Case Digest (G.R. No. 149429)
Facts:
Hadji Mahmud L. Jammang and Alma Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Takahashi Trading Co., Ltd. and Sinotrans Shandong Company, G.R. No. 149429, October 09, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hadji Mahmud I. Jammang was a barter trader, owner and operator of the MV Queen Alma and general manager of co‑petitioner Alma Shipping Lines, Inc. Respondent Takahashi Trading Co., Ltd. (Takahashi) is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines; respondent Sinotrans Shandong Company (Sinotrans) is a Chinese foreign corporation. In October 1993 Takahashi introduced Jammang to Sinotrans as a prospective seller of Chinese goods to buyers in Labuan, Malaysia; Sinotrans shipped goods valued at US$696,337 consigned to Takahashi on the understanding that Jammang would act as Sinotrans’ selling agent, remit proceeds (less mark‑up), and return unsold goods.
Two shipments were transshipped to Zamboanga City with Jammang as consignee. Jammang initially remitted US$230,000 but thereafter remitted only US$15,000 despite signing a Supplemental Agreement on July 27, 1994 (Exhibit “G”) which acknowledged receipt of the goods, set out remittance undertakings (including US$266,000 collectible by September 15, 1994), and acknowledged remaining stocks valued at US$185,000. Sinotrans later discovered that the goods had been sold and that Jammang failed to remit a balance of US$451,337; Takahashi likewise claimed its share of profits was not paid.
Respondents filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with application for a writ of preliminary attachment in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 167 (Civil Case No. 65340). The RTC granted the preliminary attachment (order dated January 26, 1996). Sinotrans presented testimony of Liu Xiao Bo (Import Export Manager) and documentary exhibits; petitioners relied on claims that Jammang acted only as facilitator, that Alma is a separate juridical person and not liable, and on affidavits suggesting Rev. Pablo Palis was Sinotrans’ selling agent.
On April 22, 1999 the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Sinotrans against Jammang ordering payment of US$266,000 as principal obligation plus legal interest, payment of attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the principal, accounting for stocks valued at US$185,000 (and remittance if sold), and costs; the defendants’ counterclaim ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in holding that petitioner Jammang is personally liable under the Supplemental Agreement despite the separate corporate personality of Alma Shipping Lines, Inc.?
- Was there sufficient proof that Jammang acted as selling agent of Sinotrans such that he could be held liable to remit the proceeds notwithstanding the absence of a special power of attorney?
- Did the trial court (and CA) commit reversible procedural error by receiving testimony through a legal researcher and thereby depriving petitioners of the opportunity to cross‑examine and for the judge to observe witness demeanor?
- Were petitioners entitled to actual, moral o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)