[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
96 views2 pages

Sveriges Assurance v. Qua Chee Gan 21 SCRA 12 1967

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a cargo shipment of copra that was short on delivery. The plaintiff, an insurer, paid the Polish cargo insurers for the shortage and is now suing the shipper to recover the payment. The Supreme Court established that while the insurer is not subrogated to the rights of the carrier, it can still attempt to recover the payment from the shipper under the Civil Code, though the shipper's defenses can defeat the recovery.

Uploaded by

Jimenez Lorenz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views2 pages

Sveriges Assurance v. Qua Chee Gan 21 SCRA 12 1967

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a cargo shipment of copra that was short on delivery. The plaintiff, an insurer, paid the Polish cargo insurers for the shortage and is now suing the shipper to recover the payment. The Supreme Court established that while the insurer is not subrogated to the rights of the carrier, it can still attempt to recover the payment from the shipper under the Civil Code, though the shipper's defenses can defeat the recovery.

Uploaded by

Jimenez Lorenz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

L-22146 | September 5, 1967

SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING, vs. QUA CHEE GAN

Facts:

On August 23 and 24, 1947, defendant Qua Chee Gan, a sole proprietorship, shipped on board the
S.S. NAGARA, 2,032,000 kilos of bulk copra at Siain, Quezon, consigned to DAL International
Trading Co., in Gdynia, Poland.

The vessel first called at the port of Karlshamn, Sweden, where it unloaded 969,419 kilos of bulk
copra. Then, it proceeded to Gdynia where it unloaded the remaining copra shipment. The actual
outturn weights in the latter port showed that only 1,569,429 kilos were discharged.

Because of the alleged confirmed cargo shortage, the Polish cargo insurers had to indemnify the
consignee for the value thereof. Thereafter, the former sued the shipowner, the Swedish East Asia
Company, in Gothenburg, Sweden. The latter, in turn sued, defendant and had it summoned to
Gothenburg. Defendant, however, refused to submit to that court's jurisdiction and its objection was
sustained.

A settlement was effected between the Polish cargo insurers and the shipowner. Plaintiff, as the
indemnity insurer for the latter, paid approximately $60,733.53 to the Polish insurers.

Claiming to have been subogated to the rights of the carrier, plaintiff sued defendant before the
Court of First Instance of Manila to recover U.S. $60,733.

The lower court then dismissed the complaint. It ruled (a) that there was no short shipment on
defendant's part; (b) that plaintiff's insurance policy did not cover the short shipment, and (c)
defendant was merely acting as an agent of Louis Dreyfus & Co., who was the real shipper.

Issue:

Whether or not the subrogation of rights in the case is correct.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court Established the rule that an insurer who pays the insured for loss or liability
not covered by the policy is not subrogated to the latter. However, even assuming that there was
unwarranted — or "volunteer" — payment, plaintiff could still recover what it paid — in effect — to
the carrier from defendant shipper under Art. 1236 of the Civil Code which allows a third person who
pays on behalf of another to recover from the latter, although there is no subrogation. But since the
payment here was without the knowledge and consent of defendant, plaintiff's right of recovery is
defeasible by the former's defenses since the Code is clear that the recovery is only up to the
amount by which the defendant was benefited (NOTE).
* As to the issue on whether defendant is the real shipper or merely an agent of Louis Dreyfus &
Co., suffice it to say that altho on Exhibits A and B his name appears as the shipper, yet the very
loading certificate, Exhibit 3 [5-Deposition of Horle], issued and signed by the Chief Mate and Master
of the S.S. NAGARA shows that defendant was acting merely for account of Louis Dreyfus & Co. The
other documentary exhibits confirm this. Anyway, in whatever capacity defendant is considered, it
cannot be liable since no shortshipment was shown.

You might also like