Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Universal Shipping Lines Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Siayngco
    Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v IAC involved two shipments that were damaged while being transported by sea. Alliance Assurance Company, as the insurer, paid claims to the consignees for the lost and damaged cargo. Alliance then sued Universal Shipping Lines to recover what it paid. The Supreme Court held that (1) Universal Shipping Lines was liable for the damage to the cargo since it occurred while under their custody and they did not prove the damage was due to reasons beyond their control, (2) Alliance had the capacity to sue in the Philippines to recover insurance payouts even though it was a foreign insurer not licensed locally, and (3) the statute of limitations had not expired because the parties had agreed

    Copyright:

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

    Universal Shipping Lines Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Siayngco
    114 views2 pages
    Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v IAC involved two shipments that were damaged while being transported by sea. Alliance Assurance Company, as the insurer, paid claims to the consignees for the lost and damaged cargo. Alliance then sued Universal Shipping Lines to recover what it paid. The Supreme Court held that (1) Universal Shipping Lines was liable for the damage to the cargo since it occurred while under their custody and they did not prove the damage was due to reasons beyond their control, (2) Alliance had the capacity to sue in the Philippines to recover insurance payouts even though it was a foreign insurer not licensed locally, and (3) the statute of limitations had not expired because the parties had agreed

    Original Title

    Universal Shipping Lines vs IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v IAC involved two shipments that were damaged while being transported by sea. Alliance Assurance Company, as the insurer, paid claims to the consignees for the lost and damaged cargo. Alliance then sued Universal Shipping Lines to recover what it paid. The Supreme Court held that (1) Universal Shipping Lines was liable for the damage to the cargo since it occurred while under their custody and they did not prove the damage was due to reasons beyond their control, (2) Alliance had the capacity to sue in the Philippines to recover insurance payouts even though it was a foreign insurer not licensed locally, and (3) the statute of limitations had not expired because the parties had agreed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views2 pages

    Universal Shipping Lines Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Siayngco
    Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v IAC involved two shipments that were damaged while being transported by sea. Alliance Assurance Company, as the insurer, paid claims to the consignees for the lost and damaged cargo. Alliance then sued Universal Shipping Lines to recover what it paid. The Supreme Court held that (1) Universal Shipping Lines was liable for the damage to the cargo since it occurred while under their custody and they did not prove the damage was due to reasons beyond their control, (2) Alliance had the capacity to sue in the Philippines to recover insurance payouts even though it was a foreign insurer not licensed locally, and (3) the statute of limitations had not expired because the parties had agreed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Universal Shipping Lines, Inc.

    v IAC
    (G.R. No. 74125)
    Facts:
    SEVALCO Limited, owned and operated by the petitioner, shipped from Rotterdam Netherlands, to
    Bangkok, Thailand, aboard its M/V "TAIWAN", 2 cargoes of 50 palletized cartons. They were respectively
    consigned to S. Lersen Company, Ltd. and Muang Ngarm Retreads,Ltd. Both shipments were insured
    with the private respondent, Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., a foreign insurance company domiciled in
    London, England.

    Despite the arrival of the vessel at Bangkok, the cargo covered by Bill of Lading No. RB-15 was not
    unloaded nor delivered to the consignee, S. Lersen Company, Ltd. The shipment under Bill of Lading No.
    RB-16 was delivered to Muang Ngarm Retreads, Ltd. with a shortage in weight because the cargoes had
    been either totally or partially dissolved in saltwater which flooded the vessel where they had been stored.

    Upon arrival in Manila, Arturo C. Saavedra, master of M/V "TAIWAN" filed a marine protest stating that
    the source of the water could not be definitely ascertained where it comes from. He was suspecting of
    some leakage of suction pipes and that hold No. 2 cannot be inspected on account of the full cargoes
    inside the hold, rendering it to be inaccessible.

    The consignees filed their respective formal claims for loss and damage to their cargoes. The insurer paid
    both claims in the amounts of £I2,180 and £2,547.18 for the loss and damage to their cargoes.

    Private respondent, as insurer-subrogee, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover
    from the petitioner and its Manila agent, Carlos Go Thong & Company, what it paid the consignees of the
    cargo.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not petitioner liable for the damage/loss suffered by the subject shipments

    2. Whether or not private respondent has capacity to sue in this jurisdiction

    3. Whether or not in private respondent's cause of action has not yet prescribed

    Held:
    1. No. It was incumbent upon the defendants to prove that the losses and damages were due to causes
    other than the negligence or fault of their employees. Said defendants have not adduced proof on this
    point. It having been shown that the losses and damages were incurred while the shipments were in the
    custody of the M/V' Taiwan' the liability of its owner/operator and shipping agent is clear-they must pay for
    the losses and damages sustained by the consignees as a consequence of the breach of contract of
    water transportation.

    2. Yes, The private respondent may sue in Philippine courts upon the marine insurance policies issued by
    it abroad to cover international-bound cargoes shipped by a Philippine carrier, even if it has no license to
    do business in this country, for it is not the lack of the prescribed license (to do business in the
    Philippines) but doing business without such license, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our
    courts.

    3. No. Section 3(6), Title I, of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Commonwealth Act No. 65) which
    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. ...
    This provision of the law admits of an xception: if the one-year period is suspended by express agreement
    of the parties for in such a case, their agreement becomes the law for them.

    The exchange of correspondence between the parties and/or their associates/representatives shows that
    the parties had mutually agreed to extend the time within which the plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest
    may file suit until December 27,1976. When the complaint was filed on June 25, 1976, that deadline had
    not yet expired.

    You might also like