasioned by riot or ordinary judicial processes were not covered therein. In other words, arrest, restraint or detainment within the meaning of Clause 12 (or F.C. & S. Clause) rules out detention by ordinary legal processes. Hence, arrests by civil authorities, such as what happened in the instant case, is an excepted risk under Clause 12 of the Institute Cargo Clause or the F.C. & S. Clause. However, with the deletion of Clause 12 of the Institute Cargo Clause and the consequent adoption or institution of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo), the arrest and seizure by judicial processes which were excluded under the former policy became one of the covered risks.

The appellate court added that the failure to deliver the consigned goods in the port of destination is a loss compensable, not only under the Institute War Clause but also under the Theft, Pilferage, and Non-delivery Clause (TNPD) of the insurance policies, as read in relation to Section 130 of the Insurance Code and as held in Williams v. Cole. 2

Furthermore, the appellate court contended that since the vessel was prevented at an intermediate port from completing the voyage due to its seizure by civil authorities, a peril insured against, the liability of petitioner continued until the goods could have been transhipped. But due to the perishable nature of the goods, it had to be promptly sold to minimize loss. Accordingly, the sale of the goods being reasonable and justified, it should not operate to discharge petitioner from its contractual liability.

Hence this petition, claiming that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. In ruling that the arrest of the vessel was a risk covered under the subject insurance policies.

2. In ruling that there was constructive total loss over the cargo.

3. In ruling that petitioner was in bad faith in declining private respondent's claim.

4. In giving undue reliance to the doctrine that insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurer.

In assigning the first error, petitioner submits the following: (a) an arrest by civil authority is not compensable since the term "arrest" refers to "political or executive acts" and does not include a loss caused by riot or by ordinary judicial process as in this case; (b) the deletion of the Free from capture or Seizure Clause would leave the assured covered solely for the perils specified by the wording of the policy itself; (c) the rationale for the exclusion of an arrest pursuant to judicial authorities is to eliminate collusion between unscrupulous assured and civil authorities.

As to the second assigned error, petitioner submits that any loss which private respondent may have incurred was in the nature and form of unrecovered acquisition value brought about by a voluntary sacrifice sale and not by arrest, detention or seizure of the ship.

As to the third issue, petitioner alleges that its act of rejecting the claim was a result of its honest belief that the arrest of the vessel was not a compensable risk under the policies issued. In fact, petitioner supported private respondent by accommodating the latter's request for an extension of the insurance coverage, notwithstanding that it was then under no legal obligation to do so.

Private respondent, on the other hand, argued that when it appealed its case to the Court of Appeals, petitioner did not raise as an issue the award of exemplary damages. It cannot now, for the first time, raise the same before this Court. Likewise, petitioner cannot submit for the first time on appeal its argument that it was wrong for the Court of Appeals to have ruled the way it did based on facts that would need inquiry into the evidence. Even if inquiry into the facts were possible, such was not necessary because the coverage as ruled upon by the Court of Appeals is evident from the very terms of the policies.

It also argued that petitioner, being the sole author of the policies, "arrests" should be strictly interpreted against it because the rule is that any ambiguity is to be taken contra proferentum. Risk policies should be construed reasonably and in a manner as to make effective the intentions and expectations of the parties. It added that the policies clearly stipulate that they cover the risks of non-

delivery of an entire package and that it was petitioner itself that invited and granted the extensions and collected premiums thereon.

The resolution of this controversy hinges on the interpretation of the "Perils" clause of the subject policies in relation to the excluded risks or warranty specifically stated therein.

