GR 165413; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165413 ; February 22, 2012
PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE CO., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and D.M. CONSUNJI INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Philam Insurance and American Home Insurance insured four generator sets (gensets) imported by Citibank. One genset was to be delivered to the top of Citibank’s building under construction. The broker-forwarder declined the task due to a lack of power cranes, so Citibank assigned the lifting to respondent D.M. Consunji Inc. (DMCI). On October 16, 1993, DMCI’s crane operator, using a crane with a 20-ton capacity to lift the 13-ton genset, successfully cleared the container van. While positioning the load, the operator raised the crane’s boom from 75 to 78 degrees. During this maneuver, he felt a sudden upward movement of the boom, the genset began swinging violently, and the crane body lifted off the ground before the boom fell, damaging the genset.
Citibank filed an insurance claim, which Philam paid. Philam, as subrogee, then sued DMCI for damages, alleging negligence in the crane’s operation. The Regional Trial Court ruled for Philam, finding negligence attributable to the crane operator. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the incident was a fortuitous event and that Philam failed to prove DMCI’s negligence.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners sufficiently established the negligence of DMCI to recover the value of the damaged genset.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. For DMCI to be liable, negligence must be established as the proximate cause of the damage. The Court found that petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The crane used had a capacity exceeding the genset’s weight, and the operator’s detailed statement, corroborated by a witness, described a standard operating procedure that was followed. The sudden, unexpected movement of the boom and the crane lifting off the ground indicated a mechanical failure or an unforeseen event, not a lack of care.
The Court emphasized that negligence is the want of care required by circumstances, determined by the standard of a reasonable man in like conditions. No evidence showed the operator acted unreasonably or violated safety protocols. The mere occurrence of an accident does not prove negligence. Since the cause of the boom’s failure was unexplained and not attributable to DMCI’s lack of due care, the incident was correctly deemed a fortuitous event. Consequently, DMCI could not be held liable.