Malayan Insurance vs Emma Lin

Facts:

Emma Lin is a client of RCBC. She had insured 5 of her properties with Malayan Insurance. The
insurance was specifically in case of fire for the amount of Php56 Million and Php2 Million for 1
warehouse.

An unfortunate event took place wherein the warehouses caught fire. The Bureau of Fire
Protection then issued a certification stating that the fire was caused by accident.

Respondent then sought relief from Malayan Insurance but was denied payment. She then
instituted an administrative action against Malayan Insurance in the Insurance Commission and then filed
a civil case in the trial court.

Malayan Insurance then filed a motion to dismiss the civil case based on forum shopping. It held
that the administrative case was instituted to prompt or incite IC into ordering Malayan to pay her
insurance claim. However, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, on the ground that the administrative
case was distinct from the civil case.

Issue: Can the administrative case proceed with an instituted civil case?

Held: Yes, matters handled by the IC are delineated as either regulatory or adjudicatory, both of which
have distinct characteristics. A civil case before the trial court involving recovery of payment of the
insured's insurance claim plus damages, can proceed simultaneously with an administrative case before
the IC.

“True, the parties are the same, and both actions are predicated on the same set of facts, and will require
identical evidence. But the issues to be resolved, the quantum of evidence, the procedure to be
followed[,] and the reliefs to be adjudged by these two bodies are different.”

Mayer Steel Pipe vs CA

Facts:

Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation is engaged in the business of making steel pipes and delivering it.
Hongkong Government Supplies Department (HGSD) contracted Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation for the
latter to manufacture and deliver various steel pipes and fittings. Before Mayer Steel shipped the said
pipes, it insured them with two insurance companies namely, South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.
and Charter Insurance Corporation – each insurer covering different portions of the shipment. The
insurance policies cover “all risks” which include all causes of conceivable loss or damage.

When the pipes reached Hongkong, the pipes were discovered to have been damaged. Mayer
Steel Pipes sought recourse to the Insurance Companies but the insurance companies refused to deliver.
Mayer Steel sued the insurance companies. The CA ruled that the case filed by Mayer Steel should be
dismissed. It held that the action is barred under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act since it
was filed only on April 17, 1986, more than two years from the time the goods were unloaded from the
vessel. Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides that “the carrier and the ship shall be
discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after
delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.”

Issue: Whether or not the steel pipes were covered by the risks stipulated in the insurance contract

Held:

Yes. The liability of the insurer is not extinguished because the insurer’s liability is based not on
the contract of carriage but on the contract of insurance. A close reading of the law reveals that the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governs the relationship between the carrier on the one hand and the
shipper, the consignee and/or the insurer on the other hand. It defines the obligations of the carrier under
the contract of carriage. It does not, however, affect the relationship between the shipper and the insurer.
The latter case is governed by the Insurance Code.

Therefore, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply to the case at bar