SECOND DIVISION.
IRON BULK
SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES, CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
136960
December 8, 2003
-versus-
REMINGTON
INDUSTRIAL
SALES CORPORATION,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the August 28, 1998 Decision[1]
and the December 24, 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 49725,[2]
affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Branch
9).
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual background
of the case is summarized by the appellate court, thus:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in the latter
part of 1991, plaintiff Remington Industrial Sales Corporation
(hereafter
Remington for short) ordered from defendant Wangs Company, Inc.
(hereafter
Wangs for short) 194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets, weighing
686.565
metric tons, with a total value of $219,380.00, then equivalent to
P6,469,759.17.
Wangs forwarded the order to its supplier, Burwill (Agencies) Ltd., in
Hongkong. On or about November 26, 1991, the 194 packages were loaded
on
board the vessel MV 'Indian Reliance' at the Port of Gdynia, Poland,
for
transportation to the Philippines, under Bill of Lading No. 27 (Exh.
'C').
The vessel's owner/charterer is represented in the Philippines by
defendant
Iron Bulk Shipping Phils., Inc. (hereafter Iron Bulk for short).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Remington had the cargo
insured for P6,469,759.17 during the voyage by Marine Insurance Policy
No. 7741 issued by defendant Pioneer Asia Insurance Corporation
(hereafter
Pioneer for short).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On or about January
3, 1992, the MV 'Indian Reliance' arrived in the Port of Manila, and
the
194 packages of hot rolled steel sheets were discharged from the
vessel.
The cargo was inspected twice by SGS Far East Ltd. and found to be wet
(with slight trace of salt) and rusty, extending from 50% to 80% of
each
plate. Plaintiff filed formal claims for loss amounting to P544,875.17
with Pioneer, Iron Bulk, Manila Port Services, Inc. (MPS) and ESE
Brokerage
Corporation (ESE). No one honored such claims.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, plaintiff filed
an action for collection, plus attorney's fees, against Wangs, Pioneer
and Iron Bulk x x x"[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
and affirmed in toto
the following findings of the trial court, on February 1, 1995, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence on
record
shows that the direct and immediate cause of the rusting of the goods
imported
by the plaintiff was the water found inside the cargo hold of M/V
'Indian
Reliance' wherein those goods were stored during the voyage,
particularly
the water found on the surface of the merchandise and on the floor of
the
vessel hatch. And even at the time the cargoes were being unloaded by
crane
at the Pier of Manila, Iron Bulk's witnesses noticed that water was
dripping
from the cargoes. (TSN dated July 20, 1993, pp. 13–14; TSN dated May
30,
1994, pp. 8–9, 14, 24–25; TSN dated June 3, 1994, pp. 31–32; TSN dated
July 14, 1994, pp. 10–11).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SGS Far East Limited,
an inspection agency hired by defendant Wangs, issued Certificate of
Inspection
and Analysis No. 6401/35071 stating the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Results of
tests indicated that a very slight trace of salt was present in the
sample
as confirmed by the test of Sodium. The results however does not
necessarily
indicate that the rusty condition of the material was caused by
seawater.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Tan-Gatue Adjustment
Co., Inc., a claims adjustment firm hired by defendant Pioneer,
submitted
a Report (Exh. 10-Pioneer) dated February 20, 1992 to Pioneer which
pertinently
reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the above 3,971
sheets were heavily rusty at sides/ends/edges/surfaces. Pieces of
cotton
were rubbed by us on different rusty steel sheets and submitted to
Precision
Analytical Services, Inc. to determine the cause of wetting. Result
thereof
as per Laboratory Report No. 077-92 of this firm showed that: 'The
sample
was wetted/contaminated by fresh water.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After considering the
foregoing test results and the other evidence on record, the Court
found
no clear and sufficient proof showing that the water which stayed in
the
cargo hold of the vessel and which contaminated the merchandise was
seawater.
