GR L 5184; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5184; May 29, 1953
MACONDRAY & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Macondray & Co., filed a suit to collect from the defendant insurance company the value of a cargo of 1982 cartons of mackerel in tins, which was insured under Certificate of Insurance No. 365064 issued by the defendant in favor of the Banton Corporation for $27,343. The certificate was indorsed to the plaintiff. Upon arrival in Manila, 131 cartons were lost and 1,851 were damaged. The plaintiff’s witness, Maurice Furstenburg, testified that he could not state whether the damage was due to insufficient packing or any definite cause. The defendant denied liability, alleging the loss was due to inherent vice of the goods and was not covered by the policy. The trial court found that the certificate was issued under and subject to the terms of Open Policy No. 6128, which was not presented in evidence by the plaintiff. The certificate itself contained a clause stating the insurance only covered breakage, leakage, or rust when caused by specific maritime perils (stranding, sinking, burning, or collision of the vessel), unless otherwise stated. The trial court absolved the defendant from liability, ruling the plaintiff failed to establish its right to recover.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to recover under the insurance certificate, given that the certificate was subject to the terms of an open policy not presented in evidence and the cause of loss was undetermined.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, absolving the defendant-appellee from liability. The Court held that Certificate of Insurance No. 365064 was expressly subject to the terms of Open Policy No. 6128. Since the plaintiff failed to present the open policy in evidence, it could not be determined whether the loss or damage, the cause of which was not established, was recoverable under the full contract of insurance. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the defendant was bound to produce the open policy, stating a plaintiff cannot require a defendant to prove the plaintiff’s own cause of action. The conflicting clauses within the certificate itself necessitated recourse to the open policy, which was impossible due to lack of evidence. The Court also found no error in the trial court’s exclusion of certain exhibits, as they did not conclusively prove the terms of the open policy.