THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.147079.December21,2004]

A.F. SANCHEZ BROKERAGE INC., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF

APPEALSandFGUINSURANCECORPORATION,respondents.

DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:

[1]
BeforethisCourtonapetitionforCertiorariistheappellatecourtsDecision ofAugust10,2000
reversingandsettingasidethejudgmentofBranch133,RegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,inCivil
Case No. 9376B which dismissed the complaint of respondent FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU
Insurance)againstpetitionerA.F.SanchezBrokerage,Inc.(SanchezBrokerage).
OnJuly8,1992,WyethPharmaGMBHshippedonboardanaircraftofKLMRoyalDutchAirlines
at Dusseldorf, Germany oral contraceptives consisting of 86,800 Blisters Femenal tablets, 14,000
Blisters Nordiol tablets and 42,000 Blisters Trinordiol tablets for delivery to Manila in favor of the
[2]
consignee,WyethSuacoLaboratories,Inc. TheFemenaltabletswereplacedin124cartonsandthe
Nordiol tablets were placed in 20 cartons which were packed together in one (1) LD3 aluminum
container,whiletheTrinordialtabletswerepackedintwopallets,eachofwhichcontained30cartons.
[3]

WyethSuacoinsuredtheshipmentagainstallriskswithFGUInsurancewhichissuedMarineRisk
[4]
NoteNo.4995pursuanttoMarineOpenPolicyNo.138.
[5]
UponarrivaloftheshipmentonJuly11,1992attheNinoyAquinoInternationalAirport(NAIA), it
[6]
wasdischargedwithoutexception anddeliveredtothewarehouseofthePhilippineSkylanders,Inc.
[7]
(PSI)locatedalsoattheNAIAforsafekeeping.
InordertosecurethereleaseofthecargoesfromthePSIandtheBureauofCustoms,Wyeth
[8]
SuacoengagedtheservicesofSanchezBrokeragewhichhadbeenitslicensedbrokersince1984.
Asitscustomsbroker,SanchezBrokeragecalculatesandpaysthecustomsduties,taxesandstorage
[9]
feesforthecargoandthereafterdeliversittoWyethSuaco.
On July 29, 1992, Mitzi Morales and Ernesto Mendoza, representatives of Sanchez Brokerage,
[10]
paidPSIstoragefeeamountingtoP8,572.35areceiptforwhich,OfficialReceiptNo.016992, was
[11]
issued.Onthereceipt,anotherrepresentativeofSanchezBrokerage,M.Sison, acknowledgedthat
[12]
hereceivedthecargoesconsistingofthreepiecesingoodcondition.
[13]
WyethSuacobeingaregularimporter,thecustomsexaminerdidnotinspectthecargoes which
[14]
were thereupon stripped from the aluminum containers and loaded inside two transport vehicles
[15]
hiredbySanchezBrokerage.
Among those who witnessed the release of the cargoes from the PSI warehouse were Ruben
[16]
AlonsoandTonyAkas, employeesofEliteAdjustersandSurveyorsInc.(EliteSurveyors),amarine
and cargo surveyor and insurance claim adjusters firm engaged by WyethSuaco on behalf of FGU
Insurance.
Upon instructions of WyethSuaco, the cargoes were delivered to Hizon Laboratories Inc. in
[17]
AntipoloCityforqualitycontrolcheck. Thedeliveryreceipt,bearingNo.07037datedJuly29,1992,
indicatedthatthedeliveryconsistedofonecontainerwith144cartonsofFemenalandNordioland1
[18]
palletcontainingTrinordiol.
OnJuly31,1992,RonnieLikas,arepresentativeofWyethSuaco,acknowledgedthedeliveryof
[19]
thecargoesbyaffixinghissignatureonthedeliveryreceipt. Uponinspection,however,he,together
with Ruben Alonzo of Elite Surveyors, discovered that 44 cartons containing Femenal and Nordiol
[20]
tabletswereinbadorder. Hethusplacedanoteabovehissignatureonthedeliveryreceiptstating
that 44 cartons of oral contraceptives were in bad order. The remaining 160 cartons of oral
contraceptiveswereacceptedascompleteandingoodorder.
[21]
RubenAlonzothuspreparedandsigned,alongwithRonnieLikas,asurveyreport datedJuly
31,1992statingthat41cartonsofFemenaltabletsand3cartonsofNordioltabletswerewetted(sic).
[22]

