Asian Terminals Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.

015

GR No. 171406, April 4, 2011, Del Castillo, J.

Digested by Chris N Law 126 Evidence
Petitioners
Respondents
Nature of action
What action below

Asian Terminals Inc

Malayan Insurance Co, Inc
Petition for review on certiorari
Complaint for damages

Asian Terminals was being sued by Malayan Insurance (the insurer-subrogee in an insurance
contract, after having paid the value of the damaged goods to the consignee). RTC ordered
Asian Terminals to pay P634,000. Asian Terminals argued that its liability cannot exceed P5,000
by virtue of a Management Contract, which the court should take judicial notice of (it was not
presented into evidence) with the Philippine Ports Authority, an executive agency. SC ruled that
judicial notice cannot apply, because PPA was performing a proprietary function when it
entered into the Management Contract, and therefore it was not an official act of the executive
department which the court should take judicial notice of.
FACTS
Shandong Weifang Soda Ash Plant shipped 60,000 bags of soda ash dense from China to
Manila.
o The goods were insured with respondent Malayan Insurance under Marine Risk
Note.
o They were also covered by a Bill of Lading issued by Tianjin Navigation
Company with Philippine Banking Corporation as consignee.
Upon arrival in Manila, the stevedores of petitioner Asian Terminals unloaded the 60,000
bags and brought them to its open storage area pending Customs clearance and delivery
to the consignee.
o When unloading of the bags were completed, it was found that 2,702 bags were in
bad order condition.
o It was found out that this was because the stevedores of Asian Terminals used
steel hooks which punctured the bags, causing spillage, caking and hardening.
Because the goods were insured, Malayan Insurance paid the value of the damaged goods
to the consignee.
Malayan Insurance, as subrogee, then filed a Complaint ofr damages against Asian
Terminals.
RTC: Asian Terminals is liable for the negligence of its employee-stevedores. It was
ordered to pay P634,600 plus interests. Asian Terminals appealed.
CA: affirmed RTC decision.
Asian Terminals argues: the Court should take judicial notice of the Management
Contract between Asian Terminals and Philippine Ports Authority, where a maximum of

P5,000 is allowable for liability, because this is an official act of the executive
department (through PPA).
ISSUES & HOLDING
May the court take judicial notice of the Management Contract? NO. Contract is not
official act of executive department. It was executed by PPA in exercise of its
proprietary right.
RATIO
Court may not take judicial notice of the Management
Contract.
The Management Contract entered into is clearly not among the matters which the court
can take judicial notice of, under Rule 129, Sections 1 and 2.
It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department.
The PPA was created by virtue of PD 857, and is a GOCC in charge of administering the
ports of the country. Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
when it entered into the Management Contract with Asian Terminals. Therefore, judicial
notice cannot be applied.

DISPOSITIVE
CA decision affirmed.