By way of a historical background, marine insurance developed as an all-risk coverage, using the phrase "perils of the sea" to encompass the wide and varied range of risks that were covered. 3 The subject policies contain the "Perils" clause which is a standard form in any marine insurance policy. Said clause reads:

Touching the adventures which the said MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., are content to bear, and to take upon them in this voyage; they are of the Seas; Men-of-War, Fire, Enemies, Pirates, Rovers, Thieves, Jettisons, Letters of Mart and Counter Mart, Suprisals, Takings of the Sea, Arrests, Restraints and Detainments of all Kings, Princess and Peoples, of what Nation, Condition, or quality soever, Barratry of the Master and Mariners, and of all other Perils, Losses, and Misfortunes, that have come to hurt, detriment, or damage of the said goods and merchandise or any part thereof . AND in case of any loss or misfortune it shall be lawful to the ASSURED, their factors, servants and assigns, to sue, labour, and travel for, in and about the defence, safeguards, and recovery of the said goods and merchandises, and ship, & c., or any part thereof, without prejudice to this INSURANCE; to the charges whereof the said COMPANY, will contribute according to the rate and quantity of the sum herein INSURED. AND it is expressly declared and agreed that no acts of the Insurer or Insured in recovering, saving, or preserving the Property insured shall be considered as a Waiver, or Acceptance of Abandonment. And it is agreed by the said COMPANY, that this writing or Policy of INSURANCE shall be of as much Force and Effect as the surest Writing or policy of INSURANCE made in LONDON. And so the said MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY., INC., are contented, and do hereby promise and bind themselves, their Heirs, Executors, Goods and Chattel, to the ASSURED, his or their Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, for the true Performance of the Premises; confessing themselves paid the Consideration due unto them for this INSURANCE at and after the rate arranged. (Emphasis supplied)

The exception or limitation to the "Perils" clause and the "All other perils" clause in the subject policies is specifically referred to as Clause 12 called the "Free from Capture & Seizure Clause" or the F.C. & S. Clause which reads, thus:

Warranted free of capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, and the consequences thereof or of any attempt thereat; also from the consequences of hostilities and warlike operations, whether there be a declaration of war or not; but this warranty shall not exclude collision, contact with any fixed or floating object (other than a mine or torpedo), stranding, heavy weather or fire unless caused directly (and independently of the nature of the voyage or service which the vessel concerned or, in the case of a collision, any other vessel involved therein is performing) by a hostile act by or against a belligerent power and for the purpose of this warranty "power" includes any authorities maintaining naval, military or air forces in association with power.

Further warranted free from the consequences of civil war, revolution, insurrection, or civil strike arising therefrom or piracy.

Should Clause 12 be deleted, the relevant current institute war clauses shall be deemed to form part of this insurance. (Emphasis supplied)

However, the F. C. & S. Clause was deleted from the policies. Consequently, the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) was deemed incorporated which, in subsection 1.1 of Section 1, provides:

1. This insurance covers:

1.1 The risks excluded from the standard form of English Marine Policy by the clause warranted free of capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, and the consequences thereof of hostilities or warlike operations, whether there be a declaration of war or not; but this warranty shall not exclude collision, contact with any fixed or floating object (other than a mine or torpedo), stranding, heavy weather or fire unless caused directly (and independently of the nature on voyage or service which the vessel concerned or, in the case of a collision any other vessel involved therein is performing) by a hostile act by or against a belligerent power; and for the purpose of this warranty "power" includes any authority maintaining naval, military or air forces in association with a power. Further warranted free from the consequences of civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection, or civil strike arising therefrom, or piracy.

According to petitioner, the automatic incorporation of subsection 1.1 of section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo), among others, means that any "capture, arrest, detention, etc." pertained exclusively to warlike operations if this Court strictly construes the heading of the said clauses. However, it also claims that the parties intended to include arrests, etc. even if it were not the result of hostilities or warlike operations. It further claims that on the strength of jurisprudence on the matter, the term "arrests" would only cover those arising from political or executive acts, concluding that whether private respondent's claim is anchored on subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) or the F.C. & S. Clause, the arrest of the vessel by judicial authorities is an excluded risk. 4

This Court cannot agree with petitioner's assertions, particularly when it alleges that in the "Perils" Clause, it assumed the risk of arrest caused solely by executive or political acts of the government of the seizing state and thereby excludes "arrests" caused by ordinary legal processes, such as in the instant case.

