Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

093 Phil 234:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5184. May 29, 1953.]

MACONDRAY & CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Defendant-Appellee.

J. A. Wolfson, J. A. Agbulos and P. B. Gallardo for Appellant.

Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian & Quasha for Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the following decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is a suit to collect from the defendant a sum of money representing the value of certain goods which were damaged or lost, covered by an insurance policy issued by the defendant.

"The plaintiff alleges that on or about December 13, 1946 a certain cargo consisting of 1982 cartons of mackerel in tins, ’American Wonder’ brand, was loaded on the vessel M/V Temoraire in New York consigned to the plaintiff in Manila; that this cargo was insured against all risks, as per certificate of insurance No. 365064 issued by the defendant in favor of the Banton Corporation for $27,343, equivalent to P54,686; that the insurance policy was duly indorsed by the Banton Corporation to the plaintiff, payable to the latter’s order; that of said shipment, 131 cartons were lost or missing and 1,851 cartons were damaged, the plaintiff thereby suffering a loss in the sum of $18,096.12; and that in spite of repeated demands the defendant refused and failed to pay said amount.

"The defendant answered denying specifically certain material allegations of the complaint, and by way of special defense alleges that the loss and damage of the cargo was due to the inherent vice of the insured goods and that such loss and damage are not covered by the terms of the insurance policy. The defendant alleges other special defenses which need not be considered here for the purpose of the decision.

"The cargo consigned to the plaintiff Macondray & Co., Inc., consisting of 1892 cartons of mackerel in tins, was covered by Ocean Cargo Certificate No. 365064 (Exhibit F) issued by the defendant in favor of the Banton Corporation for the sum of $27,343. The cargo arrived in Manila on or about January 26, 1947. It is claimed that 131 cartons were lost and the rest were damaged. As to the cause of the damage, Maurice Furstenburg was the only witness who testified on that point. In the course of his crossexamination Mr. Furstenburg stated that he could not say whether the damage was due to insufficient packing or to any definite cause. The questions propounded to him and his answers thereto are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Q. Can you say, or can you state whether or not the damage was due partly to the insufficient packing?

‘A. No; I could not say that.

‘Q. Can you say what was the cause of the damage?

‘A. I can not.’

"The plaintiff relies on the Ocean Cargo Certificate No. 365064 issued by the defendant, presented in evidence as Exhibit F in support of its claim against the defendant. The said certificate does not embody all the terms and conditions of the contract, and is subject to all the terms of a certain open policy therein mentioned, as may be seen from the following certificate contained in said Exhibit F, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that on the thirteenth day of December, 1946, we, the undersigned, insured under Open Policy No. 612 for THE BANTON CORPORATION the sum of twenty-seven thousand three hundred forty-three and 00/100 Dollars on 1982 ctns. mackerel in tins . . .’

"The plaintiff did not present Open Policy No. 6128 and thereby failed to establish that the loss and damage, if any, suffered by the cargo are recoverable from the defendant. In other words, there is no sufficient evidence that loss and damage caused by undetermined origin, as the evidence in this case purports to show, are covered by the policy. Furthermore the said Exhibit F expressly states that —

‘Unless otherwise expressly stated hereon, this insurance only covers the risk of breakage, leakage or rust when cause by stranding, sinking, burning or collision of the vessel.’

"Upon the face of this Ocean Cargo Certificate No. 365064 (Exhibit F) it would seem that the alleged loss and damage suffered by the cargo are not covered by the contract. The defendant presented no evidence in support of its defense and submitted the case upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

"From the facts above stated the Court believes that the plaintiff has failed to establish its alleged right to recover. WHEREFORE, the defendant is absolved from all liability under the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

The four assignments of error contained in plaintiff-appellant’s brief narrow down to the contention that its claim is rested on, and should be decided in the light of, the provisions of Certificate of Insurance No. 365064, more particularly the following clause: "This certificate is subject to all the terms of the Open Policy, provided, however, that the rights of a bona fide holder of this certificate for value shall not be prejudiced by any terms of the open policy which are in conflict with the terms of this certificate." Upon the other hand the defendant-appellee, sustained by the trial court, insists that Certificate No. 365064 is subject to the terms of Open Policy No. 6128, and cites the fact that said Certificate opened with the statement that "We, the undersigned, insured under Open Policy No. 6128 for THE BANTON CORPORATION . . ." and recited that "This certificate is subject to all the terms of the open policy, provided, however, that the rights of a bona fide holder of this certificate for value shall not be prejudiced by any terms of the open policy which are in conflict with the terms of this certificate." Again, while the defendant-appellee invokes the clause of Certificate No. 365064 to the effect that "Unless otherwise expressly stated hereon this insurance only covers the risk of breakage, leakage or rust when caused by stranding, sinking, burning or collision of the vessel," the plaintiff-appellant argues that the insurance under said certificate was "Against all risks of physical loss or damage irrespective of percentage from any external cause other than the risk excluded by the F. C. & S. (Free of Capture & Seizure) warranty and S. R. & C. C. (Strikes, Riots and Civil Commotions) warranty unless otherwise provided for herein," in relation especially to the provision that "the rights of a bona fide holder of this certificate for value shall not be prejudiced by any terms of the open policy which are in conflict with the terms of this certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial court is correct in holding that the Certificate of Insurance No. 365064 is subject to the terms of Open Policy No. 6128. As the cause of the loss or damage was not established by the appellant and a copy of the open policy was not presented in evidence, to show whether said loss or damages recoverable from the appellee under the contract of insurance, the appellant’s claim cannot prosper. The express statement that Certificate No. 365064 was subject to the open policy would be meaningless if, as pretended by the appellant, the terms of the latter may be entirely ignored.

It is urged for the appellant, that as the open policy was relied upon by the appellee in its answer, the latter was bound to produce a copy thereof; and that as the appellant has already proved the loss or damage to the cargo insured, it was incumbent upon the appellee to prove that said loss or damage was caused by a risk not covered by the insurance. This contention is rather novel, since the plaintiff can neither win its suit merely because of the weakness of the defendant’s evidence, nor require the latter to prove plaintiff’s cause of action. As Certificate No. 365064 contains obviously conflicting clauses, we cannot say that one or the other is controlling, and recourse has to be made to the terms of Open Policy No. 6128 — a step that cannot be accomplished for lack of corresponding evidence.

The appellant contends, however, that the trial court erred in denying admission of Exhibits G to J, T, M, N, and O. Even disregarding appellee’s allegation that "All these exhibits were self-serving, hearsay documents to which defendant was not a party and which in most cases not even properly identified," it is not pretended that said documents would conclusively prove the terms of the open policy.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the Appellant.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310