Title: #42 ITCSI v. FGU Insurance the coverage.

the coverage. This was also the ruling of the Court in Home Insurance Corporation v. Court of
Details: G.R. No. 161539 | June 27, 2008 | J. Austria-Martinez Appeals.
Topic: On Presentation of Policies  However, as in every general rule, there are admitted exceptions. In Delsan Transport Lines, Inc.
Doctrine: v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that the presentation of the insurance policy was not fatal
Facts: because the loss of the cargo undoubtedly occurred while on board the petitioner's vessel, unlike
1. ITCSI’s liability arose from a lost shipment of 14 Cardboards 400 kgs. of Silver Nitrate 63.53 in Home Insurance in which the cargo passed through several stages with different parties and it
FCT Analytically Pure (purity 99.98 PCT), shipped by Hapag-Lloyd AG through the could not be determined when the damage to the cargo occurred, such that the insurer should be
vessel Hannover Express from Hamburg, Germany on July 10, 1994, with Manila, Philippines as liable for it.
the port of discharge, and Republic Asahi Glass Corporation (RAGC) as consignee.   As in Delsan, there is no doubt that the loss of the cargo in the present case occurred while in
2. Said shipment was insured by FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU). When RAGC's customs petitioner's custody. Moreover, there is no issue as regards the provisions of Marine Open Policy
broker, Desma Cargo Handlers, Inc., was claiming the shipment, ICTSI, which was No. MOP-12763, such that the presentation of the contract itself is necessary for perusal, not to
the arrastre contractor, could not find it in its storage area.  mention that its existence was already admitted by petitioner in open court.
3. At the behest of petitioner, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an  And even though it was not offered in evidence, it still can be considered by the court as long as
investigation. The AAREMA Marine and Cargo Surveyors, Inc. also conducted an inquiry. Both they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves been
found that the shipment was lost while in the custody and responsibility of petitioner. incorporated in the records of the case.
4. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision finding ICTSI liable.
5. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC Decision.

Issue:
WON the CA erred in not dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure to offer the
insurance policy in evidence. – NO

Held:
 Petitioner insists that Marine Open Policy No. MOP-12763 under which the shipment was
insured was no longer in force at the time it was loaded on board the Hannover Express on June
10, 1994, as provided in the Endorsement portion of the policy, which states: IT IS HEREBY
DECLARED AND AGREED that effective June 10, 1994, this policy is deemed
CANCELLED.
 FGU, on the other hand, insists that it was under Marine Risk Note No. 9798, which was
executed on May 26, 1994, that said shipment was covered.
 It must be emphasized that a marine risk note is not an insurance policy. It is only an
acknowledgment or declaration of the insurer confirming the specific shipment covered by its
marine open policy, the evaluation of the cargo and the chargeable premium.
 It is the marine open policy which is the main insurance contract. In other words, the marine open
policy is the blanket insurance to be undertaken by FGU on all goods to be shipped by RAGC
during the existence of the contract, while the marine risk note specifies the particular
goods/shipment insured by FGU on that specific transaction, including the sum insured, the
shipment particulars as well as the premium paid for such shipment.
 In any event, as it stands, it is evident that even prior to the cancellation by FGU of Marine Open
Policy No. MOP-12763 on June 10, 1994, it had already undertaken to insure the shipment of the
400 kgs. of silver nitrate, specially since RAGC had already paid the premium on the insurance
of said shipment.
 Indeed, jurisprudence has it that the marine insurance policy needs to be presented in evidence
before the trial court or even belatedly before the appellate court. 
 In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Regis Brokerage Corp., the Court stated that the presentation
of the marine insurance policy was necessary, as the issues raised therein arose from the very
existence of an insurance contract between Malayan Insurance and its consignee, ABB Koppel,
even prior to the loss of the shipment. 
 In Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., the Court
ruled that the insurance contract must be presented in evidence in order to determine the extent of