Loadstar Shipping Company vs. Malayan Insurance Company

G.R. No. 185565, November 26, 2014 LOADSTAR LOADS TAR SH SHIPP IPPIN ING G COM COMPAN PANY, Y, IN INCOR CORPOR PORAT ATD D AN AND D LO LOADS ADSTAR TAR INT INTR RNA NATI TIONA ONAL L SHIPPIN SHI PPING G COM COMPANY PANY,, INC INCORPO ORPORAT RATD D , Petitioners, v. MA MALA LAYAN YAN IN INS! S!RA RANC NC COM COMPAN PANY, Y, INCORPORATD,,Respondent . INCORPORATD Facts:

Loadstar Inter Loadstar Internatio national nal Ship Shipping ping,, Inc. (Load (Loadstar star Ship Shipping ping)) and Phili Philippine ppine Associated Associated Smel Smelting ting and Refining Corporation (PASAR) entered into a Contract of Affreightment for domestic bulk transport of  the latters copper concentrates !hich !ere loaded in Cargo "old #os. $ and % of &' obcat*, a marine mari ne +ess +essel el o!n o!ned ed b Loads Loadstar tar Inter Internatio national nal Ship Shipping ping Co. Co.,, Inc. (Loa (Loadstar dstar International) International) and operated b Loadstar Loadstar Shipping under under a charter part agreement. agreement. -he cargo !as insured !ith !ith &alaan Insurance Compan, Inc. (&alaan). -he +essels chief officer on routine inspection found a crack on starboard side of the main deck !hich caused sea!ater to enter and !et the cargo. pon inspection, the /lite Ad0usters and Sur+eor, Inc. (/lite (/l ite Sur Sur+e +eo or) r) co confir nfirmed med tha thatt sam sample ples s of co coppe pperr con conce centr ntrate ates s fro from m Car Cargo go "ol "old d #o #o.. % !er !ere e contaminated b sea!ater. PASAR sent a formal notice of claim in the amount of 1P234,544,36$.3$ to Loadstar Shipping. 7n the basis of the /lite Sur+eors recommendation, &alaan paid PASAR the amount of 1P23%,38$,$9%.3%. PASAR PAS AR signed a subrogation subrogation receipt receipt in fa+o fa+orr of &ala &alaan. an. -o reco+ reco+er er the amount paid and in the e:ercise of its right of subrogation, &alaan demanded reimbursement from Loadstar Shipping, !hich refused refus ed to comp compl l.. Cons Conse;ue e;uentl ntl,, on Sept Septembe emberr $<, %99$, &alaan instituted instituted !ith the R-C a compl co mplain aintt for dam damag ages. es. In its co compl mplain aint, t, &al &ala aan an mai mainl nl all allege eged d tha thatt as a dir direct ect and nat natura urall conse con se;ue ;uence nce of the uns unsea! ea!ort orthin hiness ess of the +e +esse ssel, l, PA PASA SAR R suf suffer fered ed los loss s of the car cargo. go. Loa Loadst dstar ar Shipping and Loadstar International denied respondents allegations and a+erred that respondents pament to PASAR, on the basis of the latters fraudulent claim, does not entitle respondent automatic right of reco+er b +irtue of subrogation.

I""#e$ =7# respondent is entitled to the right of reco+er b +irtue of subrogation against petitioners, on the basis of PASARs claim.

R#%&'($ &alaans claim against the petitioners is based on subrogation to the rights possessed b PASAR as consignee of the allegedl damaged goods. -he right of subrogation stems from Article %%94 of the #e! Ci+il Code. -he rights of a subrogee cannot be superior to the rights possessed b a subrogor. In other !ords, !ords, a subr subrogee ogee cannot cannot succ succeed eed to a right not poss possesse essed d b the subrogor subrogor.. A subrogee subrogee in effect steps into the shoes of the insured and can reco+er onl if the insured like!ise could ha+e reco+ered. Conse;uentl, an insurer indemnifies the insured based on the loss or in0ur the latter actuall actua ll suffered suffered from. If there is no loss or in0ur, in0ur, then there is no obligation obligation on the part of the insur in surer er to in inde demn mnif if  th the e in insu sure red. d. Sh Shou ould ld th the e in insu sure rerr pa pa  th the e in insu sure red d an and d it tu turn rns s ou outt th that at indemnification is not due, or if due, the amount paid is e:cessi+e, the insurer takes the risk of not being able to seek recompense from the alleged !rongdoer !rongdoer.. -his is because the supposed subrogor

did not possess the right to be indemnified and therefore, no right to collect is passed on to the subrogee.

As regards the determination of actual damages, 1i2t is a:iomatic that actual damages must be pro+ed !ith reasonable degree of certaint and a part is entitled onl to such compensation for the pecuniar loss that !as dul pro+en. As &alaan is claiming for actual damages, it bears the burden of  proof to substantiate its claim. Actual damages are not presumed. -he claimant must pro+e the actual amount of loss !ith a reasonable degree of certaint premised upon competent proof and on the best e+idence obtainable. Specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring !hate+er compensator or actual damages are borne must be pointed out. Actual damages cannot be anchored on mere surmises, speculations or con0ectures.

It is not disputed that the copper concentrates carried b &>' obcat from Poro Point, La nion to Isabel, Lete !ere indeed contaminated !ith sea!ater. -he issue lies on !hether such contamination resulted to damage, and the costs thereof, if an, incurred b the insured PASAR. In this case, &alaan, as the insurer of PASAR, neither stated nor pro+ed that the goods are rendered useless or unfit for the purpose intended b PASAR due to contamination !ith sea!ater. "ence, there is no basis for the goods re0ection under Article 368 of the Code of Commerce. Clearl, it is erroneous for &alaan to reimburse PASAR as though the latter suffered from total loss of goods in the absence of  proof that PASAR sustained such kind of loss.