Asian Terminals v. Simon Enterprises

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC.
G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013

VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Digested by: VILLAROMAN
FACTS: Simon Enterprise Inc. (Simon) has entered into contract with Contiquincybunge Export
Company (Contiquincybunge) as its consignee of the shipped Soybean Meal. Contiquincybunge has made
a shipment through M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern respectively at the Port of Darrow, Louisiana, U.S.A.
The first and second shipments were received by ATI for delivery to Simon. However, the shipped cargos
were found lacking by 18.556 metric tons and 199.863 metric tons, respectively.
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, 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.
In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA held that there is no justification to disturb the factual findings of
the trial court which are entitled to respect on appeal as they were supported by substantial evidence. It
agreed with the findings of the trial court that the unknown owner of the vessel M/V "Tern" and Inter-
Asia Marine Transport, Inc. 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 14 of the
Civil Code. The CA also ruled that petitioner ATI, as the arrastre operator, should be held jointly and
severally liable with the carrier considering that petitioner ATI's stevedores were under the direct
supervision of the unknown owner of M/V "Tern" and that the spillages occurred when the cargoes were
being unloaded by petitioner ATI's stevedores.
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue raised by ATI can be entertained by SC under Rule 45?
RULING: YES. We note that the matters raised by petitioner ATI involve questions of fact which are
generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, as the Court is not a trier of facts. Section 1 thereof provides that “[t]he petition x
x x shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth.”
A QUESTION OF LAW exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or
jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and
relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole,
and the probability of the situation.
The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court
in a petition for review on certiorari. This rule, however, is not ironclad and admits certain exceptions,
such as when (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of
specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed
facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of
Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both
parties.
After a careful review of the records, we find justification to warrant the application of the fourth
exception. The CA misapprehended the following facts.
1. 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.
2. 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%.
3. Third, SC agreed with the petitioner ATI that respondent has not proven any negligence on the
part of the former.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 27,
2006 and Resolution dated March 23, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71210 are
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE insofar as petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. is concerned.

Asian Terminals v. Simon Enterprises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Terminals v. Simon Enterprises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Terminals v. Simon Enterprises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC.

G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013

You might also like