Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    Aboitiz Vs ICNA

    Uploaded by

    Igi Filoteo
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Respondent ICNA, who paid the insurance claim to the consignee, has the right of subrogation to claim reimbursement from petitioner Aboitiz. 2) There was timely filing of the notice of claim as the consignee called Aboitiz two days after delivery, allowing immediate inspection while still fresh. 3) Petitioner Aboitiz is liable for the water damage to the goods since it did not prove it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aboitiz Vs ICNA

    Uploaded by

    Igi Filoteo
    205 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Respondent ICNA, who paid the insurance claim to the consignee, has the right of subrogation to claim reimbursement from petitioner Aboitiz. 2) There was timely filing of the notice of claim as the consignee called Aboitiz two days after delivery, allowing immediate inspection while still fresh. 3) Petitioner Aboitiz is liable for the water damage to the goods since it did not prove it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

    Original Description:

    a case digest for aboitiz vs ICNA

    Original Title

    Aboitiz vs ICNA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Respondent ICNA, who paid the insurance claim to the consignee, has the right of subrogation to claim reimbursement from petitioner Aboitiz. 2) There was timely filing of the notice of claim as the consignee called Aboitiz two days after delivery, allowing immediate inspection while still fresh. 3) Petitioner Aboitiz is liable for the water damage to the goods since it did not prove it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    205 views2 pages

    Aboitiz Vs ICNA

    Uploaded by

    Igi Filoteo
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Respondent ICNA, who paid the insurance claim to the consignee, has the right of subrogation to claim reimbursement from petitioner Aboitiz. 2) There was timely filing of the notice of claim as the consignee called Aboitiz two days after delivery, allowing immediate inspection while still fresh. 3) Petitioner Aboitiz is liable for the water damage to the goods since it did not prove it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, vs.

    INSURANCE COMPANY OF
    NORTH AMERICA,
    G.R. No. 168402 August 6, 2008

    Facts:
    1. MSAS Cargo International Limited and/or Associated and/or Subsidiary Companies (MSAS)
    procured a marine insurance policy from respondent ICNA UK Limited of London and the
    insurance was for a transshipment of certain wooden work tools and workbenches purchased for
    the consignee Science Teaching Improvement Project (STIP), Ecotech Center, Sudlon
    Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines.
    2. When the cargo reached Manila, it was received by petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
    (Aboitiz) through its duly authorized booking representative, Aboitiz Transport System and the
    bill of lading issued by Aboitiz contained the notation grounded outside warehouse.
    3. The shipment arrived in Cebu City and discharged onto a receiving apron of the Cebu
    International Port and it was then brought to the Cebu Bonded Warehousing Corporation
    pending clearance from the Customs authorities where petitioner’s checker noted that the crates
    were slightly broken or cracked at the bottom.
    4. Subsequently, then Claims Head of petitioner, received a telephone call from Bernhard Willig,
    the representative of consignee who received the shipment, informing him that the cargo
    sustained water damage.
    5. ICNA paid the amount of P280,176.92 to consignee and ICNA formally advised Aboitiz of the
    claim and subrogation receipt executed in its favor but despite follow-ups, no reply was
    received from Aboitiz.

    Issues:
    1. Is respondent ICNA the real party-in-interest that possesses the right of subrogation to claim
    reimbursement from petitioner Aboitiz?
    2. Was there a timely filing of the notice of claim as required under Article 366 of the Code of
    Commerce?
    3. If so, can petitioner be held liable on the claim for damages?

    Ruling:
    1. Yes, payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment of all remedies
    the assured may have against the third party who caused the damage. Subrogation is not
    dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of
    claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. Upon payment to
    the consignee of indemnity for damage to the insured goods, ICNAs entitlement to subrogation
    equipped it with a cause of action against petitioner in case of a contractual breach or
    negligence.
    2. Yes, provisions specifying a time to give notice of damage to common carriers are ordinarily to
    be given a reasonable and practical, rather than a strict construction. The call to petitioner was
    made two days from delivery, a reasonable period considering that the goods could not have
    corroded instantly overnight such that it could only have sustained the damage during
    transit. Moreover, petitioner was able to immediately inspect the damage while the matter was
    still fresh. In so doing, the main objective of the prescribed time period was fulfilled. Thus,
    there was substantial compliance with the notice requirement in this case
    3. Yes, The rule as stated in Article 1735 of the Civil Code is that in cases where the goods are
    lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
    acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence required by law.
    Petitioner is thus liable for the water damage sustained by the goods due to its failure to
    satisfactorily prove that it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

    You might also like