View full case

PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a shipment of fertilizer from Sangi, Toledo City to Iloilo City that was insured by Provident Insurance Corp. against damage or loss. One bag of fertilizer was missing and 188 bags sustained spillage when the shipment reached Iloilo City. Additional spillage occurred while the shipment was being transported to the warehouse of Atlas Fertilizer Corporation by broker Benny Espinosa Trucking Services. Atlas made a formal demand for payment from Northern Mindanao Transport Co., Inc., the owner of the vessel MV Ana Alexandria, but the latter refused to pay. Atlas then recovered the amount of the damage and loss from Provident and the latter was subrogated to the rights of Atlas. Provident filed a collection suit for reimbursement against Northern before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. The MeTC dismissed the complaint based on the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for being filed beyond the 1-year reglementary period. The RTC of Makati affirmed the decision, and the Court of Appeals dismissed Provident's petition for review for being taken upon a pure question of law and for lack of certification against forum-shopping. Provident filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that it raised a question of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, stating that only questions of law were raised before the appellate court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that it was filed upon a pure question of law.

  2. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review. The petitioner admitted that it filed a "Petition for Review on Appeal upon a question of law." Since only questions of law were raised before the appellate court, the petition should be dismissed in accordance with Circular No. 2-90.

  2. With regard to the second issue, the resolution of whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription is a pure question of law because it is based on undisputed facts. The Court did not find any reversible error in the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, thereby denying the petition for review.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appeals raising only questions of law are dismissible.

  • Prescription can be a ground for dismissing a complaint.

  • Errors of law do not require an examination of the facts on record.