G.R. No. 187701. July 23, 2014.* the Rules of Court.

It is not the Court’s duty to

PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (now CHARTIS evaluate and weigh the evidence all over again as
PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.**, such function is conceded to be within the expertise of
petitioner, vs. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION the trial court whose findings, when supported by
substantial evidence on record and affirmed by the CA,
and WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC.,
are regarded with respect, if not binding effect, by this
respondents. Court. There are certain instances, however, when the
G.R. No. 187812. July 23, 2014.* Court is compelled to deviate from this rule, dismantle
HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION and WALLEM the factual findings of the courts a quo and conduct a
PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., probe into the factual questions at issue. These
petitioners, vs. PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, circumstances are: (1) the inference made is
INC. (now CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.), manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) there is
respondent. grave abuse of discretion; (3) the findings are
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
for Review on Certiorari; It is not the Supreme Court’s conjectures; (4) the judgment of the CA is based on
(SC’s) duty to evaluate and weigh the evidence all misapprehension of facts; (5) the CA, in making its
over again as such function is conceded to be findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
_______________ same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant
and appellee; (6) the findings of fact are conclusions
* FIRST DIVISION. without citation of specific evidence on which they are
**Per Court Resolution dated July 21, 2010 on the basis
Motion for Substitution of Petitioner/Respondent’s name as
based; (7) the CA manifestly overlooked certain
evidenced by Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
Incorporation dated October 15, 2009, see Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), properly considered, would justify a different
pp. 148-151, 158-159; Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 217-220, 222- conclusion; and (8) the findings of fact of the CA are
223. premised on the absence of evidence and are
513
contradicted by the evidence on record.
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 513 Mercantile Law; Transportation Law; Charter
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Party; Ships and Shipping; A charter party has been
Philippines Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping defined in Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
Corporation 226 SCRA 476 (1993), as: A contract by which an
within the expertise of the trial court whose entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the
findings, when supported by substantial evidence on owner to another person for a specified time or use; a
record and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), are contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship
regarded with respect, if not binding effect, by the SC; or other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a
Exceptions.—Being a factual question, it is not merchant or other person for the conveyance of
reviewable in the herein petition filed under Rule 45 of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of the
payment of freight.—A charter party has been defined the vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect,
in Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 226 the owner for the voyage or service stipulated and
SCRA 476 (1993) as: [A] contract by which an entire hence liable for damages or loss sustained by the
ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner goods transported.
to another person for a specified time or use; a Same; Same; Common Carriers; Common carriers,
contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship from the nature of their business and for reasons of
or other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
merchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of
on a particular voyage, in consideration of the the goods and the passengers they transport.
payment of freight. x x x. —“[C]ommon carriers, from the nature of their
514 business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with
ANNOTATED respect to the safety of the goods and the passengers
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis they transport. Thus, common carriers are required to
render service with the greatest skill and foresight and
Philippines Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping ‘to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature
Corporation and characteristics of the goods tendered for
(Citations omitted) A charter party has two shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
types. First, it could be a contract of affreightment stowage, including such methods as their nature
whereby the use of shipping space on vessels is leased requires.’”
in part or as a whole, to carry goods for others. The Same; Same; Same; Common carriers, as a
charter-party provides for the hire of vessel only, general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or
either for a determinate period of time (time charter) negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or
or for a single or consecutive voyage (voyage charter). got lost or destroyed.—“[C]ommon carriers, as a
The shipowner supplies the ship’s stores, pay for the general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or
wages of the master and the crew, and defray the negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or
expenses for the maintenance of the ship. The voyage got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that
remains under the responsibility of the carrier and it is they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting
answerable for the loss of goods received for the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss
transportation. The charterer is free from liability to or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving
third persons in respect of the ship. Second, charter by that they observed such diligence.” Further, under
demise or bareboat charter under which the whole Article 1742 of the Civil
vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him of 515
its entire command and possession and consequent VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 515
control over its navigation, including the master and Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis
the crew, who are his servants. The charterer mans
Philippines Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping
 Corporation of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of
Code, even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration Commerce and by special laws, such as the COGSA.
