Case Digest (G.R. No. 179789)
Facts:
Pinewood Marine (Phils.), Inc. v. EMCO Plywood Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 179789, June 17, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.EMCO Plywood Corporation (EMCO) filed a Complaint for replevin, attachment and damages on December 11, 1995 against, among others, the vessel MV Tao Hua Ling, its owners/charterers (including Shenzhen Guangda Shipping Co. and Dalian Ocean Shipping Co.), the vessel's charterer Ever Commercial Co., Ltd. (Ever), and local ship agent Pinewood Marine (Phils.), Inc. (Pinewood). EMCO alleged unlawful withholding of its cargo of PNG round logs after defendants asserted a shipowner's lien for unpaid demurrage, detention and deviation; the Bureau of Customs consequently withheld delivery. EMCO sought replevin (the writ issued the day after filing), attachment of the vessel (not pursued when the vessel left Philippine waters), and damages for losses from the withholding.
At trial the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Butuan City, Branch 4, rendered judgment on May 14, 1997: it ordered Ever to pay EMCO P16,686,048.46 in damages (with 6% interest from filing) and, on Ever’s cross-claim, found Shenzhen, Dalian and Pinewood jointly and severally liable to reimburse Ever P16,686,048.46, pay P2,000,000.00 in damages and P173,600.00 in attorney’s fees. The RTC based part of its ruling on a narrow construction of Section 1505 of the Customs and Tariff Code (limiting liens) and on findings that the demurrage/detention claims were baseless; Pinewood and other defendants were largely declared in default.
Del Rosario & Partners entered an appearance and filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Shenzhen, Pinewood and Dalian on June 28, 1997, but later manifested it was appealing only for Dalian. On February 17, 2000 the Court of Appeals (CA) declared the appeals of Shenzhen and Pinewood abandoned for nonpayment of docket fees and non-filing of briefs; it proceeded to resolve Dalian’s appeal and affirmed the RTC in toto in a Decision dated June 21, 2006. Pinewood moved for reconsideration (July 18, 2006) arguing counsel abandoned it without authority a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not taking cognizance of or referring Pinewood’s complaint for disbarment against its former counsel to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or to the Supreme Court?
- Did the CA err in refusing to reinstate Pinewood’s appeal on the ground that Del Rosario & Partners allegedly abandoned Pinewood and were negligent in handling the appeal?
- Did the CA err in denying Pinewood’s Motion for Reconsideration without resolving Pinewood’s procedural and substantive objections to the RTC judgment—specifically (a) Ever’s alleged non‑payment of filing fees for its cross‑claim, (b) the award of unliquidated damages, (c) Ever’s alleged failure to implead Pinewood in its cross‑clai...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)