New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. vs. NYKFilJapan Shipping Corp
New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. vs. NYKFilJapan Shipping Corp
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
130
for the duration of delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed
by the Monetary Board.
Same; Section 244 of the Insurance Code also provides for an
award of attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the
assured due to the unreasonable withholding of payment of his
claim.—The term “ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board”
means the legal rate of interest of 12% per annum provided in
Central Bank Circular 416, pursuant to Presidential Decree 116.
Section 244 of the Insurance Code also provides for an award of
attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the assured due to
the unreasonable withholding of payment of his claim.
ABAD, J.:
These consolidated petitions involve a cargo owner’s
right to recover damages from the loss of insured goods
under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Insurance
Code.
131
132
133
the arrastre operator and not from the date they were
delivered to petitioner’s job site.1
As regards petitioner New World’s claim against
Seaboard, its insurer, the RTC held that the latter cannot
be faulted for denying the claim against it since New World
refused to submit the itemized list that Seaboard needed
for assessing the damage to the shipment. Likewise, the
belated filing of the complaint prejudiced Seaboard’s right
to pursue a claim against NYK in the event of subrogation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered
judgment on January 31, 2006,2 affirming the RTC’s
rulings except with respect to Seaboard’s liability. The CA
held that petitioner New World can still recoup its loss
from Seaboard’s marine insurance policy, considering a)
that the submission of the itemized listing is an
unreasonable imposition and b) that the one-year
prescriptive period under the COGSA did not affect New
World’s right under the insurance policy since it was the
Insurance Code that governed the relation between the
insurer and the insured.
Although petitioner New World promptly filed a petition
for review of the CA decision before the Court in G.R.
171468, Seaboard chose to file a motion for reconsideration
of that decision. On August 17, 2006 the CA rendered an
amended decision, reversing itself as regards the claim
against Seaboard. The CA held that the submission of the
itemized listing was a reasonable requirement that
Seaboard asked of New World. Further, the CA held that
the one-year prescriptive period for maritime claims
applied to Seaboard, as insurer and subrogee of New
World’s right against the vessel owner.
_______________
1 Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., 168 Phil. 22,
31; 77 SCRA 359, 362 (1977).
2 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Aurora S. Lagman, Rollo
(G.R. 171468), pp. 9-41.
134
In G.R. 171468—
Petitioner New World asserts that the roles of
respondents DMT, Advatech, LEP, LEP Profit, Marina and
Serbros in handling and transporting its shipment from
Wisconsin to Manila collectively resulted in the damage to
the same, rendering such respondents solidarily liable with
NYK, the vessel owner.
But the issue regarding which of the parties to a dispute
incurred negligence is factual and is not a proper subject of
a petition for review on certiorari. And petitioner New
World
135
_______________
3 See Cang v. Cullen, G.R. No. 163078, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA
391.
4 Civil Code, Article 1739.
5 Choa Tiek Seng v. Court of Appeals, 262 Phil. 245, 255; 183 SCRA
223, 232 (1990).
136
_______________
6 Rollo (G.R. 174241), p. 163.
7 Exhibit “BB” for petitioner, id., at p. 216.
8 For documentation of claims, the policy requires submission of: (1)
Original policy or certificate of insurance; (2) Original copy of shipping
invoices together with shipping specifications and/or weight notes; (3)
Original Bill of Lading and/or other contract of carriage; (4) Survey report
or other documentary evidence to show the extent of the loss or damage;
(5) Landing account and weight notes at final destination, and; (6)
Correspondence exchanged with the Carrier and other parties regarding
the liability for the loss or damage, id., at p. 165.
137
138
_______________
9 Otherwise known as “Amending Further Certain Sections of Act
Numbered Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Five, as amended, otherwise
known as “The Usury Law.”
10 G.R. Nos. 151890 and 151991, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 411.
139
_______________
11 Cathay Insurance Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 255 Phil. 714,
723; 174 SCRA 11, 18 (1989).
12 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
140
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.