of the goods should be caused by the faulty nature of Mercantile Law; Carriage of Goods by Sea Act;
the containers, the common carrier must exercise due Conflict of Laws; Actions; Prescription; The prescriptive
diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. period for filing an action for lost/damaged goods
Same; Same; Same; Bill of Lading; A bill of lading governed by contracts of carriage by sea to and from
is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of goods Philippine ports in foreign trade is governed by
and an agreement to transport and to deliver them at paragraph 6, Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by
a specified place to a person named or on his or her Sea Act (COGSA).—Consonant with the ruling in the
order. It operates both as a receipt and as a contract. recent Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co.,
—PROTOP is solidarily liable with HEUNG-A for the Inc., 702 SCRA 88 (2013), the prescriptive period for
lost/damaged shipment in view of the bill of lading the filing an action for lost/damaged goods governed by
former issued to NOVARTIS. “A bill of lading is a contracts of carriage by sea to and from Philippine
written acknowledgment of the receipt of goods and ports in foreign trade
516
an agreement to transport and to deliver them at a
specified place to a person named or on his or her 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
order. It operates both as a receipt and as a contract. ANNOTATED
It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis
transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated.” Philippines Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping
PROTOP breached its contract with NOVARTIS when it
Corporation
failed to deliver the goods in the same quantity,
is governed by paragraph 6, Section 3 of the
quality and description as stated in Bill of Lading No.
COGSA which states: (6) Unless notice of loss or
PROTAS 200387.
damage and the general nature of such loss or
Civil Law; Transportation Law; Conflict of Laws;
damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent
Under Article 1753 of the Civil Code, the law of the
at the port of discharge before or at the time of the
country to which the goods are to be transported shall
removal of the goods into the custody of the person
govern the liability of the common carrier for their
entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of
loss, destruction or deterioration.—Under Article 1753
carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of
of the Civil Code, the law of the country to which the
the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in
goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of
the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent,
the common carrier for their loss, destruction or
the notice must be given within three days of the
deterioration. Since the subject shipment was being
delivery. Said notice of loss or damage maybe
transported from South Korea to the Philippines, the
endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the
Civil Code provisions shall apply. In all matters not
person taking delivery thereof. The notice in writing
regulated by the Civil Code, the rights and obligations
need not be given if the state of the goods has at the
time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
inspection. In any event the carrier and the ship shall City, Branch 148, in Civil Case No. 01-889.
be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or The Factual Antecedents
damage unless suit is brought within one year after On December 19, 2000, Novartis Consumer
delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
Health Philippines, Inc. (NOVARTIS) imported from
should have been delivered: Provided, That if a notice
of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not
Jinsuk Trading Co. Ltd., (JINSUK) in South Korea,
given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not 19 pallets of 200 rolls of Ovaltine Power 18 G
affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit laminated plastic packaging material.
within one year after the delivery of the goods or the In order to ship the goods to the Philippines,
date when the goods should have been delivered. JINSUK engaged the services of Protop Shipping
PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of Corporation (PROTOP), a freight forwarder likewise
the Court of Appeals. based in South Korea, to forward the goods to
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. their consignee, NOVARTIS.
  Albert Palacios Law Office for Chartis Phils. Based on Bill of Lading No. PROTAS 200387
Ins., Inc. issued by PROTOP, the cargo was on freight
  Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & prepaid basis and on “shipper’s load and count”
Carbonell for Heung-A Shipping Corp. and Wallem which means that the “container [was] packed
Phils. Shipping, Inc. with cargo by one shipper where the quantity,
REYES, J.: description and condition of the cargo is the sole
At bar are consolidated petitions for review responsibility of the shipper.”4 Likewise stated in
on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the bill of lading is the name Sagawa Express
assailing the Decision 2
Phils., Inc., (SAGAWA) designated as the entity in
_______________ the Philippines which will obtain the delivery
contract.
1 Per Court Resolution dated January 13, 2010, Rollo (G.R.
No. 187701), p. 137A; Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), p. 215. PROTOP shipped the cargo through Dongnama
517 Shipping Co. Ltd. (DONGNAMA) which in turn
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 517 loaded the same on M/V Heung-A Bangkok V-019
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines owned and operated by Heung-A Shipping
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation Corporation, (HEUNG-A), a Korean corporation,
_______________
dated January 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 89482 affirming with 2 Penned by Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Andres
modifications the Decision3 dated February 26, B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente
and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, concurring; Rollo (G.R. No. The shipment reached NOVARTIS’ premises on
187701), pp. 42-70; Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 42-70.
