MAR

20

My 1st published case digest

Its been a long time since I have wrote anything for this blog. Id just like to post the case I digested to see
it in the future and have a good look as to how bad I do case digests before [beforebecause I know Ill be
doing that kind of activity in the future and I know that my skill in doing it will develop].
Here it is,
Asian Terminals, Inc., Petitioner vs.
Simon Enterprises, Inc., Respondent
GR. No. 177116
FEB 27, 2013
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 ATIs 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 ATIs 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 ATIs 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.

******
I just remembered the time I do six case digests for labor relations which was just announced a