GR 156599; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156599; July 26, 2010
BORMAHECO, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED and INTERWORLD BROKERAGE CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Marcel Kopfli Company shipped a crate containing bakery equipment to the Manila Peninsula Hotel, which was insured by Malayan Insurance Company. Interworld Brokerage Corporation, under a contract with the hotel, withdrew the cargo from the pier and engaged Bormaheco to provide a forklift and operator for unloading at the hotel’s warehouse. During the unloading operation, Bormaheco’s forklift operator, Custodio Trinidad, lifted the crate. The cargo fell from the fork from a height of six feet, sustaining extensive damage and was declared a total loss.
Malayan indemnified the hotel and, being subrogated to its rights, demanded reimbursement from Interworld. Upon Interworld’s refusal, Malayan filed a complaint. Interworld, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Bormaheco for indemnity. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Malayan, holding Interworld liable and ordering Bormaheco to reimburse Interworld. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that Bormaheco’s forklift operator was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to the cargo.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic rests on the established factual findings of negligence and the principles of contractual liability and subrogation. The trial and appellate courts’ conclusion that the forklift operator’s negligence—specifically lifting the crate before it was properly balanced—was the proximate cause of the damage is a factual determination binding upon the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition, which only reviews questions of law. There was no showing that the factual findings fell under any of the recognized exceptions warranting a re-evaluation.
Consequently, Interworld, as the contracting carrier, was liable to the hotel’s insurer, Malayan, for the breach of its contract of carriage. As the party directly responsible for the damage due to its employee’s negligence in performing the contracted service, Bormaheco was solidarily liable to Interworld. The Court upheld the well-founded ruling that Bormaheco, through its employee, failed to exercise the diligence required in the performance of its obligation to Interworld, making it liable for indemnity.