[23]
The Elite Surveyors later issued Certificate No. CS07311538/92 attached to which was an
Annexed Schedule whereon it was indicated that prior to the loading of the cargoes to the brokers
[24]
trucks at the NAIA, they were inspected and found to be in apparent good condition. Also noted
wasthatatthetimeofdeliverytothewarehouseofHizonLaboratoriesInc.,slighttoheavyrainsfell,
[25]
whichcouldaccountforthewettingofthe44cartonsofFemenalandNordioltablets.
[26]
OnAugust4,1992,theHizonLaboratoriesInc.issuedaDestructionReport confirmingthat38
x700blisterpacksofFemenaltablets,3x700blisterpacksofFemenaltabletsand3x700blister
packsofNordioltabletswereheavilydamagedwithwaterandemittedfoulsmell.
[27]
On August 5, 1992, WyethSuaco issued a Notice of Materials Rejection of 38 cartons of
Femenaland3cartonsofNordiolonthegroundthattheyweredeliveredtoHizonLaboratorieswith
heavy water damaged (sic) causing the cartons to sagged (sic) emitting a foul order and easily
[28]
attractedflies.
[29]
WyethSuaco later demanded, by letter of August 25, 1992, from Sanchez Brokerage the
paymentofP191,384.25representingthevalueofitslossarisingfromthedamagedtablets.
As the Sanchez Brokerage refused to heed the demand, WyethSuaco filed an insurance claim
againstFGUInsurancewhichpaidWyethSuacotheamountofP181,431.49insettlementofitsclaim
underMarineRiskNoteNumber4995.
[30]
WyethSuacothusissuedSubrogationReceipt infavorofFGUInsurance.
OndemandbyFGUInsuranceforpaymentoftheamountofP181,431.49 it paid WyethSuaco,
[31]
Sanchez Brokerage, by letter of January 7, 1993, disclaimed liability for the damaged goods,
positingthatthedamagewasduetoimproperandinsufficientexportpackagingthatwhenthesealed
containerswereopenedoutsidethePSIwarehouse,itwasdiscoveredthatsomeoftheloosecartons
[32]
werewet, promptingits(SanchezBrokerages)representativeMoralestoinformtheImportExport
Assistant of WyethSuaco, Ramir Calicdan, about the condition of the cargoes but that the latter
[33]
advisedtostilldeliverthemtoHizonLaboratorieswhereanadjusterwouldassessthedamage.
Hence,thefilingbyFGUInsuranceofacomplaintfordamagesbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtof
MakatiCityagainsttheSanchezBrokerage.
 [34]
Thetrialcourt,byDecision ofJuly29,1996,dismissedthecomplaint,holdingthattheSurvey
Report prepared by the Elite Surveyors is bereft of any evidentiary support and a mere product of
[35]
pureguesswork.
Onappeal,theappellatecourtreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourt,itholdingthattheSanchez
Brokerageengagednotonlyinthebusinessofcustomsbrokeragebutalsointhetransportationand
deliveryofthecargoofitsclients,hence,acommoncarrierwithinthecontextofArticle1732ofthe
[36]
NewCivilCode.
NotingthatWyethSuacoadducedevidencethatthecargoesweredeliveredtopetitioneringood
orderandconditionbutwereinadamagedstatewhendeliveredtoWyethSuaco,theappellatecourt
heldthatSanchezBrokerageispresumednegligentanduponitrestedtheburdenofprovingthatit
exercisedextraordinarynegligencenotonlyininstanceswhennegligenceisdirectlyprovenbutalso
[37]
inthosecaseswhenthecauseofthedamageisnotknownorunknown.
Theappellatecourtthusdisposed:

INTHELIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,theappealoftheAppellantisGRANTED.TheDecisionof
the Court a quo is REVERSED. Another Decision is hereby rendered in favor of the Appellant and
againsttheAppelleeasfollows:

1. The Appellee is hereby ordered to pay the Appellant the principal amount of P181,
431.49, with interest thereupon at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the
DecisionoftheCourt,untilthesaidamountispaidinfull

2.TheAppelleeisherebyorderedtopaytotheAppellanttheamountofP20,000.00as
andbywayofattorneysfeesand
[38]
3.ThecounterclaimsoftheAppelleeareDISMISSED.

