G.R. No. 117434 - Benguet Exploration, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Benguet Exploration, Inc. chartered Seawood Shipping, Inc. to transport copper concentrates to Japan.
The bill of lading indicated a cargo weight of 2,243.496 wet metric tons.
Upon unloading in Japan, a report indicated a shortage of 355 metric tons.
Benguet made a formal demand for compensation, which was refused by both Seawood Shipping and Switzerland General Insurance, leading to separate complaints for damages.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaints, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the current petition.

Petitioner presented witnesses Rogelio Lumibao and Ernesto Cayabyab, who provided testimony regarding the loading and documentation of the cargo.
Lumibao admitted he did not witness the actual loading and relied on reports for information about the cargo weight.
Cayabyab, while present during loading, could not confirm that no spillage occurred and did not sign the relevant documents.
Respondents presented evidence that cast doubt on the accuracy of the bill of lading and other documents.

The Supreme Court found discrepancies in the documentation regarding the actual weight of the copper concentrates.
Switzerland Insurance presented an export declaration indicating a gross weight of only 2,050 wet metric tons.
Certified Adjusters, Inc. reported that 2,451.630 wet metric tons were delivered at Poro Point, further complicating the evidence.
The lack of precise evidence regarding the actual amount shipped undermined the presumption of regularity in the transactions.

The testimonies of Lumibao and Cayabyab were deemed hearsay, as they lacked personal knowledge of the actual weight of the cargo.
Hearsay evidence has no probative value unless it falls within recognized exceptions, which was not established in this case.
The Court emphasized that the witnesses' reliance on others' statements did not substantiate the claims of loss.

The Court clarified that the admission of the genuineness of documents does not preclude a defendant from presenting defenses that do not contradict the execution of those documents.
The genuineness of the bill of lading and related documents was challenged by evidence presented by Switzerland Insurance.
The discrepancies in the weight declarations and the admissions of the petitioner...continue reading