The Court, however, is convinced that the subject goods were exposed to
salt conditions as evidenced by the presence of about 17% Sodium on the
rust sample tested by SGS.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the source of
the water found in the cargo hold, there is also no concrete and
competent
evidence on record establishing that such water leaked from the pipe
installed
in Hatch No. 1 of M/V 'Indian Reliance', as claimed by plaintiff.
Indeed,
the plaintiff based such claim only from information it allegedly
received
from its supplier, as stated in its letter to defendant Iron Bulk dated
March 28, 1992 (Exh. K-3). And no one took the witness stand to confirm
or establish the alleged leakage.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless,
since
Iron Bulk's own evidence shows that there was water inside the cargo
hold
of the vessel and that the goods stored therein were wet and full of
rust,
without sufficient explanation on its part as to when and how water
found
its way into the vessel holds, the Court finds and so holds that Iron
Bulk
failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required by law in the
handling
and transporting of the goods.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Iron Bulk did not
even
exercise due diligence because admittedly, water was dripping from the
cargoes at the time they were being discharged from the vessel. Had
Iron
Bulk done so, it could have discovered by ordinary inspection that the
cargo holds and the cargoes themselves were affected by water and it
could
have provided some remedial measures to prevent or minimize the damage
to the cargoes. But it did not, showing its lack of care and diligence
over the goods.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, since the
goods
were undoubtedly damaged, and as Iron Bulk failed to establish by any
clear
and convincing evidence any of the exempting causes provided for in
Article
1734 of the Civil Code, it is presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
the Court finding preponderance of evidence for the plaintiff hereby
renders
judgment in favor of it and against all the defendants herein as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Ordering
defendant Pioneer Asia Insurance Corporation to pay plaintiff the
following
amounts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
P544,875.17
representing the loss allowance for the goods insured, plus interest at
the legal rate (6% p.a.) reckoned from the time of filing of this case
until full payment is made;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) P50,000.00 for
and as attorney's fees; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the cost of
suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Ordering defendant
Iron
Bulk Shipping Co. Inc. immediately upon payment by defendant Pioneer of
the foregoing award to the plaintiff, to reimburse defendant Pioneer
the
total amount it paid to the plaintiff, in respect to its right of
subrogation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Denying the
counterclaims
of all the defendants and the cross-claim of defendant Wangs Company,
Incorporated
and Iron Bulk Shipping Co., Inc. for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Granting the
cross-claim
of defendant Pioneer Asia Insurance Corporation against defendant Iron
Bulk by virtue of its right of subrogation.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. Dismissing the
case
against defendant Wangs Company, Inc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Only Iron Bulk filed
the present petition raising the following Assignment of Errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FIRSTLY,
the
Court of Appeals erred in its insistent reliance on the pro forma Bills
of Lading to establish the condition of the cargo upon loading;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SECONDLY, the Court
of Appeals erred in not exculpating petitioner since the cargo was not
contaminated during the time the same was in possession of the vessel,
as evidenced by the express finding of the lower court that the
contamination
and rusting was chemically established to have been caused by fresh
water;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIRDLY, the Court
of Appeals erred in making a sweeping finding that the petitioner as
carrier
failed to exercise the requisite diligence under the law, which is
contrary
to what is demonstrated by the evidence adduced; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FINALLY, the Court
of Appeals erred in affirming the amount of damages adjudicated by the
Court below, which is at best speculative and not supported by damages.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The general rule is
that only questions of law are entertained in petitions for review by
certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's findings of
fact,
which the Court of Appeals affirmed, are generally binding and
conclusive
upon this court.[6]
There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (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 facts are conflicting; (6) there is no
citation
of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the
finding
of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on
record;
(8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial
court;
(9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts
that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(10)
the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[7]
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that its petition falls under any one
of the above exceptions, except as to damages which will be discussed
forthwith.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the first
assigned
error: That the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the pro forma
Bills
of Lading to establish the condition of the cargo upon landing.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no merit to
petitioner's contention that the Bill of Lading covering the subject
cargo
cannot be relied upon to indicate the condition of the cargo upon
loading.
