Falalimpa v. Manalastas

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240591. September 29, 2021.]

JUNIORITA P. FALALIMPA, petitioner,vs. RICARDO MANALASTAS, SPOUSES LEONARDO DUNO, JR. AND LANI DUNO, ELECIO MEDICO AND ROBERT LARDIZABAL, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240591 (Juniorita P. Falalimpa,Petitioner,vs. Ricardo Manalastas, Spouses Leonardo Duno, Jr. and Lani Duno, Elecio Medico and Robert Lardizabal,Respondents.) — This Petition 1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Decision 2 dated 22 November 2017 and Resolution 3 dated 27 June 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107424. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated 27 May 2016 of Branch 24, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila in Civil Case No. 10-124063 declaring petitioner negligent and holding her solidarily liable with Aboitiz Transport System Corporation and Oceanic Container Lines, Inc. to pay respondents damages.

Antecedents

Petitioner Juniorita P. Falalimpa (Falalimpa), doing business under the trade name "Bloom Fruits," and respondents Ricardo Manalastas, Spouses Leonardo Duno Jr., and Lani Duno, Elecio Medico and Robert Lardizabal (collectively, respondents) were all engaged in buying and selling fruits and vegetables. 5

Falalimpa was known as a consolidator of Aboitiz Transport System Corporation (Aboitiz), a domestic company operating ships for the transportation of passengers and cargoes, in Davao City. She and Aboitiz have a contractual arrangement wherein she is given a special rate that she extends to other traders by accommodating their cargoes whenever she has goods for shipment. Respondents are among those traders.

On 03 January 2010, Falalimpa booked a shipment of jackfruit from Davao City to Manila. Included in the shipment was respondents' squash cargo. The booking transaction was evidenced in the Bill of Lading No. 18162238 6 issued by Aboitiz which stated that the shipment, with declared value of Php1,500,000.00, with Falalimpa as consignee, and booked for the vessel MCC/2010, consisted of the following: five (5) twenty-footer container vans of squash; and one (1) twenty-footer container van loaded with both squash and jackfruit.

The shipment did not arrive on the scheduled date of 07 January 2010. Respondents learned that the voyage of Aboitiz's MCC/2010 on 03 January 2010 was cancelled due to mechanical failure; hence, the original schedule of its departure and arrival did not push through. Due to this cancellation, Aboitiz transferred respondents' cargo to Oceanic Container Lines, Inc. (Oceanic) to ship the goods from Davao City to Manila.

On 14 January 2010, respondents' cargo arrived in Manila on board Oceanic's MV Ocean Prosperity. However, upon opening the containers, Falalimpa and respondents discovered that the goods were already in a rotten and unmarketable condition. Despite this, respondents still paid the freight charges but they requested Falalimpa to assist them so they can file their claims for their respective damaged cargo. 7 Aboitiz denied respondents' claim. 8

Respondents then sent demand letters to Falalimpa, Aboitiz, and Oceanic, 9 but to no avail. On 13 August 2010, respondents filed a Complaint 10 for damages against Falalimpa, Aboitiz, and Oceanic. According to respondents, Falalimpa, Aboitiz and Oceanic were guilty of negligence in the carriage of their goods. They also alleged that the liability of Aboitiz and Oceanic was based on their duty as common carriers, while Falalimpa's liability was due to her role as broker who acted as the shipper and consignee of respondents' goods.

In its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-claim filed on 28 October 2010, 11 Aboitiz denied liability, arguing that respondents have no cause or right of action against it. It further maintained that, as a common carrier, it exercised extraordinary diligence in the transportation of the subject goods.

For her part, Falalimpa countered that: (1) the sales manager of 2GO Solutions, an Aboitiz affiliate, gave her a special freight rate in transporting fruits and vegetables from Mindanao; (2) she only accommodates other businessmen to avail of the low freight rates out of generosity; (3) respondents did ask for her permission concerning the 03 January 2010 shipment; (4) the subject goods were not completely damaged. 12

Meanwhile, Oceanic filed a Motion to Dismiss 13 on 18 October 2010 on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The motion was denied for lack of merit. 14 Thus, on 11 January 2011, Oceanic filed its Answer (with Special Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaim) 15 and alleged that it is not a proper party to the case because it was not privy to the contract of carriage asserted in the Complaint.

Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision 16 dated 27 May 2016, the RTC held Falalimpa, Aboitiz, and Oceanic solidarily liable to the respondents, thus:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants Juniorita Falalimpa, Aboitiz Transport System Corporation and Oceanic Container Liners, Inc. are hereby ordered to solidarily pay:

a. Plaintiff Ricardo Manalastas:

1. Actual damages of Nine Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P915,000.00);

2. Moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

3. Exemplary damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00);

4. Attorney's fees of One Hundred Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (P106,550.00); and

5. Interest on the foregoing amount of damages awarded (i.e., P1,172,050.00) at a rate of six per cent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of this decision.

