January 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > January 1997 Decisions >
G.R. No. 113657 January 20, 1997 - P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113657. January 20, 1997.]
P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Respondents.
Vicente Pulido for Petitioner.
Linsangan Law Office for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS; FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE SUPREME COURT; EXCEPTION IN CASE AT BAR. � There is no preponderance of evidence to support the findings and conclusion of both courts. Petitioner was adjudged liable for the lost shipment based merely on the claim that it was the withdrawing party as shown in the Gate Pass. The facts related herein which are explicitly borne by the records, are not reflected in the decision of the trial court as well as of respondent appellate court. These facts are crucial in the determination of the instant controversy. They change the complexion of the case. While as a rule findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive upon this Court, in the instant case, this Court is not bound to adhere to the general rule since both courts clearly failed to consider the facts and circumstances herein enumerated which should have drawn a different conclusion. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On 7 March 1979 Roche Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Ltd., shipped from Hongkong for delivery to its consignee, United Laboratories, Inc., in Manila a cargo consisting of 18 drums and 1 pallet of harmless bulk chemicals, under Bill of Lading No. 1153-4, on board the vessel M/S Benrinnes owned and operated by Ben Line Steamers, Ltd. The shipment was insured with respondent American International Assurance Company, Ltd., in the amount of $48,903.80 against all risks, under Marine Risk Note No. IN-456612-MC-144.
On 17 July 1979 the vessel arrived at the port of Manila and discharged the shipment to arrastre operator E. Razon, Inc. When the consignee’s representative, Starglow Customs Brokerage Corporation (STARGLOW), claimed the shipment it was informed that it was already withdrawn from E. Razon, Inc., by petitioner P. M. Pastera Brokerage (PASTERA). The withdrawal, according to the consignee, was without its knowledge and consent. For the loss of the shipment, the consignee claimed it suffered damages in the amount of P379,871.38, which respondent company promptly paid. Consequently, by way of subrogation, respondent company claimed from Ben Line Steamers, Ltd., Citadel Lines, Inc., as agent of the vessel, E. Razon, Inc., and petitioner the amount it paid to the consignee. The claim for subrogation was however denied hence respondent company was constrained on 17 March 1980 to sue in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for the recovery of the amount paid.
On 15 September 1984, on joint motion of plaintiff, which is respondent herein, and defendants Ben Line Steamers, Ltd., and Citadel Lines, Inc., which were two of original defendants therein, the complaint as against the latter was dismissed.
On the basis of the documentary and testimonial evidence presented, the trial court found the claim of respondent company meritorious. Thus on 15 March 1991 it ordered E. Razon, Inc., and petitioner to pay respondent company P579,871.38 with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, 25% of the claim as attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs. 1
On 25 September 1992 respondent Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. On 13 January 1994 the appellate court denied the motion to reconsider its decision.
Petitioner imputes the following errors to respondent Court of Appeals: (a) for holding that the documentary evidence points liability to petitioner; (b) for failing to resolve the issue on petitioner being deprived of procedural due process; and, (c) for ordering petitioner to pay P579,871.38 although the claim was only for P379,871.38.
Petitioner argues that the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are not supported by the evidence on record. Thus, (a) Exh. "G," the Survey Report, clearly shows that the covering permit to deliver imported goods was merely stamped "P. M. Pastera Brokerage Corporation." The Report further states: "We inquired with Mr. Pastera of Pastera Brokerage Corporation who disclaimed any knowledge of the alleged withdrawal of the cargo, that his firm has no shipment to handle on this particular call of the ocean carrier concerned;" (b) Exh. "I," the letter of STARGLOW to the Commissioner of Customs, states that Entry No. 70814 was "faked," and when confronted, petitioner denied any knowledge thereof; (c) Exh. "J," the letter of STARGLOW to the consignee, reiterates that Entry No. 70814 was "faked" and further shows that said entry had already been used by Certified Brokerage Corporation for a shipment intended for Philippine Manufacturing Corporation; and, (d) Exhs. "K" and "K-1," Gate Pass No. 03648, clearly show that E. Razon, Inc., delivered the subject shipment to an unauthorized party.