Sanchez Brokerages Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the appellate courts
ResolutionofDecember8,2000whichwasreceivedbypetitioneronJanuary5,2001,itcomestothis
CourtonpetitionforcertiorarifiledonMarch6,2001.
In the main, petitioner asserts that the appellate court committed grave and reversible error
tantamount to abuse of discretion when it found petitioner a common carrier within the context of
Article1732oftheNewCivilCode.
Respondent FGU Insurance avers in its Comment that the proper course of action which
petitionershouldhavetakenwastofileapetitionforreviewoncertiorarisincethesoleofficeofawrit
of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionanddoesnotincludecorrectionoftheappellate
courtsevaluationoftheevidenceandfactualfindingsthereon.
Onthemerits,respondentFGUInsurancecontendsthatpetitioner,asacommoncarrier,failedto
overcome the presumption of negligence, it being documented that petitioner withdrew from the
[39]
warehouseofPSIthesubjectshipmententirelyingoodorderandcondition.
Thepetitionfails.
Rule45isclearthatdecisions,finalordersorresolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsinanycase,i.e.,
regardlessofthenatureoftheactionorproceedingsinvolved,maybeappealedtothisCourtbyfiling
apetitionforreview,whichwouldbebutacontinuationoftheappellateprocessovertheoriginalcase.
[40]
 The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 8, 2000 denying the motion for
reconsideration of its Decision of August 10, 2000 was received by petitioner on January 5, 2001.
Sincepetitionerfailedtoappealwithin15daysoronorbeforeJanuary20,2001,theappellatecourts
decisionhadbecomefinalandexecutory.ThefilingbypetitionerofapetitionforcertiorarionMarch6,
2001cannotserveasasubstituteforthelostremedyofappeal.
Inanothervein,theruleiswellsettledthatinapetitionforcertiorari,thepetitionermustprovenot
merelyreversibleerrorbutalsograveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.
Petitionerallegesthattheappellatecourterredinreversingandsettingasidethedecisionofthe
trialcourtbasedonitsfindingthatpetitionerisliableforthedamagetothecargoasacommoncarrier.
Whatpetitionerisascribingisanerrorofjudgment,notofjurisdiction,whichisproperlythesubjectof
anordinaryappeal.
Wheretheissueorquestioninvolvesoraffectsthewisdomorlegalsoundnessofthedecisionnot
thejurisdictionofthecourttorendersaiddecisionthesameisbeyondtheprovinceofapetitionfor
[41]
certiorari. ThesupervisoryjurisdictionofthisCourttoissueacertwritcannotbeexercisedinorder
toreviewthejudgmentoflowercourtsastoitsintrinsiccorrectness,eitheruponthelaworthefactsof
[42]
thecase.
Proceduraltechnicalitiesaside,thepetitionstillfails.
Theappellatecourtdidnoterrinfindingpetitioner,acustomsbroker,tobealsoacommoncarrier,
asdefinedunderArticle1732oftheCivilCode,towit:

Art.1732.Commoncarriersarepersons,corporations,firmsorassociationsengagedinthebusiness
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation,
offeringtheirservicestothepublic.

Anacleto F. Sanchez, Jr., the Manager and Principal Broker of Sanchez Brokerage, himself
testified that the services the firm offers include the delivery of goods to the warehouse of the
consigneeorimporter.
ATTY.FLORES:
Q:Whatarethefunctionsoftheselicensebrokers,licensecustomsbroker?
WITNESS:
Ascustomsbroker,wecalculatethetaxesthathastobepaidincargos,andthoseuponapprovalofthe
importer,wepreparetheentrytogetherforprocessingandclaimsfromcustomsandfinallydeliver
[43]
thegoodstothewarehouseoftheimporter.
Article1732doesnotdistinguishbetweenonewhoseprincipalbusinessactivityisthecarryingof
[44]
goodsandonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyasanancillaryactivity. The contention, therefore, of
petitionerthatitisnotacommoncarrierbutacustomsbrokerwhoseprincipalfunctionistoprepare
thecorrectcustomsdeclarationandpropershippingdocumentsasrequiredbylawisbereftofmerit.It
sufficesthatpetitionerundertakestodeliverthegoodsforpecuniaryconsideration.
[45]
Inthislight,petitionerasacommoncarrierismandatedtoobserve,underArticle1733 ofthe
Civil Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it transports according to all the
circumstances of each case. In the event that the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it is
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed
[46]
extraordinarydiligence.
TheconceptofextraordinarydiligencewasexplainedinCompaniaMaritimav.CourtofAppeals:
[47]
The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the
commoncarriertoknowandtofollowtherequiredprecautionforavoidingdamageto,ordestruction
of the goods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render
servicewiththegreatestskillandforesightandtouseallreasonablemeanstoascertainthenature
and characteristics of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
[48]
stowage,includingsuchmethodsastheirnaturerequires.