With the incorporation of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses, however, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals and the private respondent that "arrest" caused by ordinary judicial process is deemed included among the covered risks. This interpretation becomes inevitable when subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses provided that "this insurance covers the risks excluded from the Standard Form of English Marine Policy by the clause "Warranted free of capture, seizure, arrest, etc. . . ." or the F.C. & S. Clause. Jurisprudentially, "arrests" caused by ordinary judicial process is also a risk excluded from the Standard Form of English Marine Policy by the F.C. & S. Clause.

Petitioner cannot adopt the argument that the "arrest" caused by ordinary judicial process is not included in the covered risk simply because the F.C. & S. Clause under the Institute War Clauses can only be operative in case of hostilities or warlike operations on account of its heading "Institute War Clauses." This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals when it held that ". . . . Although the F.C. & S. Clause may have originally been inserted in marine policies to protect against risks of war, (see generally G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty Section 2-9, at 71-73 [2d Ed. 1975]), its interpretation in recent years to include seizure or detention by civil authorities seems consistent with the general purposes of the clause, . . . ." 5 In fact, petitioner itself averred that subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses included "arrest" even if it were not a result of hostilities or warlike operations. 6 In this regard, since what was also excluded in the deleted F.C. & S. Clause was "arrest" occasioned by ordinary judicial process, logically, such "arrest" would now become a covered risk under subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses, regardless of whether or not said "arrest" by civil authorities occurred in a state of war.

Petitioner itself seems to be confused about the application of the F.C. & S. Clause as well as that of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo). It stated that "the F.C. & S. Clause was "originally incorporated in insurance policies to eliminate the risks of warlike operations". It also averred that the F.C. & S. Clause applies even if there be no war or warlike operations . . . ." 7 In the same vein, it contended that subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) "pertained exclusively to warlike operations" and yet it also stated that "the deletion of the F.C. & S. Clause and the consequent incorporation of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) was to include "arrest, etc. even if were not a result of hostilities or warlike operations. 8

This Court cannot help the impression that petitioner is overly straining its interpretation of the provisions of the policy in order to avoid being liable for private respondent's claim.

This Court finds it pointless for petitioner to maintain its position that it only insures risks of "arrest" occasioned by executive or political acts of government which is interpreted as not referring to those caused by ordinary legal processes as contained in the "Perils" Clause; deletes the F.C. & S. Clause which excludes risks of arrest occasioned by executive or political acts of the government and naturally, also those caused by ordinary legal processes; and, thereafter incorporates subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses which now includes in the coverage risks of arrest due to executive or political acts of a government but then still excludes "arrests" occasioned by ordinary legal processes when subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of said Clauses should also have included "arrests" previously excluded from the coverage of the F.C. & S. Clause.

It has been held that a strained interpretation which is unnatural and forced, as to lead to an absurd conclusion or to render the policy nonsensical, should, by all means, be avoided. 9 Likewise, it must be borne in mind that such contracts are invariably prepared by the companies and must be accepted by the insured in the form in which they are written. 10 Any construction of a marine policy rendering it void should be avoided. 11 Such policies will, therefore, be construed strictly against the company in order to avoid a forfeiture, unless no other result is possible from the language used. 12

If a marine insurance company desires to limit or restrict the operation of the general provisions of its contract by special proviso, exception, or exemption, it should express such limitation in clear and unmistakable language. 13 Obviously, the deletion of the F.C. & S. Clause and the consequent incorporation of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) gave rise to ambiguity. If the risk of arrest occasioned by ordinary judicial process was expressly indicated as an exception in the subject policies, there would have been no controversy with respect to the interpretation of the subject clauses.