3 Issued by Presiding Judge Oscar B. Pimentel; Rollo (G.R.
January 5, 2001 and was thereupon inspected by
No. 187701), pp. 75-103. the company’s Senior Laboratory Technician,
4 Section II-24 of the Customs Administrative Order No. 8- Annie Rose Caparoso (Caparoso).5
75, id., at p. 77. Upon initial inspection, Caparoso found the
518
container van locked with its load intact. After
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED opening the same, she inspected its contents and
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines discovered that the boxes of the shipment were
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation wet and damp. The boxes on one side of the van
pursuant to a ‘slot charter agreement’ whereby a were in disarray while others were opened or
space in the latter’s vessel was reserved for the damaged due to the dampness. Caparoso further
exclusive use of the former. Wallem Philippines observed that parts of the container van were
Shipping, Inc. (WALLEM) is the ship agent of damaged and rusty. There were also water
HEUNG-A in the Philippines. droplets on the walls and the floor was wet. Since
NOVARTIS insured the shipment with Philam the damaged packaging materials might
Insurance Company, Inc. (PHILAM, now Chartis contaminate the product
Philippines Insurance, Inc.) under All Risk Marine _______________
Open Insurance Policy No. MOP-0801011828
5 Id., at pp. 86-87.
against all loss, damage, liability, or expense
519
before, during transit and even after the discharge
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 519
of the shipment from the carrying vessel until its
complete delivery to the consignee’s premises. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
The vessel arrived at the port of Manila, South Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
Harbor, on December 27, 2000 and the subject they were meant to hold, Caparoso rejected the
shipment contained in Sea Van Container No. entire shipment.
DNAU 420280-9 was discharged without exception Renato Layug and Mario Chin, duly certified
into the possession, custody and care of Asian adjusters of the Manila Adjusters and Surveyors
Terminals, Inc. (ATI) as the customs arrastre Company were forthwith hailed to inspect and
operator. conduct a survey of the shipment. 6 Their
The shipment was thereafter withdrawn on Certificate of Survey7 dated January 17, 2001
January 4, 2001, by NOVARTIS’ appointed broker, yielded results similar to the observations of
Stephanie Customs Brokerage Corporation Caparoso, thus:
(STEPHANIE) from ATI’s container yard. [T]he sea van panels/sidings and roofing were noted
with varying degrees of indentations and partly
corroded/rusty. Internally, water bead clung along the ratory Report No. 042-07 dated January 16, 2001,
roofs from rear to front section. The mid section the cause of wetting in the carton boxes and kraft
dented/sagged with affected area was noted with paper/lining materials as well as the aluminum foil
minutes hole evidently due to thinning/corroded rusty laminated plastic packaging material, was salt
metal plates. The shipment was noted with several
water.10
palletized cartons already in collapsed condition due to
wetting. The van’s entire floor length was also
Aggrieved, NOVARTIS demanded
observed wet. 8 indemnification for the lost/damaged shipment
All 17 pallets of the 184 cartons/rolls contained from PROTOP, SAGAWA, ATI and STEPHANIE but
in the sea van were found wet/water damaged. was denied. Insurance claims were, thus, filed
Sixteen (16) cartons/rolls supposedly contained in with PHILAM which paid the insured value of the
2 pallets were unaccounted for although the shipment in the adjusted amount of One Million
surveyors remarked that this may be due to short Nine Hundred Four Thousand Six Hundred
shipment by the supplier considering that the sea Thirteen Pesos and Twenty Centavos
van was fully loaded and can no longer (P1,904,613.20).
accommodate the said unaccounted items. The Claiming that after such payment, it was
survey report further stated that the “wetting subrogated to all the rights and claims of
sustained by the shipment may have reasonably NOVARTIS against the parties liable for the
be attributed to the water seepage that gain entry lost/damaged shipment, PHILAM filed on June 4,
into the sea van container damage roofs (minutes 2001, a complaint for damages against PROTOP,
hole) during transit period [sic].”9 as the issuer of Bill of Lading No. PROTAS 200387,
Samples from the wet packing materials/boxes its ship agent in the Philippines, SAGAWA,
were submitted to the chemist of Precision consignee, ATI and the broker, STEPHANIE.
