ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 153140.January 15, 2003]
PHILS. 1ST INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL "M/V LONG XU," et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 JAN 2003.
G.R. No. 153140(Philippines First Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Unknown Owner of the Vessel "M/V Long Xu," Wah Shun Shipping Co. Ltd., Hon. Court of Appeals and Havtor Management Philippines, Inc.)
At bar is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld the order issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 139, dismissing petitioner's complaint for damages against private respondent, thus:
"Therefore, this Court so holds that it has not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Defendant Unknown Owner and Wah Shun by the service of summons to Defendant Havtor Management Philippines, Inc., such service being insufficient to confer, to this Court jurisdiction over the persons of said Defendants on the basis of the foregoing discussion.
"WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss dated 20 October 1995 is GRANTED, and the Complaint dated 11 September 1995 is DISMISSED." [1] cralaw
On September 6, 1994, a certain Hanwa Company Ltd. shipped on board M/V Long Xu, 20,000 bags of MT Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from China to be delivered at the port of Manila to its consignee L.G. Atkimson Import Export. The cargo was insured by petitioner against all risks in the amount of P3,793,392.00.
Upon arrival in Manila, it was discovered that 3,035 bags of the cargo were in bad order, torn, wet and in various degrees of spillage. As a consequence, petitioner was obliged to pay the insurance claim in the amount of P423,627.05 for the damage sustained by the cargo.Hence petitioner was subrogated to all the rights and causes of action the consignee had against private respondent-carrier.
On September 14, 1995 petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the three private respondents, one of whom petitioner designated as "unknown owner of the vessel" M/V Long Xu and Wah Shun Shipping Company Ltd. Petitioner likewise impleaded Havtor Management Philippines Inc., the alleged resident agent of Wah Shun Shipping Company.
Private respondent HAVTOR filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the "unknown owner" of M/V Long Xu and Wah Shun Shipping, both being foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines. HAVTOR likewise denied being the resident agent of its co-private respondent.
In an order dated June 21, 1996, the trial court granted private respondent HAVTOR's motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was bereft of appropriate allegations that private respondent "unknown owner" of M/V Long Xu and Wah Shun Shipping were in fact doing business in the Philippines. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the trial court denied it. Displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal, as follows:
"Conformably thereto, the allegations in the Complaint that a foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines must at least contain some details of the activities performed by said corporation. This plaintiff PFICI failed to do. Coupled with the fact that no such activities surfaced from the evidence adduced by the appellants during the hearings, the inevitable conclusion is that defendant foreign corporations are not doing business in the Philippines and the court below has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendants.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Orders appealed from are AFFIRMED." [2] cralaw
A subsequent motion for reconsideration likewise proved futile.
Undaunted by its repeated defeats, petitioner files the instant petition alleging the same issues raised on appeal as follows:
"1.RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS (SIC) JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN RENDERING ITS NOVEMBER 29, 2001 DECISION AND MARCH 5, 2002 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT CONTRARY TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ADMISSION AND THE WELL ESTABLISHED FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAVTOR IS THE SHIP AGENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
"xxx����� xxx������ xxx
"3.THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS (SIC) JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN CITING AS A FACT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S BARE ALLEGATION IN THEIR PLEADINGS THAT 'SUCH APPOINTMENT WAS ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CARGO DISCHARGING IN THE PHILIPPINES.'" [3] cralaw
The petition must fail.
In its complaint before the trial court, petitioner simply alleged that "the defendants are foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines through defendant Havtor." As correctly ruled, the aforestated allegation is not sufficient.
����������� Petitioner relies on Signetics Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, [4] cralaw to bolster its contention that for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction by way of service of summons, there is no need to prove first the fact that defendant is doing business. However, a close scrutiny of the above-mentioned case reveals that the fact of doing business was first established in the complaint by appropriate allegations with details relative to the business activities conducted by the defendant foreign corporation constitutive of "doing business." This is not so in the case at bar. Moreover, the Court takes note of the fact that during the hearings conducted by the trial court, petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove that indeed the "unknown owner" and Wah Shun Shipping were doing business in the Philippines.
Anent the agency of HAVTOR, the record is bereft of any clear and convincing evidence that HAVTOR is the appointed representative in Manila of Wah Shun Shipping. No documents were presented to support petitioner's allegation that HAVTOR is the agent of the said foreign corporations in the Philippines. The letter of a certain Capt. Roberto G. Nieto, the only document presented by petitioner to prove the alleged agency, does not contain any categorical admission thereof by HAVTOR whose only admission was its duty to discharge the cargo for M/V Long Xu and nothing more. HAVTOR even went on to state in said letter that any claim arising from the shipment must be directed to the vessel's owners. This statement negates the claim of agency.
The Court therefore finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Court of Appeals in its assailed decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 34.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 59-60.
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 14.
[4] cralaw 225 SCRA 737 [1993].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
