Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.

  Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 

G.R. No. 212107, 

January 28, 2019

DOCTRINE:

ART. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has received

indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or

breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the

rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.

If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the

aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the

loss or injury.

Article 2194. liability of two or more persons is solidary in quasi-delicts.

Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons

of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the

goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the

circumstances of each case.

A common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss caused by

robbery or hijacked if it is proven that the robbery or hijacking was attended by grave or

irresistible threat, violence or force

FACTS:

Honda Trading Phils. Ecozone Corporation (Honda Trading) ordered 80 bundles

of Aluminum Alloy Ingots from PT Molten Aluminum Producer Indonesia (PT Molten). PT

Molten loaded the goods in two container vans with Serial Nos. TEXU 389360-5 and

GATU 040516-3 which were, in turn, received in Jakarta, Indonesia by Nippon Express

Co., Ltd. for shipment to Manila.

Aside from insuring the entire shipment with Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire

Insurance Co., Inc. (TMNFIC), Honda Trading also engaged the services of petitioner

Keihin-Everett to clear and withdraw the cargo from the pier and to transport and deliver

the same to its warehouse at the Laguna Technopark. Meanwhile, petitioner

Keihin-Everett had an

Accreditation Agreement with respondent Sunfreight Forwarders whereby the latter

undertook to render common carrier services for the former and to transport inland

goods within the Philippines.

On November 8, 2005, the shipment was caused to be released from the pier by

petitioner Keihin-Everett and turned over to respondent Sunfreight Forwarders for

delivery to Honda Trading. En route to the latter's warehouse, the truck carrying the

containers was hijacked and the container van with Serial No. TEXU 389360-5 was

reportedly taken away. Only the container van with Serial No. GATU 040516-3 reached

the warehouse. As a consequence, Honda Trading suffered losses in the total amount

of ₱2,121,917.04, representing the value of the lost 40 bundles of Aluminum Alloy

Ingots.

Claiming to have paid Honda Trading's insurance claim for the loss it suffered,

respondent Tokio Marine commenced the instant suit against petitioner Keihin-Everett.

Respondent Tokio Marine maintained that it had been subrogated to all the rights and

causes of action pertaining to Honda Trading.

Petitioner Keihin-Everett denied liability for the lost shipment on the ground that

the loss thereof occurred while the same was in the possession of respondent Sunfreight

Forwarders. Hence, petitioner Keihin-Everett filed a third-party complaint against the

latter, who, in turn, denied liability on the ground that it was not privy to the contract

between Keihin-Everett and Honda Trading. If at all, respondent Sunfreight Forwarders

claimed that its liability cannot exceed the ₱500,000.00 fixed in its Accreditation

Agreement with petitioner Keihin-Everett.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Tokio Marine may exercise its legal right to subrogation against

Keihin-Everett

2. Whether or not Keihin-Everett is absolved from liability because the cargoes

were already in the custody of Sunfreight Forwarders when they were

hijacked

3. Whether or not the hijacking of the goods may be considered as a fortuitous

event

4. Whether or not the liability of Keihin-Everett and Sunfreight Forwarders are

solidary.

HELD:

1. YES.

Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from

the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of

contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the

insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the

amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the

aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the

loss or injury.

It must be stressed that the Subrogation Receipt only proves the fact of payment. This

fact of payment grants Tokio Marine subrogatory right which enables it to exercise legal

remedies that would otherwise be available to Honda Trading as owner of the hijacked

cargoes as against the common carrier (Keihin-Everett).

The payment by the insurer to the insured operates as an equitable assignment to the

insurer of all the remedies which the insured may have against the third party whose

negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent

upon, nor does it grow out of any privity of contract or upon payment by the insurance

company of the insurance claim. It accrues simply upon payment by the insurance

company of the insurance claim.

Indeed, the right of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is designed to promote and to

accomplish justice and is the mode which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment

of a debt by one who, in justice and good conscience, ought to pay. Consequently, the

payment made by Tokio Marine to Honda Trading operates as an equitable assignment

to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against Keihin-Everett.

2. NO.

Keihin-Everett seems to have overlooked that it was the one whose services were

engaged by Honda Trading to clear and withdraw the cargoes from the pier and to

transport and deliver the same to its warehouse. In turn, Keihin-Everett accredited

Sunfreight Forwarders to render common carrier service for it by transporting inland

goods. As correctly held by the CA, there was no privity of contract between Honda

Trading (to whose rights Tokio Marine was subrogated) and Sunfreight Forwarders.

Hence, Keihin-Everett, as the common carrier, remained responsible to Honda Trading

for the lost cargoes.

In this light, Keihin-Everett, as a common carrier, is mandated to observe, under Article

1733 of the Civil Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it

transports according to all the circumstances of each case. In the event that the goods

are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted

negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. To be sure, under

Article 1736 of the Civil Code, a common carrier's extraordinary responsibility over the

shipper's goods lasts from the time these goods are unconditionally placed in the

possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered,

actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a

right to receive them. Hence, at the time Keihin-Everett turned over the custody of the

cargoes to Sunfreight Forwarders for inland transportation, it is still required to observe

extraordinary diligence in the vigilance of the goods. Failure to successfully establish this

carries with it the presumption of fault or negligence, thus, rendering Keihin-Everett liable

to Honda Trading for breach of contract.

3. NO

A common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss caused by robbery or

hijacked if it is proven that the robbery or hijacking was attended by grave or irresistible

threat, violence or force. In this case, Keihin-Everett failed to prove the existence of the

aforementioned instances.

4. NO

There is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so

provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires. Thus, under Article 2194 of

the Civil Code, liability of two or more persons is solidary in quasi-delicts. But in this

case,

Keihin-Everett's liability to Honda Trading (to which Tokio Marine had been subrogated

as an insurer) stemmed not from quasi-delict, but from its breach of contract of carriage.

As mentioned earlier, there was no direct contractual relationship between Sunfreight

Forwarders and Honda Trading. Accordingly, there was no basis to directly hold

Sunfreight Forwarders liable to Honda Trading for breach of contract. If at all, Honda

Trading can hold Sunfreight Forwarders for quasi-delict, which is not the action filed in

the instant case.

It is not expected however that Keihin-Everett must shoulder the entire loss. Keihin

Everett has a right to be reimbursed based on its Accreditation Agreement with

Sunfreight Forwarders. Since Sunfreight Forwarders failed to prove that it observed

extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation to Keihin-Everett, it is liable

to the latter for breach of contract. Consequently, Keihin-Everett is entitled to be

reimbursed by Sunfreight Forwarders due to the latter's own breach occasioned by the

loss and damage to the cargoes under its care and custody.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 8, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.

CV No. 98672 is AFFIRMED.