GR. No. 177116 FEB 27, 2013 ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent. Facts: Simon Enterprise Inc. (Simon) has entered into contract with Contiquincybunge Export Company (Contiquincybunge) as its consignee of the shipped Soybean Meal. On October 25, 1995 and on November 25, 1995 Contiquincybunge has made a shipment through M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern respectively at the Port of Darrow, Louisiana, U.S.A. For the first shipment, Contiquincybunge made a shipment of 6,825.144 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal which when the M/V Sea Dream arrived at the Port of Manila the bulk of soybean meal was received by the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), for shipment to Simon. However, when it reached its receiver Simon, it was already short by 18.556 metric tons. For the second shipment, Contiquincybunge made shipment, through M/V Tern, of 3,300.000 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal in Bulk for delivery to Simon at the Port of Manila. The shipment was received by ATI again for delivery to Simon. However, the shipped cargos were found lacking 199.863 metric tons. Simon has filed an action for damages against the unknown owner of the vessels M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc., and petitioner ATI alleging that it suffered the losses through the fault or negligence of the said defendants. The case of the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Sea Dream has been settled in release and quitclaim and therefore has been stricken out of the case, leaving M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc., and petitioner ATI’s case remaining. The RTC has ruled that the defendants be solidarily liable for the damages incurred by Simon. Unsatisfied with the RTC ruling, the owner of the M/V Tern, and Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. appealed to CA on the issue whether RTC has erred in finding that they did not exercise extraordinary diligence in the handling of the goods. On the other hand, the petitioner ATI has also appealed to CA on the issue that the RTC, the court-a-quo, committed serious and reversible error in holding ATI solidarily liable with co-defendant appellant Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. contrary to the evidence presented. The CA ruled that the RTC ruling be assailed with some modifications on the basis that M/V Tern and Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. have failed to establish that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods or exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss as provided in Article 1742 of the Civil Code. And on ATI’s RTC ruling, it was assailed as well on the basis that the stevedore of the M/V Tern has witnessed that during the dischargement of the cargo, there has been spillage done by the
stevedores of ATI which is an evidence that ATI has been negligible in handling the goods. ATI filed a motion for reconsideration at CA but was denied. It then filed a petition for certiorari with the sole issue of whether the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its co-defendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods to respondent. The issue involves questions of facts which cannot be entertained by SC for it is not a trier of facts under rule 45 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure. However, the said rule 45 is not ironclad and has certain exceptions. The issue raised by ATI was merited to be entertained by SC under the rule 4, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. Issue: Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its co-defendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods to respondent. Ruling: The petition for review on certiorari was granted to ATI. The SC agreed to ATI’s claim that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its co-defendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods to respondent. The CA misapprehended the following facts: First, petitioner ATI is correct in arguing that the respondent failed to prove that the subject shipment suffered actual shortage, as there was no competent evidence to prove that it actually weighed 3,300 metric tons at the port of origin. Second, as correctly asserted by petitioner ATI, the shortage, if any, may have been due to the inherent nature of the subject shipment or its packaging since the subject cargo was shipped in bulk and had a moisture content of 12.5%. Third, SC agreed with the petitioner ATI that respondent has not proven any negligence on the part of the former.
