Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 167 views

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., Defendants Appellees.

    Uploaded by

    miley
    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff­appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendants­appellees.

    Copyright:

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

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., Defendants Appellees.

    Uploaded by

    miley
    167 views1 page
    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff­appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendants­appellees.

    Original Title

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff­appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendants­appellees.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff­appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendants­appellees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    167 views1 page

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., Defendants Appellees.

    Uploaded by

    miley
    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff­appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendants­appellees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiffappellant, vs.

    UNITED
    STATES LINES CO., ET AL., defendantsappellees.

    FACTS: Sometime in 1964, SS "Pioneer Moon" arrived in Manila and


    discharged unto the custody of the Bureau of Customs, as arrastre
    operator, two hundred (200) cartons of carbonized adding machine
    rolls consigned to Burroughs, Limited. When the cargo was delivered
    to the consignee, however, several cartons were damaged. The
    consignee claimed the P2,605.64 worth of damage from the Bureau of
    Customs, the United Lines Company owner of the vessel, and the
    Home Insurance Company which had insured the cargo. The latter
    paid the claim and demanded reimbursement from either arrastre
    operator or the carrier. When both rejected the claim, the Home
    Insurance Company, as subrogee, filed on June 11, 1965 an action
    against the Republic of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs and the
    United States Lines, in the alternative, for the recovery of P2,605.64,
    with interest plus costs.

    The United States Lines disclaimed liability on the ground that the
    damage was incurred while the cargo was in the possession of its co-
    defendants. The Republic of the Philippines and the Bureau of
    Customs, after denial of their motion to dismiss, answered and alleged
    among others, nonsuability and noncompliance with Act 3083, as
    amended by Commonwealth Act 327 which requires money claims to
    be filed with the Auditor General.

    On December 7, 1965, the date set for pretrial, only the counsel for the
    plaintiff appeared, who upon being asked for written authority to
    compromise, assured the court that though he had no written authority,
    he had such authority verbally given by the plaintiff. On the same day,
    the court dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to appear at the
    pretrial conference.

    ISSUE: won counsel for plaintiff may appear for plaintiff even without
    written authority to compromise.

    HELD: No.

    Section 2, Rule 20 of the new Rules of Court says that "a party who
    fails to appear at a pretrial conference may be nonsuited or considered
    as in default." This shows the purpose of the Rules to compel the
    parties to appear personally before the court to reach, if possible, a
    compromise. Accordingly, the court is given the discretion to dismiss
    the case should plaintiff not appear at the pretrial.

    True, said counsel asserted that he had verbal authority to compromise


    the case. The Rules, however, require, for attorneys to compromise the
    litigation of their clients, a "special authority" (Section 23, Rule 138,
    Rules of Court). And while the same does not state that the special
    authority be in writing, the court has every reason to expect that, if not
    in writing, the same be duly established by evidence other than the
    selfserving assertion of counsel himself that such authority was
    verbally given him.

    ~oOo~

    You might also like