Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 190100 : March 22, 2010] MARINE SUPPORT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., RESPONDENT :

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated 22 March 2010:

G.R. No.  190100 - MARINE SUPPORT, INC., petitioner, -versus-PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., respondent

In our Resolution dated January 11, 2010, we denied the petitioner's petition for review on certiorari for' failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and to strictly comply with the procedural requirements, as the petition lacked a valid affidavit of service and a proper verification.

In the present motion for reconsideration, the petitioner takes exception from our ruling that the petition failed to show any reversible error; they submit that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred when it ruled that the petitioner was liable for the loss as a common carrier since it merely chartered the barge MAYSILO from the shipowner Triumph Lighterage Corp. (Triumph) on a voyage charter for the specific purpose of receiving cargo from the vessel NORDGLIMPT, and responsibility for navigation and operation of the vessel, as well as the management and supervision of its personnel and crew, remained with Triumph. It insists that it should not be liable for damages because it is just an innocent party to the fortuitous event caused by the barge LAWIN's sudden tilting, hitting MAYSILO and causing the cargoes on both barges to fall to the sea. The petitioner prays that its failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements be excused, as it was due to counsel's inadvertence.

We find no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature. We have repeatedly held that the findings of fact of the CA, affirming the findings of the RTC, are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal when they are based on substantial evidence. We are not a trier of facts. While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the petitioner failed to show that the exceptions apply to its case. Specifically, no indication exists showing that the CA findings are contrary to the evidence on record. Neither did the CA commit any misapprehension of facts, nor fail to consider relevant facts. Plainly and simply, MSI failed to prove that it only time-chartered/voyage-chartered MAYSILO; it offered no documentary evidence to show the extent of its liability in case of loss or damages sustained during a voyage, or which party retained control and responsibility over MAYSILO''s crew and personnel.

In light of the foregoing, a discussion on the petitioner's plea for liberality for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the petition would be an exercise in futility.

WHEREFORE, finding no substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought, the motion is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arruro D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 22^nd day of March, 2010.