Case Digest (G.R. No. 182208)
Facts:
The case involves Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), the petitioner, and Allied Guarantee Insurance Co., Inc. (Allied), the respondent. The events leading to the case began on February 5, 1989, when a shipment of 72,322 lbs. of kraft linear board was loaded for transport from the ports of Lake Charles, LA, and Mobile, AL, U.S.A., to San Miguel Corporation in Manila, Philippines. The vessel used for this shipment was the M/V Nicole, operated by Transocean Marine, Inc., with Philippine Transmarine Carrier, Inc. as its local representative. The M/V Nicole arrived in Manila on April 8, 1989, and the shipment was offloaded to Marina Port Services, Inc. (Marina), the arrastre operator, where it remained until April 13, 1989. Upon inspection, it was determined that 158 rolls of the goods were damaged during shipping. After the goods were withdrawn and delivered to San Miguel's customs broker, Dynamic Brokerage Co., Inc., an additional 54 rolls were found damaged, totaling 212 rolls wo...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 182208)
Facts:
Background of the Case
Marina Port Services, Inc., the predecessor of petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), was an arrastre operator based in the South Harbor, Port Area, Manila. On February 5, 1989, a shipment of 72,322 lbs. of kraft linear board was loaded in the U.S.A. and transported to San Miguel Corporation (San Miguel) in Manila via the M/V Nicole, operated by Transocean Marine, Inc.
Delivery and Damage to the Shipment
The shipment arrived in Manila on April 8, 1989, and was offloaded to ATI's custody until April 13, 1989. Upon inspection, 158 rolls were found damaged during shipping. After withdrawal from ATI’s custody and delivery to San Miguel’s broker, Dynamic Brokerage Co. Inc., and eventually to San Miguel, an additional 54 rolls were found damaged, totaling 212 rolls worth P755,666.84.
Insurance and Legal Action
Respondent Allied Guarantee Insurance Co., Inc., the insurer of the shipment, paid San Miguel and was subrogated to its rights. Allied filed a complaint for maritime damages against Transocean, Philippine Transmarine, Dynamic, and ATI, alleging negligence in handling the shipment.
RTC and CA Decisions
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found all defendants liable, with Transocean liable for the 158 rolls damaged during shipping, and ATI and Dynamic jointly and severally liable for the additional 54 rolls. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Issue:
- Whether ATI is liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods.
- Whether ATI is liable for attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied ATI’s petition but modified the lower courts’ decision by deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
Liability for Additional 54 Rolls
The Court upheld ATI’s liability for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods. It ruled that ATI failed to prove that the damage did not occur during its custody. The use of improper lifting equipment by ATI employees and the failure to present key witnesses (Turn Over Inspector and Bad Order Inspector) weakened ATI’s case.Attorney’s Fees
The Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees, finding no compelling legal justification for the grant under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
Ratio:
Burden of Proof on Arrastre Operators
Arrastre operators, like ATI, are akin to warehousemen and must exercise extraordinary diligence in handling goods. They bear the burden of proving that any damage or loss was not due to their negligence or that of their employees. ATI failed to meet this burden.Exceptions to Review of Factual Findings
The Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, not factual re-examination. None of the exceptions allowing factual review applied in this case.Solidary Liability
Both ATI and Dynamic were found solidarily liable for the additional 54 rolls, as the damage occurred during the transition from ATI’s custody to Dynamic’s and during the latter’s custody.Attorney’s Fees Unjustified
The mere fact that the respondent was forced to litigate does not justify attorney’s fees. The trial court’s decision lacked sufficient legal and factual justification for the award.