It is settled that a bill of lading has a two-fold character. In
Phoenix
Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. United States Lines, we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A bill of
lading
operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the
goods
shipped and a contract to transport and deliver the same as therein
stipulated.
As a receipt, it recites the date and place of shipment, describes the
goods as to quantity, weight, dimensions, identification marks and
condition,
quality and value. As a contract, it names the contracting parties,
which
include the consignee, fixes the route, destination, and freight rate
or
charges, and stipulates the rights and obligations assumed by the
parties.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find no error in
the findings of the appellate court that the questioned bill of lading
is a clean bill of lading, i.e., it does not indicate any defect in the
goods covered by it, as shown by the notation, "CLEAN ON BOARD"[9]
and "Shipped at the Port of Loading in apparent good condition on board
the vessel for carriage to Port of Discharge".[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner presented
evidence to prove that, contrary to the recitals contained in the
subject
bill of lading, the cargo therein described as clean on board is
actually
wet and covered with rust. Indeed, having the nature of a receipt, or
an
acknowledgement of the quantity and condition of the goods delivered,
the
bill of lading, like any other receipts, may be explained, varied or
even
contradicted.[11]
However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that far from contradicting
the recitals contained in the said bill, petitioner's own evidence
shows
that the cargo covered by the subject bill of lading, although it was
partially
wet and covered with rust was, nevertheless, found to be in a "fair,
usually
accepted condition" when it was accepted for shipment.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that the issued
bill of lading is pro forma is of no moment. If the bill of lading is
not
truly reflective of the true condition of the cargo at the time of
loading
to the effect that the said cargo was indeed in a damaged state, the
carrier
could have refused to accept it, or at the least, made a marginal note
in the bill of lading indicating the true condition of the merchandise.
But it did not. On the contrary, it accepted the subject cargo and even
agreed to the issuance of a clean bill of lading without taking any
exceptions
with respect to the recitals contained therein. Since the carrier
failed
to annotate in the bill of lading the alleged damaged condition of the
cargo when it was loaded, said carrier and the petitioner, as its
representative,
are bound by the description appearing therein and they are now
estopped
from denying the contents of the said bill.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner presented
in evidence the Mate's Receipts[13]
and a Survey Report[14]
to prove the damaged condition of the cargo. However, contrary to the
asseveration
of petitioner, the Mate's Receipts and the Survey Report which were
both
dated November 6, 1991, are unreliable evidence of the true condition
of
the shipment at the time of loading since said receipts and report were
issued twenty days prior to loading and before the issuance of the
clean
bill of lading covering the subject cargo on November 26, 1991.
Moreover,
while the surveyor, commissioned by the carrier to inspect the subject
cargo, found the inspected steel goods to be contaminated with rust he,
nonetheless, estimated the merchandise to be in a fair and usually
accepted
condition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the second and
third assigned errors: That the Court of Appeals erred in not finding
that
the contamination and rusting was chemically to have been caused by
fresh
water; and that the appellate court erred in finding that petitioner
failed
to exercise the requisite diligence under the law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner's arguments
in support of the assigned errors are not plausible. Even granting, for
the sake of argument, that the subject cargo was already in a damaged
condition
at the time it was accepted for transportation, the carrier is not
relieved
from its responsibility to exercise due care in handling the
merchandise
and in employing the necessary precautions to prevent the cargo from
further
deteriorating. It is settled that the extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance
over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to
know
and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or
destruction
of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery.[15]
It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill
and
foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and
characteristic
of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the
handling
and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.[16]
Under Article 1742 of the Civil
Code, even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods
should be caused, among others, by the character of the goods, the
common
carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
This
extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally
placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for
transportation
until the same are delivered actually or constructively, by the carrier
to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.[17]
In the instant case, if the carrier indeed found the steel sheets to
have
been covered by rust at the time that it accepted the same for
transportation,
such finding should have prompted it to apply additional safety
measures
to make sure that the cargo is protected from corrosion. This, the
carrier
failed to do. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article
1734
of the Civil
Code states that:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration
of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes
only:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
Flood,
storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Act of the
public
enemy in war, whether international or civil;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Act or
omission
of the shipper or owner of the goods;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) The
character of
the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(5) Order or
act of
competent public authority.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Except in the cases
mentioned
under Article 1734, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently,
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required
under the law.[18]
The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that no competent evidence
was presented to prove that the deterioration of the subject cargo was
brought about by any of the causes enumerated under the aforequoted
Article
1734 of the said Code.
