001 Eastern Shipping v. BPI/MS Insurance (Valle) 9-S, a vessel pwned by Eastern Shipping.

31 various steel sheets in

15 Jan 2014 | Villarama Jr, J. | Question of Law v Question of Fact coil weighing 271, 828kg were shipped from Yokohama Japan for
PETITIONER: Eastern Shipping Lines Inc delivery for cosignee Calamba Steel Center. The cargo had a
RESPONDENTS: BPI/MS Insurrance Corp and Mitsui Sum Tomo declared value of US $125, 417.26 and was insured by Sumitomo.
Insurance 53.! Upon arrival, the nine coils were in bad condition as evidence by the
Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargo No. 67327. The cargo was
SUMMARY: turned over to Asian terminals Inc (ATI) for stevedoring, storage,
and safekeeping pending Calamba’s withdrawal of the goods. When
Sumitomo shipped through Eastern Shipping three separate shipments ATI delivered the cargo, Calamba rehected the damaged portion.
from Japan. The consignee is Calamba. All three shipments of steel coil 54.! A second shiopment was made by Sumitomo through Eastern again
had damages when they arrived at the port. They were stored with ATI for Calamba. Sumitomo insured it against all risk with Mitsui. The
until Calamba could withdraw them. When ATI delivered the goods to second shipment arrived however, upon unloading, 11 coils were
Calamba, Calamba refused to accept the damaged portions. The goods damaged. The possession was then transferred to ATI. When ATI
were insured by MItsui. Calamba filed an insurance claim with Mitsui delivered the goods, Calanba again rejected the damaged portion.
through the settling agent, BPI/MS. BPI paid Calamna and now are going 55.! Lastly, Sumitomo shipped 117 steel sheets through Eastern again in
after ATI and Eastern. fabor of Calamba. This was also insured by Sumitomo with Mitsui.
The RTC ruled against Eastern which was affirmed by the CA.They were Six coils were unfit and the cargo was turned over to ATI until
found to be solidarily liable. Eastern and ATI now brought this case up to Calamba withdraws the cargo. Again, Calamba rejected the damage
the SC via a petition for certiorari. The issue is which one among Eastern portions.
and ATI are liable. 56.! Calamba filed an insurance claim with Mitsui through Mitsui’s
settling agent, BPI/MS Insurance (BPI/MS). Calamba was paid a
The SC held that the issue brought up to the court is a question of fact total of 30,210.32 US dollars. Mitsui and BPI/MS filed a complaint
and not of law. Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that factual for damages against ATI and Eastern.
questions may not be raised before this Court in a petition for review on 57.! The RTC ruled against Eastern and ATI, holding them joint and
certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review on severally liable to pay BPI/MS and Mitsui.
certiorari, only questions of law may be put in issue. 58.! Eastern and ATI appealed to the CA. The Ca affirmed the RTC that
both Eastern and ATI were very negligent in handling the cargoes.
DOCTRINE:
59.! Pointing to the affidavit of Mario Manuel, Cargo Surveyor, the CA
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the found that "during the unloading operations, the steel coils were
correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or lifted from the vessel but were not carefully laid on the ground.
when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of Some were even ‘dropped’ while still several inches from the ground
the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. while other coils bumped or hit one another at the pier while being
A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the arranged by the stevedores and forklift operators of ATI and Eastern"
truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the
whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the 60.! The CA added that such finding coincides with the factual findings
existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as of the RTC that both Eastern and ATI were both negligent in
their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the handling the goods. However, for failure of the RTC to state the
situation. justification for the award of attorney’s fees in the body of its
decision, the CA accordingly deleted the same.
FACTS: 61.! Eastern and ATI filed their petitions for review to the SC. However,
52.! Sumitomo Corporation shipped through MV Eastern Challenger V- ATI’s petition was denied by the SC in its resolution for failure of
 ATI to show any error by the CA and for failure to submit proper Questions of fact cannot be entertained.
verification. 2.! A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the
62.! Eastern avers that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or
because the survey reports submitted by BPI/MS and Mitsui when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
themselves as their own evidence and the pieces of evidence value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being
submitted by Eastern clearly show that the cause of the damage was admitted.
the rough handling of the goods by ATI during the discharging 3.! A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the
operations. truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of
63.! Eastern attests that it had no participation whatsoever in the the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the