We agree with petitioner. There is no preponderance of evidence to support the findings and conclusion of both courts. Petitioner was adjudged liable for the lost shipment based merely on the claim that it was the withdrawing party as shown in the Gate Pass. 2 We have scrutinized this piece of evidence. "PASTERA" is indicated therein as the broker. In the space allocated for the representative of the consignee, only a signature, which is illegible, and "10A826" as identification number appear. The space allocated for the driver appears to have been filled up but the entry thereon is not readable.
In a letter dated 7 August 1979 Starglow sought assistance from the Commissioner of Customs concerning the shipment which, based on its preliminary inquiries, was released and delivered under anomalous circumstances to another consignee, thus �
Preliminary inquiries on the subject showed that the above shipment was released and delivered by virtue of Delivery Permit No. 074609, series of 1979, 3 and under Entry No. 70814. The said Delivery Permit having been purchased from the Informal Entry Division and Entry No. 70814 carried perforations showing therefore that same had already been utilized for another previous shipment. Said Entry having been utilized by the Certified Brokerage Corporation for a shipment intended to Phil. Mfg. Corp. (PMC). Further check disclosed that the presentor of "faked" Entry No. 70814 represented himself to be from Pastera Brokerage, but upon confrontation with the said Pastera Brokerage, they denied having any knowledge thereof. The presentor/checker carries identification bearing No. 10A826. 4
On 23 August 1979 respondent company requested from the Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company an investigation regarding the lost shipment. In a report dated 24 September 1979 the surveyors found the following �
The eighteen (18) drums and one (1) pallet were verified to have been withdrawn from Warehouse No. 2 of Pier No. 3 on July 19, 1979 covered by Gate Pass No. 03648 and Customs Entry No. 20814. Further verification disclosed the covering Permit to Deliver Imported Cargoes was stamped "P. M. Pastera Brokerage Corporation" as the withdrawing party. We enquired (sic) with Mr. Pastera of Pastera Brokerage Corporation who disclaimed any knowledge of the alleged withdrawal of the cargo. He further averred that his firm had no shipment to handle on this particular call of the ocean carrier concerned. 5
Lope N. Velasco, Claims Manager of Citadel Lines, Inc., when asked during the cross-examination if there was a possibility that his signature in the permit to deliver imported goods was forged by a certain broker, answered that such circumstance was well known in the Bureau of Customs. He stated further that in the particular permit issued to petitioner his signature was forged; likewise, the signatures in the Gate Pass were all forged.
The facts we are relating here, which are explicitly borne by the records, are not reflected in the decision of the trial court as well as of respondent appellate court. These facts are crucial in the determination of the instant controversy. They change the complexion of the case. Consequently, in view of the anomalies discovered, the denial by petitioner that it withdrew the shipment, and the paucity of private respondent’s evidence, petitioner need not overcome what private respondent failed to establish in the trial court. We surmise that the name "PASTERA" was merely utilized by a party not employed, much less authorized, by petitioner. The identification number of the representative of the consignee stated in the Gate Pass could have provided the lead in revealing his true identity and his connection, if any, with petitioner. But respondent company, apparently, did not take any step further than what are stated thereon to establish the responsibility of petitioner.
