GR. No.

177116
FEB 27, 2013

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.

Facts:
Simon Enterprise Inc. (Simon) has entered into contract with Contiquincybunge
Export Company (Contiquincybunge) as its consignee of the shipped Soybean Meal. On
October 25, 1995 and on November 25, 1995 Contiquincybunge has made a shipment
through M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern respectively at the Port of Darrow, Louisiana,
U.S.A. For the first shipment, Contiquincybunge made a shipment of 6,825.144 metric
tons of U.S. Soybean Meal which when the M/V Sea Dream arrived at the Port of
Manila the bulk of soybean meal was received by the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), for
shipment to Simon. However, when it reached its receiver Simon, it was already short
by 18.556 metric tons. For the second shipment, Contiquincybunge made shipment,
through M/V Tern, of 3,300.000 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal in Bulk for delivery to
Simon at the Port of Manila. The shipment was received by ATI again for delivery to
Simon. However, the shipped cargos were found lacking 199.863 metric tons.

Simon has filed an action for damages against the unknown owner of the vessels
M/V Sea Dream and M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc., and
petitioner ATI alleging that it suffered the losses through the fault or negligence of the
said defendants. The case of the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Sea Dream has
been settled in release and quitclaim and therefore has been stricken out of the case,
leaving M/V Tern, its local agent Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc., and petitioner ATIs
case remaining. The RTC has ruled that the defendants be solidarily liable for the
damages incurred by Simon.

Unsatisfied with the RTC ruling, the owner of the M/V Tern, and Inter-Asia Marine
Transport, Inc. appealed to CA on the issue whether RTC has erred in finding that they
did not exercise extraordinary diligence in the handling of the goods. On the other hand,
the petitioner ATI has also appealed to CA on the issue that the RTC, the court-a-quo,
committed serious and reversible error in holding ATI solidarily liable with co-defendant
appellant Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. contrary to the evidence presented. The CA
ruled that the RTC ruling be assailed with some modifications on the basis that M/V Tern
and Inter-Asia Marine Transport, Inc. have failed to establish that they exercised
extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods or exercised due diligence to forestall
or lessen the loss as provided in Article 1742 of the Civil Code. And on ATIs RTC ruling,
it was assailed as well on the basis that the stevedore of the M/V Tern has witnessed
that during the dischargement of the cargo, there has been spillage done by the
stevedores of ATI which is an evidence that ATI has been negligible in handling the
goods.

ATI filed a motion for reconsideration at CA but was denied. It then filed a petition
for certiorari with the sole issue of whether the appellate court erred in affirming the
decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its co-defendants for
the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods to respondent.

The issue involves questions of facts which cannot be entertained by SC for it is

not a trier of facts under rule 45 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure. However, the said
rule 45 is not ironclad and has certain exceptions. The issue raised by ATI was merited
to be entertained by SC under the rule 4, when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts.

Issue:

Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court
holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its co-defendants for the shortage incurred in
the shipment of the goods to respondent.

Ruling:

The petition for review on certiorari was granted to ATI. The SC agreed to ATIs
claim that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI
solidarily liable with its co-defendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the
goods to respondent. The CA misapprehended the following facts:

First, petitioner ATI is correct in arguing that the respondent failed to prove that
the subject shipment suffered actual shortage, as there was no competent
evidence to prove that it actually weighed 3,300 metric tons at the port of origin.

Second, as correctly asserted by petitioner ATI, the shortage, if any, may have
been due to the inherent nature of the subject shipment or its packaging since
the subject cargo was shipped in bulk and had a moisture content of 12.5%.

Third, SC agreed with the petitioner ATI that respondent has not proven any
negligence on the part of the former.