THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 182208, October 14, 2015
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. ALLIED GUARANTEE INSURANCE, CO., INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated November 9, 2007 and Resolution2 dated March 26, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV. No. 48661, which affirmed the trial court's finding that petitioner is liable for the damage to certain goods within its custody.
The facts of the case follow.
Marina Port Services, Inc. (Marina), the predecessor of herein petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (petitioner ATP), is an arrastre operator based in the South Harbor, Port Area, Manila.3 On February 5, 1989, a shipment was made of 72,322 lbs. of kraft linear board (a type of paperboard) loaded and received from the ports of Lake Charles, LA, and Mobile, AL, U.S.A., for transport and delivery to San Miguel Corporation (San Miguel) in Manila, Philippines.4 The vessel used was the M/V Nicole, operated by Transocean Marine, Inc. (Transocean), a foreign corporation, whose Philippine representative is Philippine Transmarine Carrier, Inc. (Philippine Transmarine).5
The M/V Nicole arrived in Manila on April 8, 1989 and, shortly thereafter, the subject shipment was offloaded from the vessel to the arrastre Marina until April 13, 1989.6 Thereafter, it was assessed that a total of 158 rolls of the goods were "damaged" during shipping.7 Further, upon the goods' withdrawal from the arrastre and their delivery, first, to San Miguel's customs broker, Dynamic Brokerage Co. Inc. (Dynamic), and, eventually, to the consignee San Miguel, another 54 rolls were found to have been damaged, for a total of 212 rolls of damaged shipment worth P755,666.84.8
Herein respondent Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc., (respondent Allied), was the insurer of the shipment. Thus, it paid San Miguel P755,666.84 and was subrogated in the latter's rights.9
On March 8, 1990, Allied filed a Complaint10 (and later, an Amended Complaint) for maritime damages against Transocean, Philippine Transmarine, Dynamic and Marina seeking to be indemnified for the P755,666.84 it lost in paying the consignee San Miguel. The suit alleged that the shipment was loaded from the ports of origin "in good and complete order condition," and all losses were due to the fault of the named defendants.11 In addition, the suit sought legal interest, 25% of the indemnity as attorney's fees, and costs of the suit.12
In its Amended Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Crossclaim,13 Marina denied the complaint's allegations and maintained that 158 rolls in the shipment were already in "bad order condition" when it turned over the same to the consignee's representative/broker. It claimed due care and diligence in the handling of the goods and that no damage was sustained by the same while in its custody or care.14 It alleged that whatever damage incurred was attributable to its co-defendants who should reimburse it for whatever amount the latter may be adjudged liable.15
The other co-defendants Transocean and Philippine Transmarine also denied most of the complaint's allegations and counter-alleged that a large portion of "the shipment was already in torn/scuffed condition prior to loading" in their vessel.16 In addition, they attributed the damage to the nature, vice or defect of the goods, the perils and accidents of the sea, to pre-shipment loss and insufficiency of packing.17 They claimed to have exercised the diligence required by law so that the damage incurred was not their fault.18
The case underwent trial and, thereafter, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 148, found all the-defendants, including the predecessor of herein petitioner, liable for the losses. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision dated September 9, 1993 states:cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby ordering the latter to pay the obligation in the following manner:a) the amount of P623,935.76 plus interest corresponding to the 158 rolls of kraft linear board that was damaged while in the custody of defendant Transocean Inc. to be paid by the latter to the plaintiff with legal rate of interest from the time when it was due and until fully paid;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarychanrobleslaw
b) the amount of P131,731.08 plus interest corresponding to the additional 54 rolls of kraft linear board that was damaged, to be paid jointly and severally by defendants Marina Port Services Inc. and Dynamic Brokerage Co. Inc. to the plaintiff with legal rate of interest from the time when it was due until fully paid;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
c) 25% of the aforesaid principal amounts as attorney's fees to be paid jointly and severally by all the defendants.
d) plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed September 9, 1993 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148, in Civil Case No. 904661, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.27
chanrobleslaw
x x x A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is'on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual, x x xchanrobleslaw
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) there is no citation-of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;
(7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; '
(8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and
(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.38chanrobleslaw
(a) when the findings of facts of the appellate court are at variance with those of the trial court;
(b) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
(c) when the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.39chanrobleslaw
Similarly," defendant Dynamic Brokerage Co., Inc., points to the same facts. Its witness, Mr. Robert Rosario, Head of defendant's trucking department, whose duties and functions consist of monitoring and supervising the delivery of cargoes from the pier zone to the consignee's warehouse, claimed that Dynamic received the subject cargoes in damaged condition and when it was delivered to the consignee, San Miguel Corporation's warehouse, the condition of the cargoes were the same as when it was received by Dynamic Brokerage.