We likewise agree with appellate court's finding that the carrier
failed
to present proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence in its
vigilance
over the goods. The presumption that the carrier was at fault or that
it
acted negligently was not overcome by any countervailing evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the last assigned
error: That the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the amount of
damages
awarded by the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the contention
of the petitioner in its last assigned error that the amount of damages
adjudicated by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is
not
in consonance with the evidence presented by the parties. The judgments
of both lower courts are based on misapprehension of facts as we find
no
competent evidence to prove the actual damages sustained by respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on the Packing
List issued by Burwill (Agencies) Limited, the supplier of the steel
sheets,
the cargo consigned to Remington consisted of hot rolled steel sheets
with
lengths of eight feet and twenty feet. The eight-foot length steel
sheets
contained in 142 packages had a weight of 491.54 metric tons while the
twenty-foot steel sheets which were contained in 52 packages weighed
194.25
metric tons.[19]
The goods were valued at $320.00 per metric ton.[20]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is not disputed
that at the time of inspection of the subject merchandise conducted by
SGS Far East Limited on January 21–24, 1992 and January 27–28, 1992,
only
30% of said goods originally consigned to Remington was available for
examination
at Remington's warehouse in Manila and that Remington had already
disposed
of the remaining 70%. In the Certificate of Inspection issued by SGS,
dated
February 18, 1992, it was reported that the surface of the steel sheets
with length of twenty feet were found to be rusty "extending from 60%
to
80% per plate".[21]
However, there was no proof to show how many metric tons of twenty-foot
and eight-foot length steel sheets, respectively, comprise the
remaining
30% of the cargo. No competent evidence was presented to prove the
weight
of the remaining twenty-foot length steel sheets, on the basis of which
the amount of actual damages could have been ascertained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Remington claims that
70% of the twenty-foot length steel sheets were damaged. Remington's
general
manager, Rowina Tan Saban, testified that the "70%" figure was based on
the reports submitted by SGS and Tan-Gatue and Remington's independent
survey to confirm these reports.[22]
Saban further testified that on the basis of these reports, Remington
came
up with a summary of the amount of damages sustained by the subject
cargo,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Plates 8 ft
lengths 491.540 MT —
US$157,292.80
Quantity
Damaged
25%
Loss
Allowance
13%
Total Plates 8 ft
lengths
US$15,211.56
Plates 20 ft
lengths
194.025 MT — US$62,088.00
Quantity
Damaged
70%
Loss
Allowance
35%
Total Plates 20 ft
lengths
P544,875.71
with the following
detailed
computation:
Plates under 8 ft
lengths
491.540 MT @ $320./MT
US $157,292.80
Multiply by 25% Qty.
damaged
$39,323.20
13% Loss
allowance
$5,112.02
Plates under 20 ft.
lengths 194.025 MT @ $320./MT
US$62,088.00
Multiple 70% Qty.
