Commercial Law Cases

I. Negotiable Instrument
a. GR. No. 187769 – 6/4/14
b. GR. No. 208321 – 7/13/14
c. GR. No. 176697 – 9/10/14
d. GR. No. 180144 – 9/20/14
e. GR. No. 184458 – 1/14/15

II. Insurance

a. GR. No. 185964 – 6/15/14

June 16, 2014
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS:
A shipment of 3,000 bags of sodium tripolyphosphate arrived in
Manila through COSCO and was discharged into the possession and
custody of ATI, a domestic corporation engaged in arrastre
business. The shipment remained for quite some time at ATI’s
storage area until it was withdrawn by broker, PROVEN, on for
delivery to the consignee. Upon receipt of the shipment, it was
found out that the delivered goods incurred shortages and spillage
for a loss/damage valued at Php166,772.41. GASI sought
recompense from COSCO, thru its Philippine agent SMITH BELL, ATI
and PROVEN but was denied. Hence, it pursued indemnification
from the shipment’s insurer, FIRST LEPANTO. As subrogee, FIRST
LEPANTO demanded from COSCO, its shipping agency in the
Philippines, SMITH BELL, PROVEN and ATI, reimbursement of the
amount it paid to GASI. ATI and PROVEN denied liability for the
lost/damaged shipment and claimed that it exercised due diligence
and care in handling the same.

MeTC dismissed the case. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) reversed the MeTC’s findings. ATI sought recourse with the
CA challengeing the RTC’s finding that FIRST LEPANTO was validly
subrogated to the rights of GASI with respect to the lost/damaged
shipment. ATI argued that there was no valid subrogation because
FIRST LEPANTO failed to present a valid, existing and enforceable
Marine Open Policy or insurance contract. ATI reasoned that the
Certificate of Insurance or Marine Cover Note submitted by FIRST
LEPANTO as evidence is not the same as an actual insurance
contract.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-presentation of an insurance contract will
bar a subrogee from collecting reimbursement.

HELD:
No, non-presentation of the insurance contract is not fatal to FIRST
LEPANTO’s cause of action or reimbursement as subrogee.
Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of another
with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is
substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt
or claim, including its remedies or securities.

In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that it is

conspicuous from the records that ATI put in issue the submission
of the insurance contract for the first time before the CA. Despite
opportunity to study FIRST LEPANTO’s complaint before the MeTC,
ATI failed to allege in its answer the necessity of the insurance
contract. Neither was the same considered during pre-trial as one
of the decisive matters in the case. Further, ATI never challenged
the relevancy or materiality of the Certificate of Insurance
presented by FIRST LEPANTO as evidence during trial as proof of its
right to be subrogated in the consignee’s stead. Since it was not
agreed during the pre-trial proceedings that FIRST LEPANTO will
have to prove its subrogation rights by presenting a copy of the
insurance contract, ATI is barred from pleading the absence of such
contract in its appeal. It is imperative for the parties to disclose
during pre-trial all issues they intend to raise during the trial
because they are bound by the delimitation of such issues. The
determination of issues during the pre-trial conference bars the
consideration of other questions, whether during trial or on appeal.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals

and the ruling of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the complaint
for lack of evidence and lack of merit.