Be that as it may, exceptions to the general coverage are construed most strongly against the company. 14 Even an express exception in a policy is to be construed against the underwriters by whom the policy is framed, and for whose benefit the exception is introduced. 15

An insurance contract should be so interpreted as to carry out the purpose for which the parties entered into the contract which is, to insure against risks of loss or damage to the goods. Such interpretation should result from the natural and reasonable meaning of language in the policy. 16 Where restrictive provisions are open to two interpretations, that which is most favorable to the insured is adopted. 17

Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in accordance with the general rule of resolving any ambiguity therein in favor of the insured, where the contract or policy is prepared by the insurer. 18 A contract of insurance, being a contract of adhesion, par excellence, any ambiguity therein should be resolved against the insurer; in other words, it should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations. 19

In view of the foregoing, this Court sees no need to discuss the other issues presented.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 85141 November 28, 1989

FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and CHOA TIEK SENG, respondents.

Balgos & Perez Law Offices for petitioner.

Lapuz Law office for private respondent.

REGALADO, J.:

This is a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on July 19,1988, the dispositive part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed insofar as it orders defendant Filipino Merchants Insurance Company to pay the plaintiff the sum of P51,568.62 with interest at legal rate from the date of filing of the complaint, and is modified with respect to the third party complaint in that (1) third party defendant E. Razon, Inc. is ordered to reimburse third party plaintiff the sum of P25,471.80 with legal interest from the date of payment until the date of reimbursement, and (2) the third-party complaint against third party defendant Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis is dismissed. 1

The facts as found by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

This is an action brought by the consignee of the shipment of fishmeal loaded on board the vessel SS Bougainville and unloaded at the Port of Manila on or about December 11, 1976 and seeks to recover from the defendant insurance company the amount of P51,568.62 representing damages to said shipment which has been insured by the defendant insurance company under Policy No. M-2678. The defendant brought a third party complaint against third party defendants Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis and/or E. Razon, Inc. seeking judgment against the third (sic) defendants in case Judgment is rendered against the third party plaintiff. It appears from the evidence presented that in December 1976, plaintiff insured said shipment with defendant insurance company under said cargo Policy No. M-2678 for the sum of P267,653.59 for the goods described as 600 metric tons of fishmeal in new gunny bags of 90 kilos each from Bangkok, Thailand to Manila against all risks under warehouse to warehouse terms. Actually, what was imported was 59.940 metric tons not 600 tons at $395.42 a ton CNF Manila. The fishmeal in 666 new gunny bags were unloaded from the ship on December 11, 1976 at Manila unto the arrastre contractor E. Razon, Inc. and defendant's surveyor ascertained and certified that in such discharge 105 bags were in bad order condition as jointly surveyed by the ship's agent and the arrastre contractor. The condition of the bad order was reflected in the turn over survey report of Bad Order cargoes Nos. 120320 to 120322, as Exhibit C-4 consisting of three (3) pages which are also Exhibits 4, 5 and 6- Razon. The cargo was also surveyed by the arrastre contractor before delivery of the cargo to the consignee and the condition of the cargo on such delivery was reflected in E. Razon's Bad Order Certificate No. 14859, 14863 and 14869 covering a total of 227 bags in bad order condition. Defendant's surveyor has conducted a final and detailed survey of the cargo in the warehouse for which he prepared a survey report Exhibit F with the findings on the extent of shortage or loss on the bad order bags totalling 227 bags amounting to 12,148 kilos, Exhibit F-1. Based on said computation the plaintiff made a formal claim against the defendant Filipino Merchants Insurance Company for P51,568.62 (Exhibit C) the computation of which claim is contained therein. A formal claim statement was also presented by the plaintiff against the vessel dated December 21, 1976, Exhibit B, but the defendant Filipino Merchants Insurance Company refused to pay the claim. Consequently, the plaintiff brought an action against said defendant as adverted to above and defendant presented a third party complaint against the vessel and the arrastre contractor. 2

The court below, after trial on the merits, rendered judgment in favor of private respondent, the decretal portion whereof reads:

WHEREFORE, on the main complaint, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Filipino Merchant's (sic) Insurance Co., ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the following amount:

The sum of P51,568.62 with interest at legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint;

On the third party complaint, the third party defendant Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis and third party defendant E. Razon, Inc. are ordered to pay to the third party plaintiff jointly and severally reimbursement of the amounts paid by the third party plaintiff with legal interest from the date of such payment until the date of such reimbursement.

