G.R. No. 124050 – 274 SCRA 432 – Mercantile Law – Insurance Law – The Policy – Prescription of Filing of Insurance Cases
In 1983, Hongkong Government Supplies Department (HGSD) contracted Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation for the latter to manufacture and deliver various steel pipes and fittings. Before Mayer Steel shipped the said pipes, it insured them with two insurance companies namely, South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. and Charter Insurance Corporation – each insurer covering different portions of the shipment. The insurance policies cover “all risks” which include all causes of conceivable loss or damage.
When the pipes reached Hongkong, the pipes were discovered to have been damaged. The insurance companies refused to make payment. On April 17 1986, Mayer Steel sued the insurance companies. The case reached the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled that the case filed by Mayer Steel should be dismissed. It held that the action is barred under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act since it was filed only on April 17, 1986, more than two years from the time the goods were unloaded from the vessel. Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides that “the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.” The CA ruled that this provision applies not only to the carrier but also to the insurer, citing the case of Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. vs Alejandro.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: No. Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act states that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability for loss or damage to the goods if no suit is filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been delivered. Under this provision, only the carrier’s liability is extinguished if no suit is brought within one year. But the liability of the insurer is not extinguished because the insurer’s liability is based not on the contract of carriage but on the contract of insurance. A close reading of the law reveals that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governs the relationship between the carrier on the one hand and the shipper, the consignee and/or the insurer on the other hand. It defines the obligations of the carrier under the contract of carriage. It does not, however, affect the relationship between the shipper and the insurer. The latter case is governed by the Insurance Code.
The Filipino Merchants case is different from the case at bar. In Filipino Merchants, it was the insurer which filed a claim against the carrier for reimbursement of the amount it paid to the shipper. In the case at bar, it was the shipper which filed a claim against the insurer. The basis of the shipper’s claim is the “all risks” insurance policies issued by the insurers to Mayer Steel.
The ruling in Filipino Merchants should apply only to suits against the carrier filed either by the shipper, the consignee or the insurer.