discharging operations and that it did not have a choice in selecting witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
the stevedore since ATI is the only arrastre operator mandated to circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole,
conduct discharging operations in the South Harbor. and the probability of the situation.
64.! BPI MS counter that as found by both the RTC and the CA, the 4.! Here, the resolution to the question as who between ATI and Eastern
goods suffered damage while still in the possession of Eastern as should be liable is indubitably factual and would clearly impose
evidenced by various Turn Over Surveys of Bad Order Cargoes upon the SC the task of reviewing, examining, and evaluating or
which were unqualifiedly executed by Eastern’s own surveyor, weighing all over again the probative value of the evidence
Rodrigo Victoria, together with the representative of ATI. presented—something which is not, as a rule, within the functions of
65.! BPI MS assert that Eastern would not have executed such documents the SC and within the office of a petition for review on certiorari.
if the goods, as it claims, did not suffer any damage prior to their 5.! This case is not in the exemptions either. The SC finds no cogent
turn-over to ATI. Lastly, BPI MS aver that Eastern, being a common reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC which were duly
carrier is required by law to observe extraordinary diligence in the affirmed by the CA.
vigilance over the goods it carries 6.! Unanimous with the CA, the SC gives credence and accords respect
ISSUE/s: to the factual findings of the RTC – a special commercial court
57.! WoN the CA committed any reversible error in finding that Eastern which has expertise and specialized knowledge on the subject matter
is solidarily liable with ATI – NO, The SC finds no cogent reason to of maritime and admiralty – highlighting the solidary liability of both
disturb the factual findings of the RTC which were duly affirmed by petitioner and ATI. The RTC found (end of digest)
the CA. 7.! As hereinbefore found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA based on
16.! the evidence presented, the goods were damaged even before they
were turned over to ATI. Such damage was even compounded by the
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July negligent acts of petitioner and ATI which both mishandled the
9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88361 is hereby goods during the discharging operations
AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioner. X x x x The Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes (TOSBOC, for
brevity) No. 67393 and Request for Bad Order Survey No. 57692
SO ORDERED. show that prior to the turn over of the first shipment to the custody of
ATI, eleven (11) of the twenty-eight (28) coils were already found in
RATIO: bad order condition. Eight (8) of the said eleven coils were already
1.! Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that factual questions
"partly dented/crumpled " and the remaining three (3) were found
may not be raised before this Court in a petition for review on
certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for "partly dented, scratches on inner hole, crumple (sic)". On the other
review on certiorari, only questions of law may be put in issue. hand, the TOSBOC No. 67457 and Request for Bad Order Survey
No. 57777 also show that prior to the turn over of the second
shipment to the custody of ATI, a total of six (6) coils thereof were
already "partly dented on one side, crumpled/cover detach (sic)".
These documents were issued by ATI. The said TOSBOC’s were
jointly executed by ATI, vessel’s representative and surveyor while
the Requests for Bad Order Survey were jointly executed by ATI,
consignee’s representative and the Shed Supervisor. The
aforementioned documents were corroborated by the Damage Report
dated 23 September 2003 and Turn Over Survey No. 15765 for the
first shipment, Damage Report dated 13 October 2003 and Turn
Over Survey No. 15772 for the second shipment and, two Damage
Reports dated 6 September 2003 and Turn Over Survey No. 15753
for the third shipment.

It was shown to this Court that a Request for Bad Order Survey is a
document which is requested by an interested party that incorporates
therein the details of the damage, if any, suffered by a shipped
commodity. Also, a TOSBOC, usually issued by the arrastre
contractor (ATI in this case), is a form of certification that states
therein the bad order condition of a particular cargo, as found prior to
its turn over to the custody or possession of the said arrastre
contractor.

The said Damage Reports, Turn Over Survey Reports and Requests
for Bad Order Survey led the Court to conclude that before the
subject shipments were turned over to ATI, the said cargo were
already in bad order condition due to damage sustained during the
sea voyage. Nevertheless, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the
fact that there was also negligence on the part of the employees of
ATI and [Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.] in the discharging of the
cargo as observed by plaintiff’s witness, Mario Manuel, and [Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc.’s] witness, Rodrigo Victoria.