Even the testimonies of respondent company’s witnesses cannot boost its hollow claim against petitioner. The employee of respondent company confined his testimony to the payment made to the consignee; the Marine Surveyor merely affirmed the contents of his report; and, the Claims Manager of Citadel Lines, Inc., only narrated that petitioner did not secure a pass for the purpose of withdrawing the cargo. Therefore, the specific participation of petitioner and/or its employees in the falsification of the Gate Pass was never determined. What respondent company mainly achieved from the totality of its evidence was to establish the unauthorized withdrawal of the shipment. But authorship of the anomaly is an entirely different matter which respondent company, having the burden of establishing its claim with preponderance of evidence, miserably failed to prove. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While as a rule findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive upon this Court, 6 in the instant case, we are not bound to adhere to the general rule since both courts clearly failed to consider the facts and circumstances we have herein enumerated which should have drawn a different conclusion. 7
Quite interestingly, in its remarkably brief decision, contained in 3-1/2 pages to be specific, the trial court devoted one (1) page to a discussion on respondent company’s claim vis-a-vis petitioner’s defenses by simply enumerating the former’s documentary evidence and narrating the evidence of the latter, and then concluded outrightly that said evidence of private respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) "substantiate(s) and clearly prove(s) and justif(ies) the grant to plaintiff of its claim." 8 In like manner, after having merely narrated the evidence of petitioner (defendant in the trial court), it immediately ruled that said evidence "do(es) not justify or substantiate defendants’ defenses." 9 It did not bother to discuss and substantiate its factual findings and conclusion, and respondent appellate court, in disposing of the appeal, merely quoted the abbreviated disquisition of the trial court.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find it necessary to resolve the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila are SET ASIDE. The complaint in the trial court against petitioner P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
On 17 July 1979 the vessel arrived at the port of Manila and discharged the shipment to arrastre operator E. Razon, Inc. When the consignee’s representative, Starglow Customs Brokerage Corporation (STARGLOW), claimed the shipment it was informed that it was already withdrawn from E. Razon, Inc., by petitioner P. M. Pastera Brokerage (PASTERA). The withdrawal, according to the consignee, was without its knowledge and consent. For the loss of the shipment, the consignee claimed it suffered damages in the amount of P379,871.38, which respondent company promptly paid. Consequently, by way of subrogation, respondent company claimed from Ben Line Steamers, Ltd., Citadel Lines, Inc., as agent of the vessel, E. Razon, Inc., and petitioner the amount it paid to the consignee. The claim for subrogation was however denied hence respondent company was constrained on 17 March 1980 to sue in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for the recovery of the amount paid.
On 15 September 1984, on joint motion of plaintiff, which is respondent herein, and defendants Ben Line Steamers, Ltd., and Citadel Lines, Inc., which were two of original defendants therein, the complaint as against the latter was dismissed.
On the basis of the documentary and testimonial evidence presented, the trial court found the claim of respondent company meritorious. Thus on 15 March 1991 it ordered E. Razon, Inc., and petitioner to pay respondent company P579,871.38 with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, 25% of the claim as attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs. 1
On 25 September 1992 respondent Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. On 13 January 1994 the appellate court denied the motion to reconsider its decision.
Petitioner imputes the following errors to respondent Court of Appeals: (a) for holding that the documentary evidence points liability to petitioner; (b) for failing to resolve the issue on petitioner being deprived of procedural due process; and, (c) for ordering petitioner to pay P579,871.38 although the claim was only for P379,871.38.
Petitioner argues that the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are not supported by the evidence on record. Thus, (a) Exh. "G," the Survey Report, clearly shows that the covering permit to deliver imported goods was merely stamped "P. M. Pastera Brokerage Corporation." The Report further states: "We inquired with Mr. Pastera of Pastera Brokerage Corporation who disclaimed any knowledge of the alleged withdrawal of the cargo, that his firm has no shipment to handle on this particular call of the ocean carrier concerned;" (b) Exh. "I," the letter of STARGLOW to the Commissioner of Customs, states that Entry No. 70814 was "faked," and when confronted, petitioner denied any knowledge thereof; (c) Exh. "J," the letter of STARGLOW to the consignee, reiterates that Entry No. 70814 was "faked" and further shows that said entry had already been used by Certified Brokerage Corporation for a shipment intended for Philippine Manufacturing Corporation; and, (d) Exhs. "K" and "K-1," Gate Pass No. 03648, clearly show that E. Razon, Inc., delivered the subject shipment to an unauthorized party.
We agree with petitioner. There is no preponderance of evidence to support the findings and conclusion of both courts. Petitioner was adjudged liable for the lost shipment based merely on the claim that it was the withdrawing party as shown in the Gate Pass. 2 We have scrutinized this piece of evidence. "PASTERA" is indicated therein as the broker. In the space allocated for the representative of the consignee, only a signature, which is illegible, and "10A826" as identification number appear. The space allocated for the driver appears to have been filled up but the entry thereon is not readable.