Without pronouncement as to costs. 3

On appeal, the respondent court affirmed the decision of the lower court insofar as the award on the complaint is concerned and modified the same with regard to the adjudication of the third-party complaint. A motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision was denied, hence this petition with the following assignment of errors:

1. The Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation and application of the "all risks" clause of the marine insurance policy when it held the petitioner liable to the private respondent for the partial loss of the cargo, notwithstanding the clear absence of proof of some fortuitous event, casualty, or accidental cause to which the loss is attributable, thereby contradicting the very precedents cited by it in its decision as well as a prior decision of the same Division of the said court (then composed of Justices Cacdac, Castro-Bartolome, and Pronove);

2. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the private respondent had no insurable interest in the subject cargo, hence, the marine insurance policy taken out by private respondent is null and void;

3. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the private respondent was guilty of fraud in not disclosing the fact, it being bound out of utmost good faith to do so, that it had no insurable interest in the subject cargo, which bars its recovery on the policy. 4

On the first assignment of error, petitioner contends that an "all risks" marine policy has a technical meaning in insurance in that before a claim can be compensable it is essential that there must be "some fortuity, " "casualty" or "accidental cause" to which the alleged loss is attributable and the failure of herein private respondent, upon whom lay the burden, to adduce evidence showing that the alleged loss to the cargo in question was due to a fortuitous event precludes his right to recover from the insurance policy. We find said contention untenable.

The "all risks clause" of the Institute Cargo Clauses read as follows:

5. This insurance is against all risks of loss or damage to the subject-matter insured but shall in no case be deemed to extend to cover loss, damage, or expense proximately caused by delay or inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured. Claims recoverable hereunder shall be payable irrespective of percentage. 5

An "all risks policy" should be read literally as meaning all risks whatsoever and covering all losses by an accidental cause of any kind. The terms "accident" and "accidental", as used in insurance contracts, have not acquired any technical meaning. They are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common acceptance. Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen. An accident is an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause and, therefore, not expected. 6

The very nature of the term "all risks" must be given a broad and comprehensive meaning as covering any loss other than a willful and fraudulent act of the insured. 7 This is pursuant to the very purpose of an "all risks" insurance to give protection to the insured in those cases where difficulties of logical explanation or some mystery surround the loss or damage to property. 8 An "all asks" policy has been evolved to grant greater protection than that afforded by the "perils clause," in order to assure that no loss can happen through the incidence of a cause neither insured against nor creating liability in the ship; it is written against all losses, that is, attributable to external causes. 9

The term "all risks" cannot be given a strained technical meaning, the language of the clause under the Institute Cargo Clauses being unequivocal and clear, to the effect that it extends to all damages/losses suffered by the insured cargo except (a) loss or damage or expense proximately caused by delay, and (b) loss or damage or expense proximately caused by the inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured.

Generally, the burden of proof is upon the insured to show that a loss arose from a covered peril, but under an "all risks" policy the burden is not on the insured to prove the precise cause of loss or damage for which it seeks compensation. The insured under an "all risks insurance policy" has the initial burden of proving that the cargo was in good condition when the policy attached and that the cargo was damaged when unloaded from the vessel; thereafter, the burden then shifts to the insurer to show the exception to the coverage. 10 As we held in Paris-Manila Perfumery Co. vs. Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd. 11 the basic rule is that the insurance company has the burden of proving that the loss is caused by the risk excepted and for want of such proof, the company is liable.