Analytical Services, Inc. (PRECISION), Virgin On October 12, 2001, PHILAM sent a demand
Hernandez (Hernandez), and per Labo- letter to WALLEM for reimbursement of the
_______________ insurance claims paid to NOVARTIS. 11 When
WALLEM ignored the demand, PHILAM impleaded
6 Id., at pp. 83-86. it as additional defendant in an Amended
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 77-81.
8 Id., at p. 79.
Complaint duly admitted by the trial court on
9 Id., at p. 81. October 19, 2001.12
520 On December 11, 2001, PHILAM filed a Motion
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED to Admit Second Amended Complaint this time
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines designating PROTOP as the owner/operator of M/V
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation Heung-A Bangkok V-019 and adding HEUNG-A as
party defendant for being the registered owner of serve as the latter’s delivery contact person in the
the vessel.13 The motion was granted and the Philippines with respect to the subject shipment.
second amended complaint was admitted by the SAGAWA is also a freight forwarding company and
trial court on December 14, 2001.14 that PROTOP was not charged any fee for the
_______________ services rendered by SAGAWA with respect to the
subject shipment and instead the latter was given
10 Id., at p. 80; see also Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), p. 87.
11 Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 82-83. US$10 as commission.16 For having been dragged
12 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), p. 55. into court on a baseless cause, SAGAWA
13 Id., at p. 81. counterclaimed for damages in the form of
14 Id., at p. 55.
attorney’s fees.
521
ATI likewise interposed a counterclaim for
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 521
damages against PHILAM for its allegedly baseless
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines complaint. ATI averred that it exercised due care
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation and diligence in handling the subject container.
PROTOP, SAGAWA, ATI, STEPHANIE, WALLEM Also, NOVARTIS, through PHILAM, is now barred
and HEUNG-A denied liability for the lost/damaged from filing any claim for indemnification because
shipment. the latter failed to file the same within 15 days
SAGAWA refuted the allegation that it is the from receipt of the shipment.17
ship agent of PROTOP and argued that a ship _______________
agent represents the owner of the vessel and not
a mere freight forwarder like PROTOP. SAGAWA 15 Id., at pp. 78-79.
16 Id., at pp. 92-93.
averred that its only role with respect to the 17 Id., at p. 79.
shipment was to inform NOVARTIS of its arrival in 522
the Philippines and to facilitate the surrender of 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the original bill of lading issued by PROTOP. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
SAGAWA further remarked that it was deprived Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
an opportunity to examine and investigate the Meanwhile, STEPHANIE asserted that its only
nature and extent of the damage while the matter role with respect to the shipment was its physical
was still fresh so as to safeguard itself from retrieval from ATI and thereafter its delivery to
false/fraudulent claims because NOVARTIS failed NOVARTIS. That entire time, the seal was intact
to timely give notice about the and not broken. Also, based on the Certificate of
loss/damage.15SAGAWA admitted that it has a Survey, the damage to the shipment was due to
nonexclusive agency agreement with PROTOP to salt water which means that it could not have
occurred while STEPHANIE was in possession 18 Id., at p. 77.
19 Id., at pp. 80-81.
thereof during its delivery from ATI’s container
523
yard to NOVARTIS’ premises. STEPHANIE
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 523
counterclaimed for moral damages and attorney’s
fees.18 Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
WALLEM alleged that the damage and Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
shortages in the shipment were the responsibility HEUNG-A argued that it is not the carrier
of the shipper, JINSUK, because it was taken on insofar as NOVARTIS is concerned. The carrier was
board on a “shipper’s load and count” basis which either PROTOP, a freight forwarder considered as
means that it was the shipper that packed, a non-vessel operating common carrier or
contained and stuffed the shipment in the DONGNAMA which provided the container van to
container van without the carrier’s participation. PROTOP.20 HEUNG-A denied being the carrier of
The container van was already sealed when it was the subject shipment and asserted that its only
loaded on the vessel and hence, the carrier was in obligation was to provide DONGNAMA a space on
no position to verify the condition and other board M/V Heung-A Bangkok V-019.