In a letter dated 7 August 1979 Starglow sought assistance from the Commissioner of Customs concerning the shipment which, based on its preliminary inquiries, was released and delivered under anomalous circumstances to another consignee, thus �
Preliminary inquiries on the subject showed that the above shipment was released and delivered by virtue of Delivery Permit No. 074609, series of 1979, 3 and under Entry No. 70814. The said Delivery Permit having been purchased from the Informal Entry Division and Entry No. 70814 carried perforations showing therefore that same had already been utilized for another previous shipment. Said Entry having been utilized by the Certified Brokerage Corporation for a shipment intended to Phil. Mfg. Corp. (PMC). Further check disclosed that the presentor of "faked" Entry No. 70814 represented himself to be from Pastera Brokerage, but upon confrontation with the said Pastera Brokerage, they denied having any knowledge thereof. The presentor/checker carries identification bearing No. 10A826. 4
On 23 August 1979 respondent company requested from the Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company an investigation regarding the lost shipment. In a report dated 24 September 1979 the surveyors found the following �
The eighteen (18) drums and one (1) pallet were verified to have been withdrawn from Warehouse No. 2 of Pier No. 3 on July 19, 1979 covered by Gate Pass No. 03648 and Customs Entry No. 20814. Further verification disclosed the covering Permit to Deliver Imported Cargoes was stamped "P. M. Pastera Brokerage Corporation" as the withdrawing party. We enquired (sic) with Mr. Pastera of Pastera Brokerage Corporation who disclaimed any knowledge of the alleged withdrawal of the cargo. He further averred that his firm had no shipment to handle on this particular call of the ocean carrier concerned. 5
Lope N. Velasco, Claims Manager of Citadel Lines, Inc., when asked during the cross-examination if there was a possibility that his signature in the permit to deliver imported goods was forged by a certain broker, answered that such circumstance was well known in the Bureau of Customs. He stated further that in the particular permit issued to petitioner his signature was forged; likewise, the signatures in the Gate Pass were all forged.
The facts we are relating here, which are explicitly borne by the records, are not reflected in the decision of the trial court as well as of respondent appellate court. These facts are crucial in the determination of the instant controversy. They change the complexion of the case. Consequently, in view of the anomalies discovered, the denial by petitioner that it withdrew the shipment, and the paucity of private respondent’s evidence, petitioner need not overcome what private respondent failed to establish in the trial court. We surmise that the name "PASTERA" was merely utilized by a party not employed, much less authorized, by petitioner. The identification number of the representative of the consignee stated in the Gate Pass could have provided the lead in revealing his true identity and his connection, if any, with petitioner. But respondent company, apparently, did not take any step further than what are stated thereon to establish the responsibility of petitioner.
Even the testimonies of respondent company’s witnesses cannot boost its hollow claim against petitioner. The employee of respondent company confined his testimony to the payment made to the consignee; the Marine Surveyor merely affirmed the contents of his report; and, the Claims Manager of Citadel Lines, Inc., only narrated that petitioner did not secure a pass for the purpose of withdrawing the cargo. Therefore, the specific participation of petitioner and/or its employees in the falsification of the Gate Pass was never determined. What respondent company mainly achieved from the totality of its evidence was to establish the unauthorized withdrawal of the shipment. But authorship of the anomaly is an entirely different matter which respondent company, having the burden of establishing its claim with preponderance of evidence, miserably failed to prove. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While as a rule findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive upon this Court, 6 in the instant case, we are not bound to adhere to the general rule since both courts clearly failed to consider the facts and circumstances we have herein enumerated which should have drawn a different conclusion. 7
Quite interestingly, in its remarkably brief decision, contained in 3-1/2 pages to be specific, the trial court devoted one (1) page to a discussion on respondent company’s claim vis-a-vis petitioner’s defenses by simply enumerating the former’s documentary evidence and narrating the evidence of the latter, and then concluded outrightly that said evidence of private respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) "substantiate(s) and clearly prove(s) and justif(ies) the grant to plaintiff of its claim." 8 In like manner, after having merely narrated the evidence of petitioner (defendant in the trial court), it immediately ruled that said evidence "do(es) not justify or substantiate defendants’ defenses." 9 It did not bother to discuss and substantiate its factual findings and conclusion, and respondent appellate court, in disposing of the appeal, merely quoted the abbreviated disquisition of the trial court.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find it necessary to resolve the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila are SET ASIDE. The complaint in the trial court against petitioner P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Records, p. 370.
2. Exh. "K;" Records, p. 129.
3. Not submitted as evidence.
4. Exh. "I;" Records, p. 127.
5. Exh. "G;" Records, pp. 124-125.
6. Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118833, 29 November 1995. 250 SCRA 409.
7. See People v. Gapasan, G.R. No. 110812, 29 March 1995, 243 SCRA 53.
8. CA Rollo, p. 40.
9. Id., p. 41.