damaged
US$43,461.60
35% Loss
allowance
$15,211.56
Total
claim
US$5,112.02
$15,211.56
—————
US$20,323.58
@ $26.81 = P544,875.17
and which the trial
court based the actual damages awarded in favor of Remington.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, after a careful
examination of the reports submitted by SGS and Tan-Gatue, we find
nothing
in the said reports and computation to justify the claim of Remington
that
70% of the twenty-foot length steel sheets were damaged. Neither does
the
alleged survey conducted by Remington consisting only of photographs,[23]
prove the quantity of the damaged cargo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the eight-foot
length steel sheets, SGS reported that they were found oiled all over
which
makes it hard to determine the rust condition on its surface.[24]
On the other hand, the report issued by Tan-Gatue did not specify the
extent
of damage done to the said merchandise.[25]
There is also no proof of the weight of the remaining eight-foot length
steel sheets. From the foregoing, it is evident that the extent of
actual
damage to the subject cargo is likewise not satisfactorily proven.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is settled that actual
or compensatory damages are not presumed and should be proven before
they
are awarded. In Spouses Quisumbing vs. Meralco,[26]
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Actual
damages
are compensation for an injury that will put the injured party in the
position
where it was before it was injured. They pertain to such injuries or
losses
that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except as
provided
by law or stipulation, a party is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss as it has duly proven.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, for failure
of Remington to present sufficient evidence which is susceptible of
measurement,
it is not entitled to actual damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, since it
was established that the subject steel sheets sustained damage by
reason
of the negligence of the carrier, albeit no competent proof was
presented
to justify the award of actual damages, we find that Remington is
entitled
to temperate damages in accordance with Articles 2216, 2224 and 2225 of
the Civil Code, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 2216.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of
such
damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the
court,
according to the circumstances of each case.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 2224. Temperate
or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
be
proved with certainty.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 2225. Temperate
damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thirty percent of the
alleged
cost of damages, i.e., P544,875.17 or P165,000.00 is reasonable enough
for temperate damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We likewise agree with
petitioner's claim that it should not be held liable for the payment of
attorney's fees because it was always willing to settle its liability
by
offering to pay 30% of Remington's claim and that it is only
Remington's
unwarranted refusal to accept such offer that led to the filing of the
instant case. As found earlier, there is no evidence that the 70% of
the
20-foot length steel sheets which had been disposed of had been
damaged.
Neither is there competent evidence proving the actual extent of damage
sustained by the eight-foot length steel sheets. Petitioner was
therefore
justified in refusing to satisfy the full amount of Remington's claims.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 28, 1998 and the
Resolution
dated December 24, 1998, in CA-G.R. CV No. 49725 are MODIFIED as
follows:
The award of actual damages and attorney's fees are deleted. Respondent
is awarded temperate damages in the amount of P165,000.00. In all other
respects, the appealed decision and resolution are affirmed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement as
to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Hector L. Hofileña, concurred in by Justices
Minerva
P. Gonzaga-Reyes and Omar U. Amin.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Entitled, "Remington Industrial Sales Corporation, Plaintiff, versus
Wangs
Company Incorporated, Iron Bulk Shipping Co., Ltd., and Pioneer Asia
Insurance
Corporation, Defendants".
[3]
CA Records, pp. 196–197.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Original Records, pp. 440–447.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ermac vs. Ermac, G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Larena vs. Mapili, G.R. No. 146341, August 7, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
22 SCRA 674, 678 (1968).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "1-A", OR, p. 307.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Exhibit "1-B", OR, p. 307.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the
Philippines,
Agbayani, 1983 Edition, p. 119.
[12]
Exhibit "7-E-Iron Bulk", OR, pp. 700–706.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibits "5-A" to "5-V-Iron Bulk", OR, pp. 666–687.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exhibit "7-E-Iron Bulk", supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Compania Maritima vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 685, 691–692 (1988).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Article 1736, Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Article 1735, Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Exhibit "D"/"2-Wangs", OR, p. 518.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Exhibit "I-1", OR, p. 531.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, July 20, 1993, pp. 7–17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Exhibits "MTC" to "MTC-7", OR, pp. 547–549.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Exhibit "I-1", supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Exhibit "R", "10-Pioneer", OR, pp. 627–629.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |