G.R. No. 146141 - Canada vs. All Commodities Marketing Corp.

Ernesto P. Canada, operating as Hi-Ball Freight Services, provided trucking and hauling services.
All Commodities Marketing Corporation, a long-time client of Canada, contracted him to transport 1,000 sacks of sugar from Pier 18, North Harbor, Manila, to the Pepsi Cola Plant in Muntinlupa.
The transaction was documented through Way Bills/Delivery Receipts signed by Canada’s driver.
The sugar was never delivered, and the drivers and helpers disappeared.
All Commodities demanded payment for the lost sugar, which Canada ignored, leading to a complaint filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

Canada admitted to the contract for hauling the sugar but claimed the cargo was delivered, attributing the loss to either All Commodities' negligence or a fortuitous event.
He filed a counterclaim for P350,000.00, alleging that All Commodities seized his truck.
The RTC ruled in favor of All Commodities, ordering Canada to pay P350,000.00 for the lost sugar, P50,000.00 for actual losses, P50,000.00 in exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Canada appealed the RTC decision, introducing a new argument that Hi-Ball Freight Services was not a common carrier and thus not liable for the lost sugar.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, rejecting Canada's new argument and finding him estopped from raising it on appeal.
The CA also dismissed Canada's defense of fortuitous event due to lack of evidence.

Canada continued to deny his contractual obligation and attempted to shift responsibility to All Star Transport, Inc.
The Supreme Court found that Canada had changed his theory of defense after the RTC's adverse ruling, which is not permissible on appeal.
The Court emphasized that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be introduced at the appellate level, as it violates due process.

The Supreme Court noted that Canada had previously admitted to the existence of a contract with All Commodities during the trial.
His admissions included acknowledgment of the contract and the employment of the drivers and helpers involved in the delivery.
The Court reiterated that admissions made during trial are binding and cannot be contradicted later.

Canada claimed the loss was due to a fortuitous event, but the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting this claim.
The elements required to establish a fortuitous event were not present, and the Court upheld the findings of negligence against Canada.

The Supreme Court identified errors in the RTC and CA's awards of actual damages, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims for P350,000.00 and P50,000.00.
The Court clarified that damages must be proven with reasonable certainty and cannot be based solely on allegations.
The Court awarded temperate damages of P250,000.00 due to the inability to ascertain the exact amount of pecuniary loss.