Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. G.R.
No. 242697
FACE:
Besta is a domestic corporation licensed to operate marine vessels for the
purpose of transporting cargoes and other commodites within the Philippine
territorial waters. Besta is the owner, operator, and/or charterer of the vessel
MV Balenos Dos.
MV Balenos Dos loaded on board a shipment consisting of various feed
ingredients including several thousands of bags of wheat (cargo), which was
consigned to General Milling Corp. (GMC). The cargo was bound for GMC's
plant in Cagayan de Oro from Lapu-Lapu. The cargo was received by Besta in
good and complete condition. GMC insured the cargo with Prudential
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential) against all
Risks under Marine Open Policy.
Unfortunately, while en route to Cagayan de Oro, the captain of MV Balenos
Dos alleged that he saw two unknown vessels from the opposite direction on a
collision course with it. To avoid a head on collision, the captain altered the
course of MV Balenos Dos and
passed portside-to-portside with the unknown vessels. Upon attempting to
return to its original course, however, MV Balenos Dos hit the reefs in the
shallow portions of the water causing it to run aground.
Besta hired LCT Angkor I to rescue MV Balenos Dos. The portion of the cargo
in good condition was transferred to LCT Angkor I, while the damaged portion
of the cargo remained on MV Balenos Dos. Upon the arrival of MV Balenos
Dos, a representative from GMC inspected the cargo.12 The surveyrevealed
that the cargo was heavily damaged and spoiled and could no longer be used
for the purpose for which they were intended.13 GMC's representative
outrightly rejected 8,663 bags of Hard Mill Run and China Wheat. Based on the
survey, GMC suffered losses in the amount of Two Million Thirty-Eight
Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Seven and 22/100 Pesos (Php
2,038,797.22).
GMC filed a formal claim against Besta for the damaged and spoiled cargo.
Despite receipt of a formal demand, Besta refused to pay GMC's claim.
Consequently, Prudential paid GMC the amount the amount as indemnity for
the damage to the cargo. Prudential filed a Complaint for Recovery of Sum of
Money and Damages before the court a quo.
Prudential alleged that it is the insurer of the damaged cargo of GMC and after
having paid the claim of GMC, it was subrogated to the rights of GMC to
recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that Prudential, as insurer, was
obligated to pay.
For its part, Besta filed a Motion to Dismiss. It alleged that Prudential has no
subrogatory claim against it since GMC absolved Besta from any subrogatory
claim. Thus, it prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice on the ground that Prudential's
claim had already been absolved, waived, released or otherwise extinguished
and for having no cause of action and for utter lack of merit.
In support of this claim, Besta attached a General Charter23 agreement
(Charter Agreement) purportedly entered into between Besta and GMC. The
Charter Agreement
provides in part: XXXX -Carrier/Owner shall be free from any subrogatory
claims
made whatsoever, Shipper/Charterer shall absolve
carrier/owner from such claim.
ISSUE:
WON Prudential acquired subrogatory rights from GMC therefore Besta
Shipping is liable to pay the damaged and spoiled carto to Prudential being a
subgrogee
HELD:
AFFIRMATIVE.The rule on subrogation is provided under Article 2207 of
the Civil Code, which states:
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.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the requisites of
subrogation are as follows:
1. The insurance involved is property insurance;
2. There is loss arising from the risk insured against;
3. The insured received indemnity from the insurer for the loss;
and
4. The indemnity is covered by the face value of the policy.60
Here, as correctly ruled by the court a quo all the requisites
for subrogation are present, thus:
The the [sic] court acknowledges the right of the plaintiff as
subrogee of the assured, having been able to prove by
preponderant evidence the requisites of subrogation. It was
proven that M/V Balenos Dos was initially in control, custody
and possession of the Php[sic]8,143 bags of China Wheat
shipped by GMC at the time of loss and/or damage to the
cargoes; that there were damage to the cargo; that there were
claims against Besta by General Milling. More importantly,
plaintiff paid General Milling the claim which legally entitiled
it to go against Besta as subrogee.
As explained by the Supreme Court in Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America,62 citing the case
of Pan Malayan Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals,63 payment
by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment
of all remedies the assured may have against the third party who caused the
damage. Subrogation 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 of the insurance claim
by the insurer.
In this case, when Prudential paid the insurance claim of
GMC, after Besta refused to pay the latter's claim, Prudential
stepped into the shoes of GMC and acquired whatever rights the
latter had against Besta.
Significantly, the copy of the Charter Agreement presented
by Besta and marked as Exhibit “6” is a photcopy of a facsimile
transmission. A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not
admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable
In this case, Besta failed to lay the proper basis for the
introduction of secondary evidence. Hence, Exhibit “6”of Besta is
inadmissible in evidence on the basis of the Best Evidence Rule.
Finally, the issues raised in this petition are factual in nature, which are not
proper for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, where only questions of law are allowed.