particulars of the shipment. PROTOP failed to file an answer to the
WALLEM also asserted that the shipment was complaint despite having been effectively served
opened long after it was discharged from the with alias summons. It was declared in default in
vessel and that WALLEM or HEUNG-A were not the RTC Order dated June 6, 2002.21
present during the inspection, examination and Ruling of the RTC
survey. In a Decision22 dated February 26, 2007, the
WALLEM pointed the blame to PROTOP because RTC ruled that the damage to the shipment
its obligation to the shipper as freight forwarder occurred onboard the vessel while in transit from
carried the concomitant responsibility of ensuring Korea to the Philippines.
the shipment’s safety from the port of loading HEUNG-A was adjudged as the common carrier
until the final place of delivery. WALLEM claimed of the subject shipment by virtue of the
to have exercised due care and diligence in admissions of WALLEM’s witness, Ronald Gonzales
handling the shipment. (Gonzales) that despite the slot charter
In the alternative, WALLEM averred that any agreement with DONGNAMA, it was still the
liability which may be imputed to it is limited only obligation of HEUNG-A to transport the cargo from
to US$8,500.00 pursuant to the Carriage of Goods Busan, Korea to Manila and thus any damage to
by Sea Act (COGSA).19 the shipment is the responsibility of the carrier to
_______________ the consignee.
 The RTC further observed that HEUNG-A failed from the time the Freight Forwarder has taken the
to present evidence showing that it exercised the goods in his charge to the time of the delivery.
diligence required of a common carrier in ensuring 6.2 The Freight Forwarde[r] shall be liable for loss or
the safety of the shipment. damage to the goods as well as for delay in delivery if
the occurrence which caused the loss, damage, delay
The RTC discounted the slot charter agreement
in delivery took place while the goods were in his
between HEUNG-A and DONGNAMA, and held that charge as defined in clause 2.1.a unless the Freight
it did not bind the consignee who was not a party Forwarder proves that no fault or neglect of his own
thereto. Further, it was HEUNG-A’s duty to ensure servants or agents or any other person referred to in
that the container van was in good condition by Clause 2.2 has caused or contributed to such loss,
taking an initiative to state in its contract damage or delay. However, the Freight Forwarder shall
_______________ only be liable for loss following from delay in delivery if
the Consignor has made a declaration of interest in
20 Id., at pp. 82-83. timely delivery which has been accepted by the
21 Id., at p. 83.
22 Id., at pp. 75-103. Freight Forwarder and stated in this FBL. 23

524 PHILAM was declared to have been validly

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED subrogated in NOVARTIS’ stead and thus entitled
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines to recover the insurance claims it paid to the
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation latter.
ATI and STEPHANIE were exonerated from any
and demand from the owner of the container van
liability. SAGAWA was likewise adjudged not liable
that it should be in a good condition all the time.
for the loss/damage to the shipment by virtue of
Such initiative cannot be shifted to the shipper
the phrase “Shipper’s
because it is in no position to demand the same _______________
from the owner of the container van.
WALLEM was held liable as HEUNG-A’s ship 23 Id., at pp. 100-101.
agent in the Philippines while PROTOP was 525
adjudged liable because the damage sustained by VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 525
the shipment was due to the bad condition of the Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
container van. Also, based on the statement at Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
the back of the bill of lading, it assumed Load and Count” reflected in the bill of lading
responsibility for loss and damage as freight issued by PROTOP. Since the container van was
forwarder, viz.: packed under the sole responsibility of the shipper
6.1 The responsibility of the Freight Forwarder for in Korea, SAGAWA, which is based in the
the goods under these conditions covers the period Philippines, had no chance to check if the
contents were in good condition or not. The RTC 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
concluded that SAGAWA cannot be expected to Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
observe the diligence or care required of a carrier Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
or ship agent. the CA agreed with the RTC that PROTOP, HEUNG-
SAGAWA, ATI and STEPHANIE’s counterclaims A and WALLEM are liable for the damaged
for attorney’s fees were granted and PHILAM was shipment. The fact that HEUNG-A was not a party
ordered to pay the same for having been filed a to the bill of lading did not negate the existence of
‘shotgun case’ against them. Accordingly, the a contract of carriage between HEUNG-A and/or
dispositive portion of the RTC decision read: WALLEM and NOVARTIS. A bill of lading is not
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is indispensable for the creation of a contract of
hereby rendered declaring defendants PROTOP
carriage. By agreeing to transport the goods
SHIPPING CORPORATION, HEUNG-A SHIPPING
CORPORATION and WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, contained in the sea van provided by DONGNAMA,
INC. solidarily liable to pay x x x PHILAM INSURANCE HEUNG-A impliedly entered into a contract of
COMPANY, INC. the following amounts: carriage with NOVARTIS with whom the goods
1. [P]1,904,613.20 plus interest of 12% per annum were consigned. Hence, it assumed the
from December 26, 2001 (date of service of summons obligations of a common carrier to observe
to defendant Heung-A) until full payment; extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
2. [P]350,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and goods transported by it. Further the Slot Charter
3. Cost of suit. Agreement did not change HEUNG-A’s character
With regards to the counter claims, x x x PHILAM as a common carrier.