Inthecaseatbar,itwasestablishedthatpetitionerreceivedthecargoesfromthePSIwarehouse
[49]
inNAIAingoodorderandcondition andthatupondeliverybypetitionertoHizonLaboratoriesInc.,
[50]
some of the cargoes were found to be in bad order, as noted in the Delivery Receipt issued by
[51]
petitioner,andasindicatedintheSurveyReportofEliteSurveyors andtheDestructionReportof
[52]
HizonLaboratories,Inc.
Inanattempttofreeitselffromresponsibilityforthedamagetothegoods,petitionerpositsthat
theyweredamagedduetothefaultornegligenceoftheshipperforfailingtoproperlypackthemand
[53]
to the inherent characteristics of the goods and that it should not be faulted for following the
instructionsofCalicdanofWyethSuacotoproceedwiththedeliverydespiteinformationconveyedto
thelatterthatsomeofthecartons,onexaminationoutsidethePSIwarehouse,werefoundtobewet.
[54]

[55]
WhileparagraphNo.4ofArticle1734 oftheCivilCodeexemptsacommoncarrierfromliability
if the loss or damage is due to the character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
containers, the rule is that if the improper packing is known to the carrier or his employees or is
apparent upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts the same without protest or
[56]
exceptionnotwithstandingsuchcondition,heisnotrelievedofliabilityfortheresultingdamage.
Iftheclaimofpetitionerthatsomeofthecartonswerealreadydamagedupondeliverytoitwere
true,thenitshouldnaturallyhavereceivedthecargounderprotestorwithreservationsdulynotedon
[57]
thereceiptissuedbyPSI.Butitmadenosuchprotestorreservation.
Moreover,asobservedbytheappellatecourt,ifindeedpetitionersemployeesonlyexaminedthe
cargoesoutsidethePSIwarehouseandfoundsometobewet,theywouldcertainlyhavegoneback
to PSI, showed to the warehouseman the damage, and demanded then and there for Bad Order
[58]
documents or a certification confirming the damage. Or, petitioner would have presented, as
witness, the employees of the PSI from whom Morales and Domingo took delivery of the cargo to
prove that, indeed, part of the cargoes was already damaged when the container was allegedly
[59]
openedoutsidethewarehouse.
Petitioner goes on to posit that contrary to the report of Elite Surveyors, no rain fell that day.
Instead, it asserts that some of the cargoes were already wet on delivery by PSI outside the PSI
warehousebutsuchnotwithstandingCalicdandirectedMoralestoproceedwiththedeliverytoHizon
Laboratories,Inc.
WhileCalicdantestifiedthathereceivedthepurportedtelephonecallofMoralesonJuly29,1992,
hefailedtospecificallydeclarewhattimehereceivedthecall.Astowhetherthecallwasmadeatthe
PSI warehouse when the shipment was stripped from the airport containers, or when the cargoes
were already in transit to Antipolo, it is not determinable. Aside from that phone call, petitioner
admittedthatithadnodocumentaryevidencetoprovethatatthetimeitreceivedthecargoes,apart
[60]
ofitwaswet,damagedorinbadcondition.
[61]
The 4page weather data furnished by PAGASA on request of Sanchez Brokerage hardly
impresses,nowitnesshavingidentifieditandinterpretedthetechnicaltermsthereof.
 The possibility on the other hand that, as found by Hizon Laboratories, Inc., the oral
contraceptives were damaged by rainwater while in transit to Antipolo City is more likely then.
Sanchezhimselftestifiedthatinthepast,therewasasimilarinstancewhentheshipmentofWyeth
Suacowasalsofoundtobewetbyrain.
ATTY.FLORES:
Q:Wasthereanyinstancethatashipmentofthisnature,oralcontraceptives,thatarrivedattheNAIA
weredamagedandclaimedbytheWyethSuacowithoutanyquestion?
WITNESS:
A:Yessir,therewasaninstancethatonecartoon(sic)werewetted(sic)butWyethSuacodidnotclaim
anythingagainstus.
ATTY.FLORES:
Q:HOWISIT?
WITNESS:
A:Weexperienced,therewasatimethatweexperiencedthattherewasacartoon(sic)wetted(sic)up
[62]
tothebottomarewetspeciallyduringrainyseason.
Sincepetitionerreceivedallthecargoesingoodorderandconditionatthetimetheywereturned
overbythePSIwarehouseman,andupontheirdeliverytoHizonLaboratories,Inc.aportionthereof
wasfoundtobeinbadorder,itwasincumbentonpetitionertoprovethatitexercisedextraordinary
diligence in the carriage of the goods. It did not, however. Hence, its presumed negligence under
Article1735oftheCivilCoderemainsunrebutted.
WHEREFORE,theAugust10,2000DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,(Chairman),SandovalGutierrez,andGarcia,JJ.,concur.
Corona,J.,onleave.

