G.R. No. 195887 - Ben Line Agencies Philippines, Inc. vs. Madson

Ben Line Agencies Philippines, Inc. (Ben Line), a domestic maritime corporation, required a heavy-duty crane to discharge a shipment of approximately 70 metric tons from the vessel M/V Ho Feng 7.
The shipment was consigned to La Farge Cement Services Philippines, Inc., prompting Ben Line to seek specialized equipment.

On 19 September 2006, Ben Line inquired with AALTAFIL Incorporated, which was represented by its president, Charles M.C. Madson, regarding the availability of a crane capable of handling the cargo.
AALTAFIL initially offered a 300-ton crane at a price of P1,150,000.00.
On 25 September 2006, Ben Line confirmed its intention to hire the crane. However, Madson informed the company that the equipment had been leased to ACE Logistics, Inc.
Owing to the urgency of the situation, Ben Line then contacted Alfredo P. Amorado, president of ACE Logistics, who offered the crane on a sub-lease basis at P1,995,000.00, with an additional P400,000.00 to be paid directly to AALTAFIL if the crane’s radius exceeded 16 meters.
Consequently, a crane rental contract was executed between Ben Line and ACE Logistics, with Ben Line paying a total of P2,395,000.00 in accordance with the agreed payment terms.
Later, when Ben Line requested the lifting of an additional small cargo, Madson demanded an extra P200,000.00 since the original contract covered only one heavy cargo, bringing the total consideration for the crane’s use to P2,595,000.00 (P1,995,000.00 paid to ACE Logistics and P600,000.00 directly to AALTAFIL).

On 1 October 2006, despite the vessel’s readiness to discharge, operational issues arose due to problems with the originally designated crane operator and the crane itself.
Ben Line was forced to hire substitutes – engaging Renato Escarpe of Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) as a crane operator and leasing ATI’s floating crane barge.
Amid these complications, Ben Line repeatedly demanded a refund from AALTAFIL and ACE Logistics, which was eventually refused.

Believing it was deceived into renting an unsuitable crane, Ben Line filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
On 11 January 2008, the NBI issued a resolution recommending the prosecution of the respondents for estafa under Article 315(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and the case was forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila.

Proceedings Before the Office of the Prosecutor and the Department of Justice

On 23 May 2008, the OCP recommended the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, asserting that there was no misrepresentation by Madson regarding the crane’s ownership and no conspiracy or machination to increase the leasing cost.
Ben Line filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ). On 25 February 2010, the DOJ denied the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to attach clear and legible copies of the assailed resolutions, citing non-compliance with the procedural rules.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by Ben Line was denied on 11 June 2010.

Ben Line filed a petition for certiorari before the CA challenging the DOJ’s dismissal.
In its 14 December 2015 decision, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that Ben Line had failed to comply with Sections 5 and 6 of the 2000 NPS Rules on Appeal by not providing clear and legible copies of the resolutions.
A motion for reconsideration of this decision was also denied by the CA on 25 February 2011.

Ben Line raised issues challenging both the dismissal of its petition for certiorari/motion for reconsideration and the ruling on the merit of its petition for review.

The petition for certiorari dated 20 August 2010; and
The subsequent motion for reconsideration dated 6 January 2011 filed by Ben Line Agencies Philippines, Inc.

Whether the Court of Appeals seriously erred in ruling that the petition for review dated 26 March 2009 was not meritorious on its face.