Commercial Law Review Digests | 1 43
43. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Regis Brokerage Corp.
.R. !o. "#$"%&
Dexter ascon
!ov. $3, $''#
(inga )Division* +xistence o Contract o insurance - ow proven/
Malaya yan’ n’s s righ rightt of recov ecover ery y as a subr subrog ogee ee of ABB ABB Koppe oppell cann cannot ot be D0C( D0C(RI RI!+ !+11 Mala predicated alone on the liability of the respondent to ABB Koppel, even though such liabi liabilit lity y will will necess necessar arily ily have have to be establ establis ished hed at the the trial trial for Malaya Malayan n to recov recover er.. Because Malayan’s right to recovery recovery derives from contractual contractual subrogation as an incident to an insurance relationship, and not from any proimate in!ury to it in"icted by the respo espond nden ents ts,, it is crit critic ical al that that Mala Malaya yan n esta establ blis ish h the the lega legall basi basis s of such such righ rightt to subro subrogat gation ion by prese presenti nting ng the contr contract act consti constitut tutive ive of the the insur insuranc ance e relat relation ionshi ship p between it and ABB Koppel. #ithout such legal basis, its cause of action cannot survive. $ince the Marine %nsurance &olicy was constitutive of the insurer'insured relationship from which Malayan draws its right to subrogation, such document should have been attached to the complaint itself, as provided for in $ection (, )ule * of the 1**( )ules of +ivil &rocedure.
2C(1 Around 1 ebruary ebruary 1**-, asco Motors roup loaded 1/0 pieces of motors on board +hina Airlines bound for Manila from the 2nited $. 3he cargo was to be delivered to consignee ABB Koppel.
#hen the cargo arrived at the 4A%A, it was discharged without issues and forwarded to &eople’s Aircargo5 #arehousing +orp.’s 6&aircargo’s7 warehouse for temporary storage pending release by the Bureau of +ustoms. &aircar aircargo go remai remained ned in posses possessi sion on of the cargo cargo until until ( March March 1**-, 1**-, at which which point point respondent )egis Bro8erage +orp. 6)egis7 withdrew the cargo and delivered the same to ABB Koppel at its warehouse. #hen the shipment arrived at ABB Koppel’s warehouse, it was discovered that only 9- of the 1/0 pieces of motors were actually delivered and that the remaining -- motors, valued at 2$:/,;(<.;-, could not be accounted for. 3he shipment was purportedly insured with Malayan by ABB Koppel. Koppel. =emand was >rst made upon )egis and &aircargo for payment of the value of the missing motors, but both refused to pay. 3hus, Malayan paid ABB Koppel the amount of &1-9,-<*.-- apparently pursuant to its insurance agreement, agreement, and Malayan was on tat 5asis su5rogate6 to te rigts o BB 7oppel against Regis an6 8aircargo. Malayan >led a complaint for damages with the Me3+ Me3+? )egis alone is liable )3+? a@rmed +A? acated decision of the lower courts. 3he central >nding that formed the +ourt of Appeals decision was that the Marine )is8 4ote presented as proof that the cargo was insured was invalid. It was o5serve6 tat te Marine Risk Note was procure6 rom Malayan only on $" Marc "99%, wen
Commercial Law Review Digests | / in act te insure6, BB 7oppel, a6 learne6 o te partial loss o te motors as early as # Marc "99%. 3he appellate court noted that under $ection ; of the %nsurance +ode, the past event which may be insured against must be un8nown to the parties and so for that reason the insurance contract in this case violated $ection ;.
Malayan argues that the Marine )is8 note dated /1 March 1**- is only a supplement to an pen %nsurance &olicy eecuted between ABB Koppel and Malayan before 1 ebruary 1**- C months before the loss occurred. I:+;1 #hether there eisted a contract of insurance between ABB Koppel and Malayan at the time of the loss of the motorsD R:LI!1 (ere was none. 3he Marine %nsurance &olicy was never presented in evidence before the trial court or the +ourt of Appeals even, there is no legal basis to consider such document in the resolution of this case, re"ective as that document may have been of the pre'eistence of an insurance contract between Malayan and ABB Koppel even prior to the loss of the motors.
%n fact, it appears Euite plain that Malayan’s theory of the case it pursued before the trial court was that the perfected insurance contract which it relied upon as basis for its right to subrogation was not the Marine %nsurance &olicy but the Marine )is8 4ote which, unli8e the former, was actually presented at the trial and oFered in evidence. Gven the very complaint >led by Malayan before the Me3+ stated that HtIhe sub!ect shipment was insured by HMalayanI under )is8 4ote 4o. 0001'1*J;/, and not by the Marine %nsurance &olicy, which was not adverted to at all in the complaint. %n the absence of any evidentiary consideration of the actual Marine %nsurance &olicy, the substance of Malayan’s right to recovery as the subrogee of ABB Koppel is not duly con>rmed. 3here can be no consideration of the particular terms and conditions in the insurance contract that speci>cally give rise to Malayan’s right to be subrogated to ABB Koppel, or to such terms that may have absolved Malayan from the duty to pay the insurance proceeds to that consignee. 3he particular date as to when such insurance contract was constituted cannot be established with certainty without the contract itself, and that point is crucial since there can be no insurance on a ris8 that had already occurred by the time the contract was eecuted. $ince the documents in evidence and testimonies allude to marine insurance or marine ris8 note, it also is a legitimate Euestion whether the particular marine insurance relationship between Malayan and ABB Koppel also covers cargo delivered not by ships at sea but by airplane "ights, as had occurred in this case. nly the actual policy itself could de>nitively settle such a Euestion. DI80I(I<+ 80R(I0!1 #G)G)G, the petition is =G4%G=. +osts against petitioner.
