Case Digest (G.R. No. 191937)
Facts:
Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191937, August 09, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals’ January 21, 2010 Decision and April 21, 2010 Resolution affirming the Regional Trial Court’s February 27, 2008 Decision that found petitioner Orient Freight International, Inc. liable to respondent Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc. for damages arising from a mishandled incident involving a hijacked truck and missing cargo.On October 16, 2001, Keihin-Everett contracted with Matsushita Communication Industrial Corporation of the Philippines to provide trucking services; Keihin-Everett subcontracted those services the same day to Orient Freight under a separate Trucking Service Agreement. After the original contract expired, Keihin-Everett executed an In-House Brokerage Service Agreement with Matsushita for PEZA export operations and continued to retain Orient Freight’s services, which Orient Freight in turn subcontracted to Schmitz Transport and Brokerage Corporation.
A tabloid reported on April 19, 2002 that a truck containing Matsushita goods had been intercepted by police on April 17, 2002. Orient Freight told Keihin-Everett the matter was merely a breakdown and towing; at Keihin-Everett’s instruction it met with Keihin-Everett and Matsushita on April 20 and sent an April 22 letter to Matsushita reiterating that the truck had only been towed. When the shipment arrived in Yokohama on May 8, 2002, 10 pallets (218 cartons) were missing; Keihin-Everett obtained a police report showing the truck had been intercepted on April 17 and that the driver had fled. Orient Freight then admitted on May 15, 2002 that its earlier account was erroneous and that pilferage had apparently occurred.
Citing loss of confidence, Matsushita terminated its In-House Brokerage Service Agreement with Keihin-Everett effective July 1, 2002. Keihin-Everett demanded P2,500,000 as indemnity for lost income on September 16, 2002; when Orient Freight refused to pay, Keihin-Everett filed suit on October 24, 2002 (Civil Case No. 02-105018) alleging misrepresentation, malice, negligence and fraud, and claiming lost income, interest, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Orient Freight answered, denied liability, and counterclaimed.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 10, Manila) rendered judgment on February 27, 2008 finding Orient Freight negligent for failing properly to investigate and timely disclose the true facts; it awarded Keihin-Everett P1,666,667 as actual damages (reduced from the P2.5M claimed) and P50,000 attorney’s fees but denied exemplary damages. Orient Freight appealed; the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91889 affirmed on January 21, 2010, holding that Orient Freight had knowledge of the foiled hijacking and withheld information, and that negligence and the damages were established. The CA denied reconsideration on April 21, 2010.
Orient Freight filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on June 9, 2010, arguing principally that Article 2176 (quasi-delict) should not apply because there was a pre-exis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition fatally defective for failing to state the names of the parties in the body in violation of Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying Article 2176 of the Civil Code given the existing contracts between the parties?
- Was Orient Freight negligent for failing to disclose the facts surrounding the April 17, 2002 hijacking incident, which led to the termination of the contract between Keihin-Everett and Matsushita?
- Did the trial court err in computing actual and pecuniary loss by using, among others, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)