Upon finality of this decision, the amount so awarded (including interest under No. 5 above) shall bear interest at a rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum until its full satisfaction.

b. Plaintiffs Leonardo Duno, Jr. and Lani Duno:

1. Actual damages of Six Hundred Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P615,000.00);

2. Moral damages of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00);

3. Exemplary damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00);

4. Attorney's fees of Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P86,500.00); and

5. Interest on the foregoing amount of damages awarded (i.e., P951,500.00) at a rate of six per cent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of this decision.

Upon finality of this decision, the amount so awarded (including interest under No. 5 above) shall bear interest at a rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum until its full satisfaction.

c. Plaintiff Elesio L. Medico

1. Actual damages of Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Pesos (P319,000.00);

2. Moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

3. Exemplary damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00);

4. Attorney's fees of Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P46,900.00); and

5. Interest on the foregoing amount of damages awarded (i.e., P515,900.00) at a rate of six per cent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of this decision.

Upon finality of this decision, the amount so awarded (including interest under No. 5 above) shall bear interest at a rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum until its full satisfaction.

d. Plaintiff Robert Lardizabal

1. Actual damages of One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (P176,000.00);

2. Moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

3. Exemplary damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00);

4. Attorney's fees of Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P32,600.00); and

5. Interest on the foregoing amount of damages awarded (i.e., P358,600.00) at a rate of six per cent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of this decision.

Upon finality of this decision, the amount so awarded (including interest under No. 5 above) shall bear interest at a rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum until its full satisfaction.

e. Plaintiffs the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Falalimpa, Aboitiz, and Oceanic separately filed their appeals.

Ruling of the CA

The CA partly granted the appeal. It affirmed the RTC Decision with modification as to the award of actual damages in the form of unrealized profits upon finding that there was no factual basis for said award. Thus, the CA ruled:

"WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 27 May 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24 in Civil Case No. 10-124063 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that 1) the actual damages sustained by Ricardo Manalastas in the amount of P915,500.00 is reduced to P819,500.00; 2) the actual damages sustained by appellee souses Leonardo Duno, Jr. and Lani T. Duo in the amount of P615,000.00 is reduced to P367,000.00; and 3) the actual damages sustained by appellee Eliseo Medico in the amount of P315,000.00 is reduced to P191,000.00. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. All other aspects in the Decision STAND.

SO ORDERED."

Falalimpas' motion for reconsideration was denied, 17 prompting her to elevate the matter to this Court via a Rule 45 petition.

Issues

The issues to be resolved by the Court are whether:

1. Falalimpa is guilty of negligence; and

2. The damages awarded were correct.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied.

Before proceeding to the merits of the case, this Court deems it necessary to reiterate that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. This Court will not review facts, as it is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. 18 As held in Diokno vs. Hon. Cacdac, 19 a re-examination of factual findings is outside the province of a petition for review on certiorari, to wit:

It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because as earlier stated, this Court is not a trier of facts[.] . . . The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This is already outside the province of the instant Petition for Certiorari.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain set of facts, while there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Hence, once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. 20

The issues presented in this case on whether Falalimpa was negligent and therefore liable to pay damages, are clearly questions of fact because it necessitates the review of evidence.

A question of fact may be tackled in a Rule 45 petition if it is shown that the case falls under any of these exceptions: 21

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;

(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.

Falalimpa claims that the case falls under these exceptions. 22 However, a reading of the petition fails to convince Us that any of the exceptions is applicable. In any case, even if We allow a factual review in this case, there is still no reason to deviate from the assailed rulings.

Finding of negligence

The RTC found that Falalimpa failed to inform respondents that Aboitiz' MCC voyage on 04 January 2010 was cancelled and that their cargo was transferred to another carrier. Falalimpa's inaction resulted in the spoilage of respondents' cargo. As the RTC amply observed: 23

". . . Defendant Falalimpa/Bloomfruits informed plaintiffs that the vessel carrying the squash was scheduled to leave Davao on 4 January 2010 and to arrive in Manila on 7 January 2010. On 4 January 2010, when MCC experienced mechanical trouble, defendant Aboitiz informed defendant Falalimpa/Bloomfruits that MCC would be delayed, but the latter did not relay this to plaintiffs. Moreover, with the knowledge of defendant Falalimpa, the subject goods were loaded on the vessel of defendant Oceanic. Plaintiffs were not made aware that their good were then being transferred to another vessel. It was only when the goods did not arrive on the expected arrival date of MCC on 7 January 2010 that plaintiffs, upon inquiry on what happened to the goods, learned that they were transferred to the vessel of defendant Oceanic."