Coverage under an "all risks" provision of a marine insurance policy creates a special type of insurance which extends coverage to risks not usually contemplated and avoids putting upon the insured the burden of establishing that the loss was due to the peril falling within the policy's coverage; the insurer can avoid coverage upon demonstrating that a specific provision expressly excludes the loss from coverage. 12 A marine insurance policy providing that the insurance was to be "against all risks" must be construed as creating a special insurance and extending to other risks than are usually contemplated, and covers all losses except such as arise from the fraud of the insured. 13 The burden of the insured, therefore, is to prove merely that the goods he transported have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated. Thereafter, the burden is shifted to the insurer to prove that the loss was due to excepted perils. To impose on the insured the burden of proving the precise cause of the loss or damage would be inconsistent with the broad protective purpose of "all risks" insurance.

In the present case, there being no showing that the loss was caused by any of the excepted perils, the insurer is liable under the policy. As aptly stated by the respondent Court of Appeals, upon due consideration of the authorities and jurisprudence it discussed —

... it is believed that in the absence of any showing that the losses/damages were caused by an excepted peril, i.e. delay or the inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured, and there is no such showing, the lower court did not err in holding that the loss was covered by the policy.

There is no evidence presented to show that the condition of the gunny bags in which the fishmeal was packed was such that they could not hold their contents in the course of the necessary transit, much less any evidence that the bags of cargo had burst as the result of the weakness of the bags themselves. Had there been such a showing that spillage would have been a certainty, there may have been good reason to plead that there was no risk covered by the policy (See Berk vs. Style [1956] cited in Marine Insurance Claims, Ibid, p. 125). Under an 'all risks' policy, it was sufficient to show that there was damage occasioned by some accidental cause of any kind, and there is no necessity to point to any particular cause. 14

Contracts of insurance are contracts of indemnity upon the terms and conditions specified in the policy. The agreement has the force of law between the parties. The terms of the policy constitute the measure of the insurer's liability. If such terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense. 15

Anent the issue of insurable interest, we uphold the ruling of the respondent court that private respondent, as consignee of the goods in transit under an invoice containing the terms under "C & F Manila," has insurable interest in said goods.

Section 13 of the Insurance Code defines insurable interest in property as every interest in property, whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured. In principle, anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction whether he has or has not any title in, or lien upon or possession of the property y. 16 Insurable interest in property may consist in (a) an existing interest; (b) an inchoate interest founded on an existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out of which the expectancy arises. 17

Herein private respondent, as vendee/consignee of the goods in transit has such existing interest therein as may be the subject of a valid contract of insurance. His interest over the goods is based on the perfected contract of sale. 18 The perfected contract of sale between him and the shipper of the goods operates to vest in him an equitable title even before delivery or before be performed the conditions of the sale. 19 The contract of shipment, whether under F.O.B., C.I.F., or C. & F. as in this case, is immaterial in the determination of whether the vendee has an insurable interest or not in the goods in transit. The perfected contract of sale even without delivery vests in the vendee an equitable title, an existing interest over the goods sufficient to be the subject of insurance.

Further, Article 1523 of the Civil Code provides that where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorized or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named by the buyer or not, for, the purpose of transmission to the buyer is deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer, the exceptions to said rule not obtaining in the present case. The Court has heretofore ruled that the delivery of the goods on board the carrying vessels partake of the nature of actual delivery since, from that time, the foreign buyers assumed the risks of loss of the goods and paid the insurance premium covering them. 20

C & F contracts are shipment contracts. The term means that the price fixed includes in a lump sum the cost of the goods and freight to the named destination. 21 It simply means that the seller must pay the costs and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named destination but the risk of loss or damage to the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer when the goods pass the ship's rail in the port of shipment. 22

Moreover, the issue of lack of insurable interest was not among the defenses averred in petitioners answer. It was neither an issue agreed upon by the parties at the pre-trial conference nor was it raised during the trial in the court below. It is a settled rule that an issue which has not been raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. 23 This is but a permuted restatement of the long settled rule that when a party deliberately adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so, would be unfair to the adverse party. 24

If despite the fundamental doctrines just stated, we nevertheless decided to indite a disquisition on the issue of insurable interest raised by petitioner, it was to put at rest all doubts on the matter under the facts in this case and also to dispose of petitioner's third assignment of error which consequently needs no further discussion.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.