Delsan
Transport Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
(Insurance
Law)
369
SCRA 24 (G.R. No. 127897)
November
15, 2001
|
Petitioners: |
Delsan
Transport Lines, Inc. |
|
Respondents: |
Court of
Appeals and American Home Assurance Corporation |
J. De Leon, Jr.:
FACTS:
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 the Petitioner took on board its vessel, MT Maysun 2, 277.314
kilolitres 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.
On
August 14, 1986, MT Maysun 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,
AHA paid Caltex the sum of ₱5,096,635.67
representing the insured value of the lost cargo. Exercising its right of
subrogation under Article 2207 of the New Civil Code, AH demanded of the
petitioner the same amount it paid to Caltex.
Due
to its failure to collect, AHA filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati,
Branch137 for collection of sum of money. The trial court dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the vessel was seaworthy as determined by PCG per
Survey Certificate Report No. M5-016-MH upon inspection during its annual
drydocking and that the incident was caused by unexpected inclement weather
condition or force majeure, thus exempting DELSAN (Petitioner) from liability
for the loss of the cargo.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision, giving
credence to the weather report issued by the PAGASA which showed that from 2:00
o’clock to 8:00 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 2 meters
in height only in the vicinity of the Panay Gulf where the subject vessel sank,
in contrast to herein petitioners allegations 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 carrier to herein private respondent insurance company as
subrogee of Caltex.
Hence
this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
1. 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.
2. Whether
or not the non-representation of the marine insurance policy bars the complaint
for recovery of sum of money for lack of cause of action.
HELD:
1. Yes.
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 respondents 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 of 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.
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. 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.
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 of their own goods and for the safety
of passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each
case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods,
common carrier shall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among
others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or
calamity. 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.
Neither may petitioner escape liability
by presenting in evidence certificates 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
drydocking and inspection, the ship may have appeared fit. The 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 establishes
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’s owner’s obligation. Also securing the approved of
the shipper of the cargo, or his surveyor, of the condition of the vessel or
her stowage does not establishes due diligence if the vessel was in
unseaworthy, for the cargo owner has no obligation in relation to
seaworthiness.
Additionally, the exoneration of MT
Maysuns officer’s 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 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. 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 carrier occasioned by the unexplained sinking of its
vessel, MT Maysun, while in transit.
2. No.
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 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 in the exercise of its subrogatory 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.
