G.R. No.
184300 July 11, 2012
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINES FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC. and REPUTABLE FORWARDER
SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
1. Since 1989, Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth) and respondent Reputable Forwarder
Services, Inc. (Reputable) had been annually executing a contract of carriage, whereby
the latter undertook to transport and deliver the former’s products to its customers,
dealers or salesmen.
2. On November 18, 1993, Wyeth procured Marine Policy No. MAR 13797 (Marine Policy)
from respondent Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. (Philippines First) to secure its
interest over its own products.
3. Wyeth executed its annual contract of carriage with Reputable.
4. The contract required Reputable to secure an insurance policy on Wyeth’s goods.7 Thus,
on Reputable signed a Special Risk Insurance Policy (SR Policy) with petitioner Malayan
5. Reputable signed a Special Risk Insurance Policy (SR Policy) with petitioner Malayan
6. On October 1994, during the effectivity of the Marine Policy and SR Policy, Reputable
received from Wyeth boxes of Promil infant formula to be delivered by Reputable to
Mercury Drug Corporation in Libis, Quezon City.
7. Unfortunately, on the same date, the truck carrying Wyeth’s products was hijacked by
about 10 armed men.
8. The hijacked truck was recovered two weeks later without its cargo.
9. On March 1995, Philippines First, after due investigation and adjustment, and pursuant to
the Marine Policy, paid Wyeth.
10. Philippines First then demanded reimbursement from Reputable, having been subrogated
to the rights of Wyeth by virtue of the payment. The latter, however, ignored the demand.
11. Consequently, Philippines First instituted an action for sum of money against Reputable.
12. Reputable impleaded Malayan as third-party defendant in an effort to collect the amount
covered in the SR Policy.
13. Reputable alleged that “it was validly insured with Malayan for with respect to the lost
products under the latter’s Insurance Policy" and that the SR Policy covered the risk of
robbery or hijacking.
14. Disclaiming any liability, Malayan argued, among others, that the Section 5 of its SR
Policy is an "over insurance clause"
15. which does not cover any loss or damage to property which at the time of the happening
of such loss or damage is insured by any marine policy and that the SR Policy expressly
excluded third-party liability.
ISSUE
WON Sec. 5 of the SR Policy constitutes “over insurance clause”.
RULING
NO. The SC held that Section 5 of the SR policy is actually the other insurance clause
(also called "additional insurance" and "double insurance")
The insurance of Reputable with Malayan does not even constitute double insurance
Even though the two concerned insurance policies were issued over the same goods
and cover the same risk, there arises no double insurance since they were issued to two
different persons/entities having distinct insurable interests.
As correctly ruled by the RTC and CA, neither Section 5 nor Section 12 of the SR Policy
can be applied.
Suffice it to say that Malayan's and Reputable's respective liabilities arose from different
obligations- Malayan's is based on the SR Policy while Reputable's is based on the contract of
carriage.
Section 5. INSURANCE WITH OTHER COMPANIES. The insurance does not cover any loss
or damage to property which at the time of the happening of such loss or damage is insured by or
would but for the existence of this policy, be insured by any Fire or Marine policy or policies
except in respect of any excess beyond the amount which would have been payable under the
Fire or Marine policy or policies had this insurance not been effected.