b. GR. No. 172404 – 8/13/14

c. GR. No. 152334 – 9/24/14

HH Hollero Construction Inc vs GSIS
G.R. No. 152334 September 24, 2014

Facts: On April 26, 1988, the GSIS and petitioner entered into a Project
Agreement (Agreement) whereby the latter undertook the development of a
GSIS housing project known as Modesta Village Section B (Project).
Petitioner obligated itself to insurethe Project, including all the
improvements, upon the execution of the Agreement under a Contractors’ All
Risks (CAR) Insurance with the GSIS General Insurance Department for an
amount equal to its cost or sound value, which shall not be subject to any
automatic annual reduction. Pursuant to its undertaking, petitioner secured
CAR Policy No. 88/085 in the amount of P development, which was later
increased to P 1,000,000.00 for land 10,000,000.00, effective from May 2,
1988 to May 2, 1989. Petitioner likewise secured CAR Policy No. 88/086 in
the amount of P 1,000,000.00 for the construction of twenty (20) housing
units, which amount was later increased to P 17,750,000.00 from May 2,
1988 to June 1, 1989. to cover the construction of another 355 new units,
effective In turn, the GSIS reinsured CAR Policy No. 88/085 with respondent
Pool of Machinery Insurers (Pool). Under both policies, it was provided that:
(a) there must be prior notice of claim for loss, damage or liability within
fourteen (14) days from the occurrence of the loss or damage; (b) all
benefits thereunder shall be forfeited if no action is instituted within
twelve(12) months after the rejection of the claim for loss, damage or
liability; and (c) if the sum insured is found to be less than the amount
required to be insured, the amount recoverable shall be reduced tosuch
proportion before taking into account the deductibles stated in the schedule
(average clause provision). During the construction, three (3) typhoons hit
the country, namely, Typhoon Biring from June 1 to June 4, 1988, Typhoon
Huaning on July 29, 1988, and Typhoon Saling on October 11, 1989, which
caused considerable damage to the Project. Accordingly, petitioner filed
several claims for indemnity with the GSIS on June 30, 1988, August 25,
1988, and October 18, 1989, respectively. In a letter dated April 26, 1990,
the GSIS rejected petitioner’s indemnity claims for the damages wrought by
Typhoons Biring and Huaning, finding that no amount is recoverable
pursuant to the average clause provision under the policies. In a letter dated
June 21, 1990, the GSIS similarly rejected petitioner’s indemnity claim for
damages wrought by Typhoon Saling on a “no loss” basis, it appearing from
its records that the policies were not renewed before the onset of the said
typhoon.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is barred from filing a complaint before
the courts based on the insurance claim.
Held: Yes. Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed
according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties
themselves have used. If such terms are clear and unambiguous, they must
be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense.

Section 10 of the General Conditions of the subject CAR Policies commonly

read:

10. If a claim is in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration is made

or used in support thereof, or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by
the Insured or anyone acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this
Policy, or if a claim is made and rejected and no action or suit is commenced
within twelve months after such rejectionor, in case of arbitration taking
place as provided herein, within twelve months after the Arbitrator or
Arbitrators or Umpire have made their award, all benefit under this Policy
shall be forfeited.

In this relation, case law illumines that the prescriptive period for the
insured’s action for indemnity should be reckoned from the “final rejection”
of the claim.

As correctly observed by the CA, “final rejection” simply means denial by the
insurer of the claims of the insured and not the rejection or denial by the
insurer of the insured’s motion or request for reconsideration. The rejection
referred to should be construed as the rejection in the first instance, as in
the two instances above-discussed.

The right of the insured to the payment of his loss accrues from the
happening of the loss. However, the cause of action in an insurance contract
does not accrue until the insured’s claim is finally rejected by the insurer.
This is because before such final rejection there is no real necessity for
bringing suit.

d. GR. No. 183272 –

e. GR. No. 185565 – 11/26/14

III. Transportation
a. GR. No. 187701 – 7/23/14
b. GR. No. 182864 – 1/12/15

IV. Corporation
a. GR. No. 195580 – 4/21/14 (Narra vs. Redmond)
b. GR. No. 181490 – 4/23/14
 c. GR. No. 180416 – 6/2/14
d. GR. No. 161759 – 7/2/14
e. GR. No. 197530 – 7/9/14
f. GR. No. 171626 (Olongapo City vs. Subicwater)
g. GR No. 174353 – 9/10/14
h. GR. No. 182770 – 9/17/14
i. GR. No. 172843 – 9/24/14
j. GR. No. 174938 – 10/1/14
k. GR. No. 164686 – 10/22/14
l. GR. No. 154291 – 11/12/14
m. GR. No. 195580 – 1/25/15
n. GR. No. 203993 – 4/20/15
o. GR. No. 193791 – 8/6/15
p. GR. No. 187702 – 10/22/14
q. GR. No. 200620 – 3/18/15

V. Banking Law
a. GR. No 163654 – 10/8/14
b. GR. No. 172652 – 11/26/14
c. GR. No. 201931 – 2/11/15

VI. Intellectual Property

a. GR. No. 190706 – 7/21/14
b. GR. No. 212795 – 9/10/14
c. GR. No. 209843 – 3/25/15

VII. Special Laws

a. GR. No. 184000 – 9/17/14
b. GR. No. 195289 – 9/24/14
c. GR. No. 187581 – 10/20/14
d. GR. No. 185590 – 12/3/14
e. GR. No. 193108 – 12/10/14
f. GR. No. 205469 – 3/25/15
g. GR. No. 183587 – 4/20/15