RTC Decision

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Banch !"# $anila

NATIONAL %UPPLIE% AUT&ORIT'  And NATIONAL NATIONAL TRUC(ING TRUC(ING  AUT&ORIT'#  AUT&ORIT'#  

Plaintiffs# ) *esus )

Ci*il Case No+ ",-./

 ALLIE0 %&IPPING %&IPPING CORP+ CORP+# 0efendant+ 1)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 1)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))1 )))))1

0ECI%ION

This This is an acti action on fo fo da2ag da2ages es ais aisin ing g fo2 fo2 alle allege ged d bea beach ch of the the contact of caiage# filed b3 the plaintiffs National %upplies Authoit3 4N%A5 and National National Tuc6ing Tuc6ing Copoation# Copoation# noth go*en2ent go*en2ent copoations copoations## against against defendant Allied %hipping Copoation 4Allied %hipping5 fo its alleged failue to deli*e to plaintiff N%A7s consignee 8#!"! bags of non)fat died 2il6 9oth P,#-/8#,:,+.. plus feight pepaid in the a2ount of P!#-.-+"; fo a total of  P,#!",#/:/+"8+

0uing the pe)tial# the paties offeed fo esolution b3 the couth the follo9ing issues<

=+ >hethe >hethe o no defendant defendant Allie Allied d %hipping %hipping 9as able to deli*e deli*e the the cago in*ol*ed heein# 9hich it caied on boad its *essel# to the consignee $+ &assan %ali2 of plaintiff NTC in ?a2boanga@ ,+ >hethe >hethe o not defendan defendantt Allied Allied %hipping %hipping e1ecise e1ecised d the e1tao e1taodin dina3 a3 diligence euied of co22on caies in connection 9ith the cago subect 2atte of this case@ :+ >hethe >hethe o not the plaintif plaintifff is entitled entitled to its clai2 clai2 fo actual# actual# e1e2pla3 e1e2pla3 and 2o2al da2ages@ and 8+ >hethe >hethe of not the defendan defendantt is entitled entitled to eco*e eco*e da2age da2ages s fo2 the plaintiffs unde its counteclai2+

ollo9ing ae the undisputed facts of the case<

=+ That the N%A engaged the se*ices of defendant to ship co22odities+ ,+ That $+ &assan %ali2 9as tas6ed to suende the consignee7s cop3 of the bill of lading in e1change fi the elease of the co22odities# and# accodingl3# sign the coesponding deli*e3 eceipt+

:+ $+ &assan %ali2 epoted though telephone call the non)deli*e3 of  the co22odities+ 8+ That Att3 Gegoio Lantana conducted an in*estigation on the loss of  the ;#!,8 bags if non)fat died 2il6+ It 9as clai2ed that Allied %hipping Copoation alead3 eleased the co22odities to $+ &assan %ali2 but could not poduce a bill of lading containing the authentic signatue of  the latte+ ;+ That $+ &assan %ali2# in the pefo2ance of his duties 9as al9a3s pesent duing deli*eies of co22odities but so2eti2es euested that his subodinates as authoiDed signatoies sign the consignee7s bill of  lading due to othe appoint2ents he needed to attend+ "+ The duing the deli*e3 date of Apil ,"# ,..8# $# &assan %ali2 9as no longe connected 9ith the NTC effecti*e Janua3 :=# ,..8+

The testi2onies of the defendant7s 9itnesses established that 9hile &assan %ali2 9as the consignee na2ed in all the bills of lading# and 9hile he pesonall3 attended the deli*eies of the indi*idual ship2ents to NTC# togethe 9ith his subodinates# thee 9ee ti2es 9hen# although pesent at the eal3 stages of the deli*eies# he had to lea*e in ode to attend othe  appoint2ents allegedl3# and allo9ede o authoiDed his subodinates to continue ecei*ing the deli*eies and to sign the coesponding deli*e3 eceipts afte the deli*eies of the cagoes ta6en out of the containe *ans 9ee co2pleted+

 Accoding to the testi2on3 of the in*estigating office# he 9as able to tal6 to $+ &assan %ali2 a da3 befoe his esignation to 9hich it 9as deduced that the latte 9as eluctant to ans9e# and that afte postponing the in*estigation fo a da3# he ne*e sa9 $+ %ali2 again# instead# he ecei*ed a cop3 of the latte7s esignation lette+

Unde the cicu2stances# and consideing the e*idence pesented b3 the plaintiffs as against the unebutted e*idence fo the defendant on the deli*e3 of the co22odities in uestion to %ali2# the plaintiffs ha*e failed to po*e thei causes of action b3 clea pepondeance of e*idene+ &ence# Thei  co2plaint 2ust be dis2issed+ The defendant# on the othe hand# 2ust be a9aded da2ages on its counteclai2s 9hich the cout finds ustified unde  the cicu2stances# b3 9a3 of ei2buse2ent fo thei e1penses aising out of  this litigation in the a2ount of P;.#...+.. and attone37s fees in the a2ount of  P-.#...+..+

>&EREORE# udge2ent is heeb3 endeed in fa*o of the defendant against the plaintiffs# dis2issing the latte7s co2plaint# and odeing the plaintiffs# pusuan to the defendant7s counteclai2s# to pa3# ointl3 and solidail3# to the defendant# actual da2ages in the a2ount of P;.#...+.. and attone37s fees in the a2ount of P-.#...+.. plus the costs of suit+

%O OR0ERE0+

$anila# $a3 =8# ,..!+

Judge

Goup  Claie $aie Patosa %tephan Gloi Pusing  Allan 0ane Paocha