Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. SWEET LINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191178 2013-03-13	ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK v. HENRY H. FURIGAY MENDOZA, J.
In Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc.,[21] it was held that "before an action can properly be commenced, all the essential elements of the cause of action must be in existence, that is, the cause of action must be complete. All valid conditions precedent to the institution of the particular action, whether prescribed by statute, fixed by agreement of the parties or implied by law must be performed or complied with before commencing the action, unless the conduct of the adverse party has been such as to prevent or waive performance or excuse non-performance of the condition."
	GR No. 168433 2009-02-10	UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. EAGLE EXPRESS LINES TINGA, J.
The requirement to give notice of loss or damage to the goods is not an empty formalism. The fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve the carrier from just liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefor, and to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is still fresh and easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims.[17]
	GR No. 168402 2008-08-06	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA REYES, R.T., J.
The giving of notice of loss or injury is a condition precedent to the action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier's liability. Circumstances peculiar to this case lead Us to conclude that the notice requirement was complied with. As held in the case of Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc.,[33] this notice requirement protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of the claim while the matter is still fresh and easily investigated. It is meant to safeguard the carrier from false and fraudulent claims.
	GR No. 150731 2007-09-14	CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PHILBANKING CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
We agree with petitioner. Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded upon a written instrument and provides the manner of denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6, Section 10 which merely provides the effect of failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document will be deemed admitted.[23] Since respondent failed to deny the genuineness and due execution of the Dacion and Confirmation Statement under oath, then these are deemed admitted and must be considered by the court in resolving the demurrer to evidence. We held in Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc. that "[w]hen the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an admitted fact."[24]
	GR NO. 151132 2006-06-22	FIRST BANCORP v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner maintains that the trial court acted in accord with law when it dismissed the complaint. While it admits that when it filed its motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint of respondent states no cause of action, it theoretically admitted the truth of the factual and material allegations in the complaint and not mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; nor conclusions of law; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and irrelevant matter.[30] Petitioner agrees that the court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits of the case; and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for said motion.[31] The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff. A complaint may also be dismissed for failure of plaintiff to comply with a condition precedent. There can be no cause of action for filing a complaint in court unless the condition precedent has been complied with. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent whether proscribed by statement or by agreement of the parties or implied by law upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged.[32]
	GR NO. 136888 2005-06-29	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods, the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to the action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier's liability. Such requirement is not an empty formalism. The fundamental reason or purpose of such a stipulation is not to relieve the carrier from just liability, but reasonably to inform it that the shipment has been damaged and that it is charged with liability therefore, and to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims.[30]