Case Summary (G.R. No. 177116)
RTC Proceedings and Findings
Respondent sued the unknown owner of M/V aTerna, its agent Inter-Asia, and ATI for negligence or fault causing the shortages. The trial court found that respondent proved actual shortage prior to receipt and that all defendants failed to show extraordinary diligence. It credited testimony of spillages during unloading and respondent’s inability to oversee Master’s Certificate signing. The RTC ordered ATI and the carrier to pay P2,286,259.20 plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and liability under Civil Code Article 1742, holding that neither the common carrier nor ATI (as stevedore) established due diligence. Spillages during ATI’s unloading placed it in the chain of causation. The CA deleted the award of attorney’s fees but otherwise affirmed.
Issues on Supreme Court Review
ATI’s sole issue: whether the CA erred in holding ATI jointly liable for an alleged shortage it neither caused nor failed to prevent. ATI argued that (1) respondent did not prove the cargo’s origin weight; (2) shipper-weight stipulations relieved ATI of liability; (3) any loss arose from inherent vice or moisture desorption; (4) methodologies used to quantify shortage were unreliable; and (5) ATI exercised all required diligence.
Supreme Court Ruling on Questions of Law and Fact
Under Rule 45, only questions of law are reviewable, except where findings stem from misunderstanding of facts. The Court found a misapprehension of facts regarding proof of actual shortage at origin, reliance on hearsay documents, and the nature of shipper-weight stipulations.
Failure to Prove Actual Shortage at Origin
The Court held that respondent bore the initial burden of proving that the shipment weighed the manifest quantities at origin and arrival. The Berth Term Grain Bill of Lading bore a “shipper’s weight, quantity and quality unknown” clause, relieving carrier and arrastre operator from verifying origin weight. Proforma Invoice testimony revealed a ±10% contractual tolerance and uncertainty in actual shipped weight. Packing List, Bill of Lading, and Proforma Invoice were hearsay without proof of genuineness. Jurisprudence confirms that such shipper-weight stipulations and unverified documents cannot support a prima facie shortage finding.
Inherent Vice, Moisture Loss, and Allowable Tolerance
Bulk soybean meal with 12.5% moisture content naturally settles and desorbs moisture over a 36-day voyage, especially moving from colder to warmer climates. Scientific studies show hygroscopic desorption can reduce weight. The alleged 6.05% loss is within th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 177116)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
- RTC of Manila rendered judgment (May 10, 2001) holding Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) and co-defendants jointly and severally liable for cargo shortage.
- Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision (Nov. 27, 2006) but deleted award of attorney’s fees; denied ATI’s motion for reconsideration (Mar. 23, 2007).
- ATI filed the present petition before the Supreme Court raising a sole issue of its solidary liability.
Facts
- October 25, 1995 shipment: 6,843.700 MT of U.S. Soybean Meal loaded on M/V Sea Dreama at Darrow, Louisiana for Simon Enterprises; discharged by ATI in South Harbor, Manila; Simon claimed 18.556 MT shortage (worth US$7,100.16).
- November 25, 1995 shipment: 3,300.000 MT of U.S. Soybean Meal loaded on M/V Terna under clean Berth Term Grain Bill of Lading; discharged by ATI in Manila; Simon reported receipt of 3,100.137 MT, claiming a shortage of 199.863 MT (worth US$79,848.86).
- December 3, 1996: Simon filed suit for damages against unknown vessel owners, Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc., and ATI in RTC Manila; the claim against M/V Sea Dreama owner was later settled by release.
Trial Court Findings
- Plaintiff proved losses incurred prior to its receipt; presumption of carrier fault arose.
- Burden shifted to defendants to prove exercise of extraordinary diligence to prevent loss.
- Defendants failed to overcome presumption—spillages admitted by Inter-Asia supercargo; respondent’s representative was not allowed to sign Master’s Certificate.
- Judgment: ATI and co-defendants jointly liable for P2,286,259.20 plus interest, 10% attorney’s fees, and costs; counterclaims dismissed.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Affirmed RTC factual findings supported by substantial evidence.
- Held unknown owner of M/V Terna and Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. failed to prove due diligence under Civil Code Article