3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 September 2020 which reads as follows: "G.R. No. 242697 (Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. and General Milling Corporation). - After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition I and AFFIRM the February 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 17 , 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107938 for failure of petitioner Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. (Besta) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affinning the April 7, 2016 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Comi of Makati City, Branch 66 that held Besta liable to respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential) as subrogee, for the cost of the insured damaged cargo of respondent General Milling Corporation (GMC). As correctly ruled by the CA, Besta is liable to Prudential for the amount it paid to GMC for the value of the insured damaged cargo, considering that: (a) Prudential sufficiently established all the elements of subrogation. 5 The 'Charter Agreement' 6 - which purportedly absolved Besta from any subrogatory claims - could not be given weight, since it was, among others, a mere m1-notarized photocopy of a facsimile transmission, 7 in violation of the Best Evidence Rule; 8 (b) Prudential's claim has not yet prescribed, considering that copy of the alleged Clause 4 9 of the Bill of Lading 10 was not fonnally offered in evidence 11 and, in 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rollo, pp. 12-35. Id. at 39-7 1. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting, concurr.ing. Id. at 73-75 . Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurrin g. Id. at 206-213 . Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa. See id. at 56-57. Titled as General Charter, roll o, p. 76. See also rollo, pp. 43-44. See id . at 59 . See Section 3; Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Clause 4 of the Bill of Lading provides: 4. x x x Claims for nondelivery of sl1i pment must be presented in the carrier within thirty days from the date of accrua l. Suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or nondelivery of shipment sha ll be i.nstituted within sixty days from the date of the accrual of (115)URES - more -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila …

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila …

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 September 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242697 (Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. and General Milling Corporation). - After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition I and AFFIRM the February 27, 2018 Decision2 and the October 17, 2018 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107938 for failure of petitioner Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. (Besta) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affinning the April 7, 2016 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Comi of Makati City, Branch 66 that held Besta liable to respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential) as subrogee, for the cost of the insured damaged cargo of respondent General Milling Corporation (GMC).

As correctly ruled by the CA, Besta is liable to Prudential for the amount it paid to GMC for the value of the insured damaged cargo, considering that: (a) Prudential sufficiently established all the elements of subrogation.5 The 'Charter Agreement' 6 - which purportedly absolved Besta from any subrogatory claims -could not be given weight, since it was, among others, a mere m1-notarized photocopy of a facsimile transmission,7 in violation of the Best Evidence Rule;8

(b) Prudential's claim has not yet prescribed, considering that copy of the alleged Clause 49 of the Bill of Lading10 was not fonnally offered in evidence 11 and, in

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rollo, pp. 12-35 . Id. at 39-7 1. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting, concurr.ing. Id. at 73-75 . Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring. Id. at 206-213 . Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa. See id. at 56-57. Titled as General Charter, rollo, p. 76. See also rollo, pp. 43-44. See id. at 59 . See Section 3; Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Clause 4 of the Bill of Lading provides:

4. x x x Claims for nondelivery of sl1ipment must be presented in the carrier within thirty days from the date of accrual. Suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or nondelivery of shipment shall be i.nstituted within sixty days from the date of the accrual of

(115)URES - more -

Page 2: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila …

Resolution -2- G.R. No. 242697 September 23, 2020

any case, GMC's provisional and formal claims, filed with Besta on April 17 and May 5, 2006, respectively, constituted as substantial compliance with Clause 4's requirements; ~2 and (c) Besta failed to sufficiently prove that it observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the cargo consigned to it by GMC from the start of the voyage up to the ship's return to Lapu-Lapu City, including the actions taken by the ship 's captain during the incident.13 As such, the legal presumption of fault or negligence on its part stands, making it liable for the value of the damaged cargo. It is settled that in case of loss or deterioration of goods in transit, the common carrier is presumed under the law to have been at fault or negligent. 14 To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods, failing in which, it shall be held responsible for the loss or deterioration, 15

as in this case. Finally, the issues raised in this petition are factual in nature, which are not proper for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 16 of the Rules of Court, where only questions of law are allowed. 17

SO ORDERED. (Lazaro-Javier, J , designated Additional Member vice Inting, J; Delos Santos, J , on offi cial leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J , on leave.)"

By authority of the Co_u_rt_: ___

the righ t ·of action. Failw·e to make claims, or to insti tute judicial proceedings as herein provided shall constitute a waiver of the claim or ri ght of action.

10 Rollo, p. 77. 11 See id . at 68-69. 12 See id . at 70. 13 See id. al 55-56. 14 See Article 1735 of the CrvrL CODE or THE P l·JILJPPINES. See also Loadmasters Customs Services, inc.

v. Glodel Brokerage Corporation, 654 Phil. 67, 77 (201 l). See further Central Shipping Company, inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 481 Phil. 868, 876 (2004) .

15 See Nedlfoyd Lijnen B.V Rotterdam v. Gfuw Laks Enterprises, Ltd., 747 Phil. 170, 185 (2014). See also Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N. V. v. Philippine First insurance Co., inc., 432 Phil. 567, 580 (2002).

16 Section l, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court reads:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - x xx The petition may include an application for a writ of preli minary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth [.] (Emphas is suppl ied)

17 See Tatel 11. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, inc., 755 Phil. 171, 181 (2015).

..

..

Page 3: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila …

Resolution 3

LG TON LAW (reg) (Attys. Alexi L. Calda & Maureen Gizelle C. Choa) Counsel for Petitioner Besta Shipping Lines, Inc. Unit 1709, East Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Rd. Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City

FLAMINIANO & BANZON LAW OFFICE (reg) Counsel for Respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. 2nd Floor, Unit 205 Strata 2000 F. O1tigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center Brgy. San Antonio, 1605 Pasig City

JOVELLANOS-KHO MALCONTENTO & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES (reg) Counsel for Respondent General Milling Corp. Suite 1105, 11 th Floor, Prestige Tower Condominium Ortigas Center, F. Ortigas Jr. (formerly Emerald Avenue) 1605 Pasig City

HON. PRESfDlNG JUDGE (reg) Regional Trial Court, ·Branch 66 Makati City (Civil Case No. 07-371)

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x) Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x) LIBRARY SERVICES (x) [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x) OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x) Supreme Court, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x) Ma. Orosa Street Ermita, l 000 Manila CA-G.R. CV No. 107938

Please notify the Court of any change in you/ address. GR242697. 09/23/2020(1 l 5)URES i(Off

G.R. No. 242697 September 23, 2020