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 After the goods were withdrawn and delivered to San Miguel's customs broker, Dynamic Brokerage Co., Inc., an additional 54 rolls were found damaged, totaling 212 rolls wo...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), formerly known as Marina Port Services, Inc., an arrastre operator based in South Harbor, Manila.
• Respondent: Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc., the insurer who paid San Miguel Corporation for the damaged cargo and was subrogated to its rights.
• Involved third parties include:
• Transocean Marine, Inc., the foreign operator of the vessel M/V Nicole.
• Philippine Transmarine Carrier, Inc., the local representative of Transocean.
• Dynamic Brokerage Co., Inc., the customs broker who handled the withdrawal and delivery of the goods.
• San Miguel Corporation, the consignee of the shipment.

Transaction and Shipment Details

• On February 5, 1989, a shipment of 72,322 lbs. of kraft linear board was made from the U.S. ports of Lake Charles (LA) and Mobile (AL) for delivery to San Miguel in Manila.
• The vessel (M/V Nicole) arrived in Manila on April 8, 1989, and the shipment was offloaded onto Marina (later ATI) until April 13, 1989.
• Initial inspection showed that 158 rolls of goods were “damaged” during shipping.

Discovery of Additional Damage and Subsequent Claims

• Upon withdrawal from the arrastre and subsequent delivery:
• Additional damage was discovered – 54 extra rolls were found damaged when delivered to San Miguel’s warehouse, bringing the total to 212 rolls.
• The total value of the damage was P755,666.84.
• Respondent Allied, as the insurer, paid this amount to San Miguel and initiated a maritime damage suit for indemnity against Transocean, Philippine Transmarine, Dynamic, and Marina/ATI.
• The suit alleged:
• The shipment was originally loaded in “good and complete order condition.”
• The entire loss was attributable to the negligence of the defendants.

Defense and Counterclaims

• In its Amended Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Crossclaim:
• ATI (Marina) denied the allegations regarding the additional 54 damaged rolls, asserting that the 158 rolls were already in “bad order condition” when turned over.
• ATI claimed that due care and diligence were exercised and that any damage was attributable to its co-defendants, who should indemnify it.
• The other co-defendants (Transocean and Philippine Transmarine) also presented defenses:
• They countered that part of the shipment was already in a torn/scuffed condition prior to loading.
• They attributed damage to the inherent nature, vice, pre-shipment loss, insufficient packing, or perils of the sea.

Procedural History and Court Findings

• Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated September 9, 1993:
• Found all defendants liable.
• Held Transocean liable for the damage of the 158 rolls due to failure in taking necessary precautions as a common carrier.
• Held ATI (then Marina) and Dynamic jointly and severally liable for the additional 54 damaged rolls.
• Dismissed counterclaims and crossclaims.
• Court of Appeals Decision:
• Affirmed the RTC’s findings, particularly:
• Liability of the common carriers concerning the initial 158 rolls.
• Joint and several liability of ATI and Dynamic for the additional 54 rolls, emphasizing the failure to disprove the presumption of negligence.
• Denied ATI’s motion for reconsideration.
• Petition for Review:
• ATI elevated the case on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Argued that the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes and Requests for Bad Order Survey should have absolved it of liability for the additional damage.
• Challenged the award of attorney’s fees, citing insufficient factual or legal basis for their grant.

Evidentiary Issues

• ATI contended that:
• The surveys (Turn Over and Bad Order) demonstrated that only 158 damaged rolls were present upon turnover.
• Dynamic’s representative’s sign-off evidenced the good condition of the additional cargo.
• However, the lower courts found:
• The surveys did not unequivocally establish that no further damage occurred in ATI’s custody.
• The absence of testimony from the inspectors who prepared these surveys weakened ATI’s evidentiary position.
• Testimony indicated that negligent handling, including the use of improper equipment by ATI employees, contributed to the damage.

Issue:

Whether petitioner ATI was duly proven liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods despite its contention that the goods were withdrawn from its custody in the same condition as received.

• Does the evidence sufficiently establish ATI’s negligence in handling the cargo during loading and transfer?
• Were the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes and the Requests for Bad Order Survey adequate to absolve ATI from liability?

Whether the award of attorney’s fees to the respondent was justified under the circumstances.

• Were there factual or legal findings supporting the grant of attorney’s fees under the applicable exceptions in Article 2208 of the Civil Code?
• Did the decision properly state the basis for such an award?

• Whether the petition for review correctly challenges lower court findings by re-examining factual disputes that are, in essence, questions of fact rather than pure questions of law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)