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. is hereby ordered to pay
Moreover, the proximate cause of the damage
defendants SAGAWA EXPRESS PHILIPPINES, INC.,
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., and STEPHANIE CUSTOMS
was the failure of HEUNG-A to inspect and
BROKERAGE CORPORATION the amount of examine the actual condition of the sea van
[P]100,000.00 each as attorney’s fees. before loading it on the vessel. Also, proper
SO ORDERED. 24 measures in handling and stowage should have
Ruling of the CA been adopted to prevent seepage of sea water
An appeal to the CA was interposed by PHILAM, into the sea van.
WALLEM and HEUNG-A. In a Decision 25 dated The CA rejected WALLEM and HEUNG-A’s
January 30, 2009, argument that NOVARTIS failed to comply with
_______________ Article 366 of the Code of Commerce requiring
that a claim must be made against the carrier
24 Id., at p. 103.
within 24 hours from receipt of the merchandise
526
because such provision applies only to interisland TERMINALS, INC. and STEPHANIE CUSTOMS
shipments within the Philippines. BROKERAGE is hereby DELETED.
The CA limited the liability of PROTOP, WALLEM SO ORDERED. 26

and HEUNG-A to US$8,500.00 pursuant to the The foregoing judgment was reiterated in the
liability limitation under the COGSA since the CA Resolution27 dated May 8, 2009 which denied
shipper failed to declare the value of the subject the motions for reconsideration filed by PHILAM,
cargo in the bill of lading and since they could not WALLEM and HEUNG-A.
be made answerable for the two (2) unaccounted PHILAM thereafter filed a petition for review
pallets because the shipment was on a “shipper’s before the Court docketed as G.R. No. 187701.
load, count and seal” basis. WALLEM and HEUNG-A followed suit and their
_______________ petition was docketed as G.R. No. 187812.
Considering that both petitions involved similar
25 Id., at pp. 42-70; Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 42-70. parties and issue, emanated from the same Civil
527
Case No. 01-889 and assailed the same CA
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 527 judgment, they were ordered consolidated in a
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines Resolution28 dated January 13, 2010.
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation _______________
The attorney’s fees awarded to SAGAWA, ATI
26 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), pp. 69-70; Rollo (G.R. No.
and STEPHANIE were deleted because it was not
187812), pp. 69-70.
shown that PHILAM was motivated by malice and 27 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), pp. 72-74; Rollo (G.R. No.
bad faith in impleading them as defendants. Thus, 187812), pp. 72-74.
the CA decision was disposed as follows: 28 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), p. 137A; Rollo (G.R. No.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed 187812), p. 215.
