Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. ASIAN TERMINALS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 195661 2015-03-11	UNKNOWN OWNER OF VESSEL M v. ASIAN TERMINALS REYES, J.
In Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc.,[30] the Court explained that the liabilities of the arrastre operator for losses and damages are set forth in the contract for cargo handling services it had executed with the PPA. Corollarily then, the rights of an arrastre operator to be paid for damages it sustains from handling cargoes do not likewise spring from contracts of carriage.
	GR No. 185964 2014-06-16	ASIAN TERMINALS v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, J.
The contention is bereft of merit. As clarified in Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc.,[58] substantial compliance with the 15-day time limitation is allowed provided that the consignee has made a provisional claim thru a request for bad order survey or examination report, viz: Although the formal claim was filed beyond the 15-day period from the issuance of the examination report on the request for bad order survey, the purpose of the time limitations for the filing of claims had already been fully satisfied by the request of the consignee's broker for a bad order survey and by the examination report of the arrastre operator on the result thereof, as the arrastre operator had become aware of and had verified the facts giving rise to its liability. Hence, the arrastre operator suffered no prejudice by the lack of strict compliance with the 15-day limitation to file the formal complaint.[59] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual.[27]