Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation carried 581 bundles of black steel pipes for the
account of Sumitomo Corporation. Sumitomo insured the shipment with chubb and
sons, an insurance company. Due to negligence by Lorenzo corp. the steel pipes
was heavily rusted. Sumitomo inspected the pipes and declared it unfit and filed an
insurance claim against chubb and sons for $104k. Chubb and sons filed a
complaint for collection of sum of money against Lorenzo shipping.
RULING:
Yes. Capacity to sue is a right personal to its holder, it is conferred by law. The
foreign corporation doing an isolatedbusiness transaction in the Philippines does not
need a license. The insurer Chubb and Sons is the real party ininterest and
damages. Where an insurance company as subrogee pays the insured of the entire
loss it suffered,the insurer subrogee is the only real party in interest and must sue in
its own name to enforce its right ofsubrogation against a third party which caused
the loss. The subrogated unsurer becomes owner of the claims andthe entire fruits
of the action.
FACTS:
RULING:
Loadmasters cannot be considered an agent of Glodel. Loadmasters in no way
represented itself as such, and in the transfer of cargo, did not represent itself as
doing such in behalf of Glodel. In fact, Loadmasters is not privy to the agreement
between Glodel and Columbia. It cannot be considered an agent of Glodel, and
cannot be held liable to Glodel. However, both Glodel and Loadmasters were
negligent as the cargo failed to reach its destination. Loadmasters failed to ensure
that its employees would not tamper with the cargo. Glodel failed to ensure that
Loadmasters is sufficiently capable of completing the delivery. Glodel and
Loadmasters are therefore joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable to R&B
Insurance.
FACTS:
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc loaded on board MV Asilda, a vessel owned and
operated by respondent Felman Shipping Lines. 7,500 cases of 1-liter Coca-Cola
softdrink bottles to be transported from Zamboanga City to Cebu City. The shipment
was insured with petitioner Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc.
(PHILAMGEN). During the shipment he vessel sank in the waters of Zamboanga del
Norte bringing down her entire cargo with her including the subject 7,500 cases of
1-liter Coca-Cola softdrink bottles. Coca-Cola filed an insurance claim with
PHILAMGEN. Claiming its right of subrogation PHILAMGEN sought recourse against
respondent FELMAN which disclaimed any liability for the loss.
ISSUE: whether PHILAMGEN was properly subrogated to the rights and legal actions
which the shipper had against FELMAN
RULING:
Yes. The doctrine 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, equity and good conscience ought to pay.
[19] Therefore, the payment made by PHILAMGEN to Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,
Inc., gave the former the right to bring an action as subrogee against FELMAN.
Having failed to rebut the presumption of fault, the liability of FELMAN for the loss of
the 7,500 cases of 1-liter Coca-Cola softdrink bottles is inevitable.
DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. VS. CA ET.AL. 369 SCRA 24, 2001
FACTS:
Caltex Phil. entered into a contract of affreightment with the petitioner, Delsan
Transport Lines, Inc. for a period of one year whereby the petitioner agreed to
transport Caltex industrial fuel oil from Batangas refinery to different parts of the
country. On August 14, 1986, MT Maysun set sail for Zamboanga City but
unfortunately the vessel sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay
Gulf. The shipment was insured with the private respondent, American Home
Assurance Corporation. Subsequently, private respondent paid Caltex the sum of
Php.5,096,635.57. Exercising its right of subrogation, the private respondent
demanded from the petitioner the same amount paid to Caltex. Due to its failure to
collect from the petitioner, private respondent filed a complaint with the RTC of
Makati City but the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the vessel to be
seaworthy and that the incident was due to a force majeure, thus exempting the
petitioner from liability. However, the decision of the trial court was reversed by the
CA, giving credence to the report of PAGASA that the weather was normal and that
it was impossible for the vessel to sink.
ISSUE: Whether or not the payment made by private respondent 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.
RULING:
The payment by the private respondent for the insured value of the lost cargo
operates as waiver of its 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 vessels seaworthiness by the private
respondent as to foreclose recourse against the petitioner for any liability under its
contractual obligation as common carrier. The fact of payment grants the private
respondent subrogatory right which enables it to exercise legal remedies that
otherwise be available to Caltex as owner of the lost cargo against the petitioner
common carrier.
FACTS:
Malayan Insurance issued Car Insurance Policy in favor of First Malayan Leasing and
Finance Corporation (the assured) insuring the aforementioned Mitsubishi Galant
against third party liability, own damage and theft, among others. On December 17,
1995 an accident occurred at the corner of EDSA and Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
involving four (4) vehicles including the car insured. Malayan Insurance paid the
damages sustained by the assured amounting to PhP 700,000. Maintaining that it
has been subrogated to the rights and interests of the assured, Malayan Insurance
sent several demand letters to the registered owner and driver of the Fuzo Cargo
Truck.
ISSUE: Whether the subrogation of Malayan insurance has passed compliance and
requisites as provided under pertinent laws.
RULING: