Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197028 2013-10-09	REPUBLIC v. CARMEN VICTORIA BELMONTE MENDOZA, J.
As a rule, the Court, in a petition for review on certiorari, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, as it is not a trier of facts.[23] There are, however, exceptions to this rule such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[24]
	GR No. 171406 2011-04-04	ASIAN TERMINALS v. MALAYAN INSURANCE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation,[58] we used the same line of reasoning in upholding the Decision of the CA finding the arrastre contractor liable for the lost shipment despite the failure of the insurance company to offer in evidence the insurance contract or policy. We explained: Indeed, jurisprudence has it that the marine insurance policy needs to be presented in evidence before the trial court or even belatedly before the appellate court. In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Regis Brokerage Corp., the Court stated that the presentation of the marine insurance policy was necessary, as the issues raised therein arose from the very existence of an insurance contract between Malayan Insurance and its consignee, ABB Koppel, even prior to the loss of the shipment. In Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., the Court ruled that the insurance contract must be presented in evidence in order to determine the extent of the coverage. This was also the ruling of the Court in Home Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 164693 2011-03-23	JOSEFA S. ABALOS* v. SPS. LOMANTONG DARAPA AND SINAB DIMAKUTA PEREZ, J.
Petitioners ought to remember that the Court of Appeals' factual findings, affirming that of the trial court, are final and conclusive on this Court and may not be reviewed on appeal, except for the most compelling of reasons, such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[20] None of the exceptions is present in this petition.
	GR No. 174116 2009-09-11	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE MENDOZA, J.
Before anything else, it must be emphasized that a marine risk note is not an insurance policy. It is only an acknowledgment or declaration of the insurer confirming the specific shipment covered by its marine open policy, the evaluation of the cargo and the chargeable premium.[19] In International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation (International),[20] the nature of a marine cargo risk note was explained, thus: x x x It is the marine open policy which is the main insurance contract. In other words, the marine open policy is the blanket insurance to be undertaken by FGU on all goods to be shipped by RAGC during the existence of the contract, while the marine risk note specifies the particular goods/shipment insured by FGU on that specific transaction, including the sum insured, the shipment particulars as well as the premium paid for such shipment. x x x.[21]