He further claimed that the personnel of Marina Port Services loaded the cargoes to Dynamic's truck. After the loading, their truck proceeded to the consignee's warehouse which is located in Tabacalera, at United Nations, Manila, and then they unloaded said cargoes with their equipments. He claimed that the Marina personnel used a "grabbed lift." The consignee sometimes used forklift(s), depending on the availability of equipment. Before they received the cargoes from Marina, the condition of the cargoes were already in damaged condition (sic). He noted that there were some tearages due to the use of equipment in loading to their truck. When they delivered the cargoes to the consignee's warehouse, they issued delivery receipt(s). He does not know if there are additional damages (sic) sustained by the cargoes from the time that they withdrew the same from the pier zone (Marina's custody) up to the consignee's warehouse, x x x40
x x x x
It is noteworthy to mention that "in general, the nature of the work of an arrastre operator covers the handling of cargoes at piers and wharves," which was what exactly defendant Marina's function entails in this case. "To carry out its duties, the arrastre is required to provide cargo handling equipment which includes, among others, trailer, chassis for containers." On the other hand, defendant Dynamic (which) in its capacity as broker, withdrew the 357 rolls of kraft linear board from the custody of defendant Marina and delivered the same to the consignee, San Miguel Corporation's warehouse in Tabacalera at United Nations, Manila, is considered a common carrier.
Hence, the "legal relationship betw.een the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and the warehouseman. The relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is the duty of the arrastre to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also develops upon the carrier. Both the arrastre and the carrier are, therefore, charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee."41chanrobleslaw
Marina, the arrastre operator, from the above evidence, was not able to overcome the presumption of negligence. The Bad Order Cargo Receipts, the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes as well as the Request for Bad Order Survey did not establish that the additional 54 rolls were in good condition while in the custody of the arrastre. Said documents proved only that indeed the 158 rolls were already damaged when they were discharged to the arrastre operator and when it was subsequently withdrawn from the arrastre operator by [the] customs broker. Further, the Turn Over Inspector and the Bad Order Inspector who conducted the inspections and who signed the Turn Over Survey of Bad [Order] Cargoes and the Request for Bad Order Survey, respectively, were not presented by Marina as witnesses to verify the correctness of the document and to testify that only 158 rolls was reported and no others sustained damage while the shipment was in its possession.52
chanrobleslaw
We have consistently held that an award of attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification to avoid speculation and conjecture surrounding the grant thereof. Due to the special nature of the award of attorney's fees, a rigid standard is imposed on the courts before these fees could be granted. Hence, it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set forth in their decisions the basis for the award thereof. It is not enough that they merely state the amount of the grant in the dispositive portion of their decisions. It bears reiteration that the award of attorney's fees is an exception rather than the general rule; thus, there must be compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exceptions provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code to justify the award.55chanrobleslaw
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:cralawlawlibrary(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.chanrobleslaw
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his Interest;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(6) In actions for legal support;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(10) When at least double judicial.costs are awarded;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084 (Revised) dated June 29, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring, rollo, pp. 29-42.
2 Id. at 54.
3 Id. at 56-57.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 57.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 57, 61-62.
8 Id. at 57, 94-95.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 56-58, 94-96.
11 Id. at 57.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 60-61, 97-98.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 61, 64.
16 Id. at 61.
17 Id. at 68.
18 Id. at 70.
19 Penned by Judge Oscar B. Pimentel; id. at 51-52.
20Rollo, p. 48.
21 Id. at 50.
22 Id. at 51.
23 Id. at 212.
24 Id. at 215.
25 Id. at 217.
26 Id. at 217-218.
27 Id. at 42.
28 Id. at 38.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 38-42.
31 Id. at 40.
32 Id. at 54.
33 Id. at 19-20.
34 Id. at 20.
35 Id. at 22-23.
36Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 170618, November 20 2013, 710 SCRA 358, 365.
37 481 Phil. 550, 561-562 (2004), quoted in Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminal, Inc., 682 Phil. 213, 223-224 (2012).
38Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Gitilalas, 676 Phil. 220, 229 (2011).
39Rollo, p. 7.
40 Id. at 47. (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
41 Id. at 50. (Citations omitted)
42Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., et al., 601 Phil 454 464 (2009).
43 Asian Terminals, Inc., v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 185964, June 16, 2014, 726 SCRA 415, 427-428, Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., 625 Phil. 394, 401 (2010).
44 Id. at 428; id.
45 Id. at 402; id
46 Id. at 429; id.
47 Id; id.
48 Id.
49Rollo, pp. 276-277.
50Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., supra note 43, at 402.
51International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Co., Inc., 377 Phil. 1082, 1091 (1999); Summa Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 214, 222 (1996).
52Rollo, p. 40.
53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 20; Otero v. Tan, 692 Phil. 714, 727-728 (2012).
54 Asian Terminals, Inc., v. Daehan Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., supra note 43, at 404.
55Philippine National Construe/ion Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 190957, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 441, 450. (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
56 Id.
57Rollo, p. 51.
58 Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, supra note 55 at 451.
59 Asian Construction and Development Corporation, v. COMFAC Corporation, 535 Phil 513, 519-520 (2006).