Krisia Michelle G.

Orense

ALLAN SY VS BEN AND CESAR

FACTS:
Allan Sy shipped frozen shrimps from Davao to Manila on Ben’s vessel
with the use of rented refrigerator from Cesar. As the shrimps arrived at Manila
port, it was already spoiled. Allan alleged that it was the negligence of Ben and
Cesar that caused the unfortunate event. He contended that those shrimps were
ordered by his valued client since he is fish dealer. But because of the alleged
negligence of Ben and Cesar, he lost an income of the shrimps to be sold
amounting to Fifteen Thousand Pesos (Php 15, 000.00). By this he instituted a
action for damages to Benm and Cesar.
Contrary to this, Ben contended that it was the negligence of Cesar because
the model of the refrigerator is defective and old and he executed the diligence of
a good father required because he selected an employee or in this case the vessel’s
captain as highly efficient in nature. On the other hand, Cesar alleged that it was
never in his negligence that caused the unfortunate event because he made sure
that the refrigerator is in a good condition before its usage. He also alleged that
the employee of Ben failed to check the power supply of the container. Hence, he
sought for the Dante’s Insurance against the damages to the shrimps while in his
container during the voyage. But, Dante stated that Cesar cannot avail the
insurance since he failed to file the complaint within ten (10) days upon the
discovery if the damages because it is clearly stated in the policy.
ISSUE:

(1) WHETHER OR NOT BEN AND CESAR WERE NEGLIGENT IN

HANDLING THE SHRIMPS?
(2) WHETHER OR NOT CESAR IS ENTITLED UNDER THE
INSURANCE POLICY TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM DANTE’S
INSURANCE?
HELD:

(1) YES. The Court held that both Ben and Cesar were negligent in handling
the shrimps. The reason is that they failed to establish during the pre-trial
 or presentation of pieces of evidence for defense that they execute the
diligence required in exporting the shrimps. Furthermore they also positive
in the test in determining negligence as explained in the case of Picart VS
Smith which is “The test by which to determine the existence or negligence
in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence.”
In the case, both Ben and Cesar failed to present concrete evidence that
would determine and establish their diligence. This Court, therefore finds
that the parties of Ben and Cesar are negligent and hereby awarding the
amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (Php 15, 000.00) as an actual damages
and moral damages of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8, 000.00) for the
reputation of Allan Sy has been put into risk since his valued clients in this
case never trusted him again.
(2) NO. Cesar cannot be guaranteed of the insurance in Dante’s Insurance
Company for the reason that, it appears in the testimonies of Cesar that he
knew about the ten (10) days policy but still failed to submit the
requirements needed to ensure the insurance. Thus, this Court finds that it
still in the negligence of Cesar that he failed to observed the period and by
this, he would not be entitled of the reimbursement of the damages
incurred in the spoiled shrimp of Allan Sy.

SO ORDERED.