Cathay Insurance v. CA and Remington GR 76145

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

[G.R. No.

 76145. June 30, 1987.]

CATHAY INSURANCE CO., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF


APPEALS, and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES
CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:
A complaint was filed by private respondent corporation against petitioner
(then defendant) company seeking collection of the sum of P868,339.15
representing private respondent's losses and damages incurred in a shipment of
seamless steel pipes under an insurance contract in favor of the said private
respondent as the insured, consignee or importer of aforesaid merchandise while in
transit from Japan to the Philippines on board vessel SS "Eastern Mariner." The total
value of the shipment was P2,894,463.83 at the prevailing rate of P7.95 to a dollar in
June and July 1984, when the shipment was made.
The trial court decided in favor of private respondent corporation by ordering
petitioner to pay it the sum of P866,339.15 as its recoverable insured loss equivalent
to 30% of the value of the seamless steel pipes; ordering petitioner to pay private
respondent interest on the aforecited amount at the rate of 34% or double the ceiling
prescribed by the Monetary Board per annum from February 3, 1982 or 90 days
from private respondent's submission of proof of loss to petitioner until paid as
provided in the settlement of claim provision of the policy; and ordering petitioner to
pay private respondent certain amounts for marine surveyor's fee, attorney's fees
and costs of the suit.

ISSUE:
WON the rusting of steel pipes in the course of a voyage is considered a "peril of the
sea."

RULING:
Yes. In denying the petition, the SC held that there is no question that the
rusting of steel pipes in the course of a voyage is a "peril of the sea" in view of the
toll on the cargo of wind, water, and salt conditions. At any rate if the insurer cannot
be held accountable therefor, We would fail to observe a cardinal rule in the
interpretation of contracts, namely, that any ambiguity therein should be construed
against the maker/issuer/drafter thereof, namely, the insurer. Besides the precise
purpose of insuring cargo during a voyage would be rendered fruitless. Be it noted
that any attack of the 15-day clause in the policy was foreclosed right in the pre-trial
conference.

You might also like