ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 165639. January 10, 2005]
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT vs. MOVERS-BASECO
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 10 2005.
G.R. No. 165639 (Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation vs. Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. & Juanito G. Cortez.)
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner assailing the April 29, 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62453 affirming with modification the January 12, 1999 decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City, Branch 57, which dismissed petitioner's complaint for injunction and damages against the respondents and granted the latter's counterclaim. Likewise assailed is the appellate court's resolution of October 5, 2004, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp. is engaged in customs brokerage and freight business. As such, it owns a fleet of trucks and trailers which it uses to transport goods and cargoes from the ports' customs to their consignees. On the other hand, private respondent Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. is engaged, inter alia , in the operation of bonded warehouses and container yards for profit. Its co-respondent Juanito G. Cortez is its Executive Vice-President and General.
On September 19, 1997, Schmitz Transport and Movers-Baseco entered into a contract whereby the latter made available to the former a portion of the Baseco Compound located at the Engineering Island, Port Area, Manila for parking and storage of its trucks, trailers and other equipments.
Hence, petitioner used private respondent's premises and facilities at the Baseco Compound for parking and storage of its trucks, trailers and other equipments, for and in consideration of rentals, handling and storage charges at the rates specifically agreed upon in the contract.
Apparently, petitioner was not able to settle its accounts with private respondent. Hence, in a letter dated April 30, 1997, respondent's general manager, Juanito G. Cortez, informed petitioner that as of said date, its account already amounted to P524,227.03, and demanded payment of 50% thereof on or before May 13, 1997, with the balance to be paid on May 23, 1997, otherwise, respondent corporation will be constrained to hold on to petitioner's trucks and cargoes.
In a letter-reply dated May 13, 1997, petitioner informed Cortez that his company's billings were still under verification because there were double billings and undocumented charges.
On February 10, 1998, respondent corporation withheld the release of petitioner's two trucks that were parked within its compound.
And so, on February 20, 1998, in the Regional Trial Court at Makati City, petitioner instituted a complaint for
injunction and damages with prayer a writ of preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order against respondent corporation and its general
manager. Basically, the complaint alleged that it was respondent's delay in
transmitting its billings and charges to petitioner in violation of the terms
and conditions of the contract, compounded by the fact that the transmitted
billings and charges were replete with errors, that caused petitioner to defer
payment of its obligations; and that respondent's illegal detention of its
trucks and trailers disrupted the conduct of its business, by reason of which
it incurred actual losses amounting to P1,250,000.00.
Accordingly, petitioner prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction, the same
to be made permanent after hearing, and the award to it of the following: P1,250,000.00, as compensatory damages; P1,000,000.00, as moral damages; P250.000.00, as exemplary damages; and P250.000.00 by way of attorney's fees.
In its Answer, respondent corporation averred that petitioner has no cause of action against it because it merely exercised its right under the terms and conditions of the parties' lease agreement, whereunder it is given the right to withhold petitioner's trucks after the latter's failure to pay the monthly rentals and handling and storage charges despite demands.
As a compulsory counterclaim, respondent corporation alleged in
the same Answer that as of February 27, 1998, petitioner's indebtedness to it
was in the amount of P197,257.06 plus
the accruing cost of rental, handling and storages charges until petitioner's
trucks are removed from its premises, adding that because of the filing of the
complaint against it and its general manager, they were compelled to engage the
services of a lawyer to protect their interests and to recover their claim.
In a decision dated January 12, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing petitioner's complaint and granting private respondent's counterclaim.
Displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in the herein assailed decision dated April 29, 2004, affirmed with modifications that of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision, dated January 12, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati City is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS as follows:
a) the award of P352,767.99 is REDUCED to P235,074.57 which amount represents rentals and handling and storages fees as of April 6, 1998;
b) the award of P250,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is REDUCED to P50,000.00;
c) the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
With its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court in its resolution of October 5, 2004, petitioner is now with us via the instant petition.
The recourse must likewise fall.
Petitioner insists that it was constrained to defer payment of its obligation to respondent precisely because of the latter's persistent failure to bill the former on time. It further alleged that respondent's delay in transmitting the bills was to such extent that by the time petitioner received the bills for handling and storage charges, it had already sent its own bills for brokerage and transport services to its own clients, thereby disabling petitioner to charge and pass on to its clients the storage and handling fees imposed by the respondent. In sum, it is petitioner's thesis that respondent's own negligence and delay in transmitting the billings and charges justified petitioner's failure to pay its contractual obligations on time.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. [1] cralaw It thus behooves upon petitioner to prove its cause/s of action, in much the same way that it also behooves upon private respondent to establish its compulsory counterclaims.
The contract which the parties voluntarily executed governs their contractual obligations. The letter-agreement entered into by them, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, or public order has the force of law between them. In the words of Article 1159 of the Civil Code:
"Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith ".
The pertinent provision of the contract claimed by petitioner to have been violated by the respondent, reads:
"Monthly rental shall be billed every 16th of the month and paid within five (5) days upon receipt thereof.
"xxx�� xxx������ xxx
"Billing on handling and storage charges shall be done weekly with the payment made seven (7) days upon receipt of invoices by MOVERS-BASECO. Failure to pay will authorize MOVERS-BASECO to hold/suspend trucks or cargoes from withdrawal." (p. 13, Exh. "A-l", Records)
It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that private respondent belatedly transmitted its billings and charges and that it (petitioner) had settled its account within five (5) days from receipt of said billings and charges.
Record reveals, however, that petitioner failed to overcome this burden. It failed to support its allegations of respondent's breach of the conditions of the letter-agreement by being negligent and incurring delays in transmitting its billings and charges. Instead, when petitioner's witness was confronted with respondent's statement of charges and invoices, which petitioner duly received, said witness could not present any evidence that petitioner had already paid the same. Petitioner's bare allegation of delay and negligence on the part of respondent in transmitting the billings is far from sufficient proof for this Court to throw overboard the assailed decision and resolution of the appellate court.
All told, this Court fails to find any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in the assailed decision and resolution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Assistant Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Heirs of Anastacio Fabela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142546, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA 531.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
