New Zealand Ins. Co., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [G.R. No. L-66596] Case Digest

 

 

 

New Zealand Ins. Co., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. L-66596

Facts:

            A cargo of oats was consigned to Muller and Phipps (Manila) Ltd. The cargo was insured against all risks by The New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd., the petitioner herein. When the cargo was discharged several cartons which contained the oats were in bad order. The consignee filed a claim against the insurer for the value of the damaged goods which the latter paid in the amount of 18,148 pesos. The insurer as subrogee of the consignee sued E. Razon, Inc., the respondent herein, who was the arrastre operator. The insurer demanded reimbursement in the amount of 17,025 pesos. The lower figure is due to the fact that the carrier responded for its share of the loss in the sum of 1,121 pesos.  CFI gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

            E. Razon, Inc. appealed the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals. The Intermediate Appellate Court which succeeded the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court "On the ground of prescription, appellee has no cause of action against the appellant."

            The New Zealand Insurance Co. argued in the appellate court that the bad order certificates which were issued by E. Razon, Inc. on March 23 and 24, 1972, served the purpose of a formal claim so that the claim was not filed out of time.

 

Issue:

            Whether the appellee has cause of action against the appellant.

 

Held:

            Yes, the examination undertaken by the defendant’s own inspector not only gave the defendant an opportunity to check the goods but is itself a verification of its own liability.

            In fact the respondent obliquely concedes the validity of the petitioner’s argument by stating that if the petition be given due course its liability should be in the reduced amount of 5,344 pesos only and not the amount found by the lower court. Considering that the instant petition is meritorious and the amount to be awarded is a question of fact said amount cannot be reduced at this stage.