Bormaheco v Malayan
RR: Malayan, subrogated to the rights of Manila Pen, filed a complaint against Interworld in the RTC
of Manila Br 17. Interworld then filed a third party complaint against Bormaheco.
RTC: ruled in favor of Malayan, CA affirmed. CA resolved the claim of Bormaheco that the incident
actually happened on Feb 3 not Feb 13, thus within the 30day insurance coverage.
Is the CA correct? Yes. under Rule 10 sec 4, typographical errors may be corrected anytime.
furthermore Bormaheco could not have been prejudiced by said mistake because all the evidence
adduced pointed to the true date, Feb 3.
Manila Pen had some cargo shipped from Switzerland. THe cargo was packed and loaded on board
the vessel MS Nedlloyed Dejima. When the cargo reached Manila Port, Interworld Brokerage
withdrew the cargo pursuant to a contract agreement. Interworld then hired the forklift services of
Bormaheco. Bormaheco proceeded to lift the cargo in the air when it fell and broke open. The cargo
was declared a total loss.
Malayan indemnified Manila Pen in the amount of 690k + 75k freight.
Malayan, subrogated to the rights of Manila PEn, filed a complaint against Interworld in the RTC of
Manila Br 17. Interworld then filed a third party complaint against Bormaheco.
RTC ruled in favor of Malayan, awarding to it damages and legal fees.
CA: affirmed RTC. Interworld and Bormaheco failed to convince the CA that the damage was caused
by the faulty packing of the cargo rather than by the forklift operator.
Resolving the issue on whether or not the incident was outside or beyond the 30-day period of
coverage of the insurance policy, the CA noted that the incident occurred on February 3, 1986 which
was well within the said 30-day period reckoned from January 6, 1986, the date of the unloading.
According to the CA, the date February 13, 1986 mentioned in Malayans initial complaint was nothing
but a typographical error which was subsequently corrected and rectified.
Bormaheco filed a petition for review on certiorari.
WN the Malayan’s claim existed at the time of the loss. YES.
Bormaheco zeroes in on the fact that the Complaint indicated that the incident happened on February
13, 1986, and was, therefore, filed beyond the 30-day coverage of the insurance policy reckoned from
the date of discharge of the shipment from the vessel, on January 6, 1986. For said reason, petitioner
claims that the policy already expired.
SEC. 4. Formal amendments. A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative
or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.
While the date indicated in the original complaint was February 13, 1986, there is no denying that the
actual date of the incident was really February 3, 1986 when the subject cargo was actually withdrawn
from the pier and delivered to the Hotels warehouse. All the supporting documents offered in evidence
refer to this date and no other. Contrary to Bormahecos stand, the actual date of the loss was well
within the coverage of the insurance policy. Surely, Bormaheco could not have been misled or
surprised by the correction of the error. Neither could it have been prejudiced by the correction of the
said date for this was merely a typographical mistake purely technical. In Juasing, this Court said:
The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for other purposes than to cure it,
does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. Its presentation as fatal to the plaintiffs case smacks of skill
rather than right. A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and
skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a
contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then,
brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure,
asks that justice be done upon the merits