[1]
Rolloat2243.
[2]
RecordsoftheRegionalTrialCourtat92,9495.
[3]
Id.at93.
[4]
Id.at9699.
[5]
TSN,November10,1994at16.
[6]
Recordsat35.
[7]
Rolloat18.
[8]
TSN,November10,1994at10.
[9]
Id.at9.
[10]
Recordsat132.
[11]
Rolloat23.
[12]
Recordsat132.
[13]
TSN,January10,1995at5.
[14]
TSN,November10,1994at15,T.S.N.January10,1995at67.
[15]
Rolloat23.
[16]
TSN,March24,1994at12.
[17]
Id.at17.
[18]
Recordsat32.
[19]
TSN,March24,1994at2627.
[20]
Recordsat33.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Id.at3436.
[24]
Id.at36.
[25]
Id.at3536.
[26]
Id.at37.
[27]
Id.at3839.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Id.at40.
[30]
Id.at109.
[31]
Id.at134135.
[32]
Id.at134.
[33]
TSN,January10,1995at89.
[34]
Rolloat1820.
[35]
Id.at19.
[36]
Id.at29.
[37]
Id.at3132.
[38]
Id.at42.
[39]
Id.at51.
[40]
HeirsofMarcelinoPagobov.CourtofAppeals,280SCRA870,883(1997).
[41]
LandbankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,409SCRA455,482(2003).
[42]
Id.at482483.
[43]
TSN,November10,1994at9.
[44]
DeGuzmanv.CourtofAppeals,168SCRA612,617(1988).
[45]
Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
accordingtoallthecircumstancesofeachcase.
xxx
[46]
Art.1735.InallcasesotherthanthosementionedinNos.1,2,3,4,and5oftheprecedingarticle,ifthegoodsarelost,
destroyedordeteriorated,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently,unless
theyprovethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligenceasrequiredonArticle1733.
[47]
164SCRA685(1988).
[48]
Id.at692.
[49]
Recordsat132.
[50]
Id.at32.
[51]
Id.at102104.
[52]
Id.at105107.
[53]
Rolloat10.
[54]
Id.at9.
[55]
Art.1734.Commoncarriersareresponsiblefortheloss,destruction,ordeteriorationofthegoods,unlessthesameis
duetoanyofthefollowingcausesonly:
xxx
(4)Thecharacterofthegoodsordefectsinthepackingorinthecontainers
[56]
Calvov.UCPBGeneralInsuranceCo.Inc.,379SCRA510,520(2002).
[57]
Rolloat34.
[58]
Id.at36.
[59]
Ibid.
[60]
TSN,December2,1994at25.
[61]
Exh.1A,Recordsat127131.
[62]
T.S.N.November10,1994at19.