Based on its observation, the RTC concluded that Falalimpa was negligent: 24

". . . when she did not inform plaintiffs that their goods could not be shipped on MCC on 4 January 2010. Being engaged in the buying and selling of fruits and vegetables, defendant Falapimpa herself knows or ought to know that the time arrival of fruits and vegetables shipped from Davao to Manila is crucial since they are perishable. Having been informed that MCC could not depart on 4 January 2010, the date of departure she told plaintiffs, defendant Falalimpa should have informed plaintiffs of such fact so that the latter could take whatever action they deem necessary under the circumstances. Defendant Falalimpa prevented plaintiffs from taking such action by leaving them ignorant of the fact and, worse, agreeing to the transfer of the goods to defendant Oceanic's vessel without prior consultation with plaintiffs. x x x."

In its review of the records, the CA confirmed RTC's observation and noted Falalimpa's inaction, thus: 25

"When appellee Manalastas was cross-examined, he testified that despite constant communication with appellant Falalimpa regarding the status of their shipment, it was only on 5 January 2010, upon their inquiry when the vessel of appellant Aboitiz did not arrive, that appellant Falalimpa informed them about the said vessel's mechanical failure and that their cargoes were transferred to appellant Oceanic's vessel. Indeed, appellant Falalimpa was negligent in this case since informing appellees of such delay is necessary to prevent damage, as the subject goods were shipped inside container vans. Thus, the court a quo correctly found that appellant Falalimpa acted with negligence when she failed to protect the interests of appellees."

Falalimpa refused to take accountability claiming that she had no hand in arranging respondents' shipment with Aboitiz. However, the RTC found to the contrary: "the booking with defendant Aboitiz of the shipment of plaintiffs' squash from Davao to Manila was known to and arranged with defendant Falalimpa." 26 Further, the original Bill of Lading issued by Aboitiz names Falalimpa as the consignee of five 25-footer container vans containing squash. 27 She also received respondents' payments for the freight cost.

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, by reason of which such other person suffers injury. The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in the performance of the alleged negligent act use reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that norm. 28

Clearly, Falalimpa's failure to inform respondents that their goods were not shipped on 04 January 2010 as scheduled, and were transferred to Oceanic without their consent, is a manifestation of her negligence insofar as she failed to observe the reasonable degree of care that an ordinary person would have used under the circumstances. As the party responsible for booking respondents' cargoes with Aboitiz to be shipped to Manila, Falalimpa had the duty to update respondents on the development on their shipment. Failure to do so renders Falalimpa liable to respondents.

Liability for damages

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides, "[w]hoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."

Falalimpa's omission coupled with Aboitiz and Oceanic's negligence as common carriers resulted to the losses that respondents sustained. As such, Falalimpa should be held liable.

To avoid liability, Falalimpa further claims that the damages awarded were not duly established. The records, however, sustain such award. In fact, the CA has already modified the damages awarded in accordance with the evidence on record, to wit: 29

 

1. Respondent Manalastas	-	P750,000.00 as capital;
	-	P69,500.00 as freight cost;
	-	(P96,000.00) as unrealized profit
Total	-	P819,500.00
2. Respondent spouses Duno	-	P310,000.00 as capital;
	-	P52,000.00 as freight cost;
	-	P5,000.00 as helper's fee
	-	(P248,000.00) as unrealized profit
Total	-	P367,000.00
3. Respondent Medico	-	P160,000.00 as capital;
	-	P26,000.00 as freight cost;
	-	P5,000.00 as helper's fee
	-	(P128,000.00) as unrealized profit
Total	-	P191,000.00

 

The CA rightfully found it appropriate to reduce the RTC's award upon finding that actual damages in the form of unrealized profit was speculative because respondents "were unable to substantiate nor duly prove that they are entitled to the alleged amounts they claimed as unrealized profits." 30 As to the rest of the monetary awards, these were duly proved and must therefore be sustained. Further, the imposition of legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all monetary awards is upheld. The same shall accrue from finality of this resolution until fully satisfied.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated 22 November 2017 and 27 June 2018, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107424 are hereby AFFIRMED. All monetary awards in favor of respondents shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." Leonen, J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-40.

2.Id. at 42-59. Penned by Associate Justice Lantion with Inting and Paredes, JJ., concurring.

3.Id. at 60-61.

4.Id. at 77-102. Penned by Judge Maria Victoria A. Soriano-Villadolid.

5.Id. at p. 44.

6.Id. at 45.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 46.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Supra, note 4.

17.Supra, note 3.

18.Miro vs. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772 (2013).

19. 553 Phil. 405, 428 (2007).

20.Sarmiento v. Dizon, G.R. No. 235424, 03 February 2021, citing Javelosa v. Tapus, G.R. No. 204361, 04 July 2018, 870 SCRA 496, 508.

21.Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784 (2011).

22.Rollo, p. 12.

23.Id. at 94.

24.Id. at 94-95.

25.Id. at 53.

26.Id. at 94.

27.Id. at 45.

28.Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Balen, 620 Phil. 485-494 (2009).

29.Rollo, p. 58.

30.Id. at 57.