Asian Terminals vs Malayan InsuranceGR 171406 / April 4, 2011

Facts:

1. Shandong Weifang Soda Ash Plant shipped on board the vessel MV “Jinlian” 60,000 plastic bags of soda ash dense. The shipment was insured with Malayan Insurance.

2. Upon arrival of the vessel, the stevedores of Asian Terminals unloaded the bags from the vessel and brought them to the open storage area of petitioner for temporary storage and safekeeping pending clearance from the Bureau of Customs and delivery to consignee. After all the bags were unloaded, a total of 2,881 bags were in bad condition.

3. Malayan Insurance, as insurer, paid the value of the lost cargoes to the consignee. 4. Malayan Insurance, as subrogee of the consignee, filed with the RTC a complaint for damages against Asian

Terminals.5. RTC found Asian Terminals liable for the damage sustained by the shipment. The proximate cause was the

negligence of Asian Terminals’ stevedores who handled the unloading of the cargoes from the vessel. This was caused by their usage of the steel hooks in retrieving and picking-up the bags by the stevedores, despite the admonitions of the Marine Cargo Surveyors.

6. RTC orders Asian Terminals to pay P643K to Malayan Insurance. CA agrees with the decision of the RTC7. Asian Terminals argues claims that the amount of damages should not be more than P5,000, pursuant to its

Management Contract for cargo handling services with the Philippine Ports Authority(PPA). Petitioner contends that the CA should have taken judicial notice of the said contract since it is an official act of an executive department subject to judicial cognizance.

Issue:

Whether the court can take judicial notice of the Management Contract between petitioner and the PPA in determining petitioner’s liability.

Held:

1. Judicial notice does not apply2. Section 1, Rule 129

a. Judicial notice when mandatory – a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the laws of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

3. The Management Contract entered into by petitioner and the PPA is clearly not among the matters which the court can take judicial notice of.

a. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department.b. The PPA is a GOCC in charge of administering the ports in the country.c. the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when it entered into a Management Contract with

petitioner.