528
Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Defendants PROTOP SHIPPING CORPORATION, HEUNG- 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A SHIPPING CORPORATION [and] WALLEM PHILIPPINES Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
SHIPPING, INC.’s solidary liability to PHILAM Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. is reduced to $8,500.00 In G.R. No. 187701, PHILAM raised the following
plus interest per annum from 26 December 2001 (date grounds:
of service of summons to defendant Heung-A) until full THE HONORABLE [CA] COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR
payment. The award of attorney’s fees in the amount WHEN IT RULED IN ITS DECISION OF 30 JANUARY 2009
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]100,000.[00]) THAT [HEUNG-A and WALLEM] HAVE THE RIGHT TO
each to SAGAWA EXPRESS PHILIPPINES, INC., ASIAN LIMIT THEIR LIABILITY UNDER THE PACKAGE
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SECTION 4(5) OF THE
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, 1924, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT NO TIMELY CLAIM WAS FILED PURSUANT
ITS OBSERVATION THAT [NOWHERE] IN THE BILL OF TO ARTICLE 366 OF THE CODE OF COMMERCE OR THE
LADING DID THE SHIPPER DECLARE THE VALUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF LADING NO. DNALGOBUM
SUBJECT CARGO; 005019[;]
THE HONORABLE [CA] COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR THE [CA] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN
FUNDAMENTAL BREACHES OF [HEUNG-A and WALLEM] FINDING THAT THE CONTAINERIZED CARGO WAS
OF [THEIR] OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES DAMAGED WHILE IN THE POSSESSION OR CUSTODY OF
UNDER THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE AND LAW OF THE VESSEL “HEUNG-A BANGKOK.” 30

THE CASE AS LEGAL GROUNDS TO PRECLUDE ITS Issues

AVAILMENT OF THE PACKAGE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY The arguments proffered by the parties can be
UNDER SECTION 4(5) OF THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY summed up into the following issues: (1) Whether
SEA ACT, 1924.29
the shipment sustained damage while in the
In G.R. No. 187812, HEUNG-A and WALLEM possession and custody of HEUNG-A, and if so,
argued that: whether HEUNG-A’s liability can be limited to
THE [CA] COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN
US$500 per package pursuant to the COGSA; (2)
RULING THAT THE CODE OF COMMERCE, SPECIFICALLY
ARTICLE 366 THEREOF, DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS
Whether or not NOVARTIS/PHILAM failed to file a
CASE[;] timely claim against HEUNG-A and/or WALLEM.
THE [CA] COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN Ruling of the Court
RULING THAT THE SO-CALLED “PARAMOUNT CLAUSE” It must be stressed that the question on
IN THE BILL OF LADING, WHICH PROVIDED THAT whether the subject shipment sustained damaged
“COGSA” SHALL GOVERN THE TRANSACTION, while in the possession and custody of HEUNG-A is
RESULTED IN THE EXCLUSION OR INAPPLICABILITY OF a factual matter which has already been
THE CODE OF COMMERCE[;] determined by the RTC and the CA. The courts a
THE [CA] COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN quo were uniform in finding that the goods inside
NOT RULING THAT [PHILAM] HAS NO RIGHT OF the container van were damaged by sea water
_______________
while in transit on board HEUNG-A’s vessel.
29 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), p. 23. Being a factual question, it is not reviewable in
529 the herein petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 529 of Court. It is not the Court’s duty to evaluate and
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines weigh the evidence all over again
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation _______________
ACTION AGAINST [HEUNG-A and WALLEM] INSOFAR AS
30 Rollo (G.R. No. 187812), pp. 21-22.
DAMAGE TO CARGO IS CONCERNED IN VIEW OF THE
530 finds that the factual findings of the courts a
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED quo are supported by evidence on record.
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines The uncontested results of the inspection
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation survey conducted by Manila Adjusters Surveyors
as such function is conceded to be within the Company showed that sea water seeped into the
expertise of the trial court whose findings, when panels/sidings and roofing of the container van.
supported by substantial evidence on record and This was confirmed by the examination conducted
affirmed by the CA, are regarded with respect, if by Hernandez, the chemist of PRECISION, on
not binding effect, by this Court.31 samples from the cartons, boxes, aluminum foil
There are certain instances, however, when the and laminated plastic packaging materials. Based
Court is compelled to deviate from this rule, on the laboratory examination results,
dismantle the factual findings of the courts a _______________
quo and conduct a probe into the factual 31 Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R.
questions at issue. These circumstances are: (1) No. 171406, April 4, 2011, 647 SCRA 111, 126.
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd 32 Id., at pp. 126-127.
or impossible; (2) there is grave abuse of 531
discretion; (3) the findings are grounded entirely VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 531
on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) the Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
of facts; (5) the CA, in making its findings, went the contents of the van were drenched by sea
beyond the issues of the case and the same is water, an element which is highly conspicuous in
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and the high seas. It can thus be reasonably
appellee; (6) the findings of fact are conclusions concluded that negligence occurred while the
without citation of specific evidence on which they container van was in transit, in HEUNG-A’s
are based; (7) the CA manifestly overlooked possession, control and custody as the carrier.
