Case Digest (G.R. No. 180817)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 180817)
Facts:
Multi-Trans Agency Phils. Inc. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 180817, June 23, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division; (ponente not indicated in the excerpt). This case arose from a complaint for sum of money filed by Oriental Assurance Corporation (plaintiff/assignee) against Multi-Trans Agency Phils., Inc. (petitioner/defendant) and Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd. (Neptune/defendant) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 13, on 22 July 1997. Oriental alleged that Imrex Enterprises (its predecessor-in-interest) imported a consignment carried from Southampton to Manila under Bill of Lading No. MA-19943/02 and insured for P1,078,012.16; upon discharge at Manila North Harbor only 72 boxes were delivered while one pallet/box of Opacolor (500 kilos) was shortlanded. After paying Imrex P256,937.03 under the marine policy, Oriental sued to be subrogated to Imrex’s rights and recover that amount, attorney’s fees and costs from the parties allegedly responsible for the loss.Neptune answered and filed a compulsory counterclaim, asserting defenses including lack of privity, discharge of cargo in good order, limitation under the bill of lading, inherent vice, and that it acted only as commercial agent; it also claimed the shipment was STC/Shipper’s Load and Count. Multi-Trans, through counsel Atty. Jose Ma. Q. Austria, moved to dismiss on the ground that the bill of lading showed it as agent of a multimodal operator and not as agent/operator of the vessel “Tokyo Bay.” The RTC denied the motion on 25 October 1997; copies were later the subject of a transmittal dispute between counsel and the defendant.
Procedurally, the case stalled and was archived on 15 January 1999. Oriental moved to declare Multi-Trans in default for failing to file an answer; the RTC eventually declared Multi-Trans in default (Order of 27 March 1999). Oriental was permitted to present evidence ex parte on 20 May 1999; it presented witnesses and offered exhibits which the trial court admitted. On 30 August 1999 the RTC rendered judgment finding Multi-Trans and Neptune solidarily liable for P256,937.03 plus interest, attorney’s fees (P30,000) and costs.
Multi-Trans’ counsel withdrew on 10 September 1999; new counsel entered and filed a Motion for New Trial and to Admit Attached Answer on grounds of excusable negligence of former counsel (Atty. Austria) and proffered a meritorious defense that Multi-Trans was merely a freight forwarder and not the vessel’s agent. The RTC denied the motion for new trial (29 November 1999), holding that Multi-Trans had been alerted to counsel’s remissness and did nothing to rectify the situation. Neptune’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Notices of appeal were filed and the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in a decision promulgated 4 December 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 67581, denied Multi-Trans’ appeal but granted Orientals’ appeal by modifying the RTC ruling to hold only Multi-Trans liable. Motions for reconsideration in CA were denied (10 December 2007). Multi-Trans brought the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing (1) the CA’s treatment of former counsel’s negligence and denial of new trial, and (2) the liability finding despite alleged lack of agency and insufficient evidence. Both parties filed memoranda. The Supreme Court resolved the petition on 23 June 2009.
Issues:
- Did the gross negligence or dereliction of duty of Multi-Trans’ former counsel deprive Multi-Trans of due process and thereby justify granting a new trial under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court?
- Is Multi-Trans properly liable as agent/operator of the vessel "Tokyo Bay" for the shortlanding of the shipment, i.e., should the trial court’s finding of agency and liability be sustained?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)