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties Although the container van had defects, they
and which, if properly considered, would justify a were not, however, so severe as to accommodate
different conclusion; and (8) the findings of fact of heavy saturation of sea water. The holes were tiny
the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and the rusty portions did not cause gaps or
and are contradicted by the evidence on record.32 tearing. Hence, the van was still in a suitable
None of the foregoing instances is extant from condition to hold the goods and protect them from
records of the present case. Instead, the Court natural weather elements or even the normal
flutter of waves in the seas.
 The scale of the damage sustained by the cargo Q: Okay. So in other words, that space charter party
inside the van could have been only caused by is only to allow the shipper, Dongnama, to load its
large volume of sea water since not a single cargo for a certain specified space?
package inside was spared. Aside from the A: Yes, sir. 34

defective condition of the van, some other A charter party has been defined in Planters
circumstance or occurrence contributed to the Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals35 as:
[A] contract by which an entire ship, or some
damages sustained by the shipment. Since the
principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another
presence of sea water is highly concentrated in person for a specified time or use; a contract of
the high seas and considering HEUNG-A’s failure affreightment by which the owner of a ship or other
to demonstrate how it exercised due diligence in vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a merchant or
handling and preserving the container van while other person for the conveyance of goods, on a
in transit, it is liable for the damages sustained particular voyage, in consideration of the payment of
thereby. freight. x x x.  (Citations omitted)
36

As the carrier of the subject shipment, HEUNG- A charter party has two types. First, it could be
A was bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in a contract of affreightment whereby the use of
conveying the same and its slot charter shipping space on vessels is leased in part or as a
agreement with DONGNAMA did not divest it of whole, to carry goods for others. The charter-party
such characterization nor relieve it of any provides for the hire of vessel only, either for a
accountability for the shipment. determinate period of time (time charter) or for a
Based on the testimony of single or consecutive voyage (voyage charter).
Gonzales,33 WALLEM’s employee and witness, the The shipowner supplies the ship’s stores, pay for
charter party between HEUNG-A and DONGNAMA the wages of the master and the crew, and defray
was a contract of affreightment and not a bare the expenses for the maintenance of the
boat or demise charter, viz.: ship.37 The voyage remains under the
Q: Now, the space charter that you are mentioning responsibility of the carrier and it is answerable
is not either a bareboat or a demise? for the loss of goods received for transportation.
_______________
The charterer is free from liability to third persons
33 Rollo (G.R. No. 187701), pp. 88-90. in respect of the ship.38
532 Second, charter by demise or bareboat charter
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED under which the whole vessel is let to the
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines charterer with a transfer to him
_______________
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
A: Yes, sir. 34 Id., at pp. 89-90.
 35 G.R. No. 101503, September 15, 1993, 226 SCRA 476. “[C]ommon carriers, as a general rule, are
36 Id., at pp. 483-484.
37 Id., at p. 484.
presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the
goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or
38 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 374 Phil.
325, 334; 315 SCRA 709, 717 (1999). destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they
533 exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting
VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 533 the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation of proving that they observed such
of its entire command and possession and diligence.” 42
 Further, under Article 1742 of the Civil
consequent control over its navigation, including Code, even if the loss, destruction, or
the master and the crew, who are his deterioration of the goods should be caused by
servants.  The charterer mans the vessel with his
39 the faulty nature of the containers, the common
own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or
the voyage or service stipulated and hence liable lessen the loss.
for damages or loss sustained by the goods _______________
transported. 40
39 Supra note 35 at p. 484.
Clearly then, despite its contract of 40 Supra note 38 at p. 333; p. 717.
affreightment with DONGNAMA, HEUNG-A 41 Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. v.
remained responsible as the carrier, hence, Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., 432 Phil. 567, 578; 383
SCRA 23, 32 (2002).
answerable for the damages incurred by the 42 Id., at p. 579; pp. 32-33.
goods received for transportation. “[C]ommon 534
carriers, from the nature of their business and for 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reasons of public policy, are bound to Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
respect to the safety of the goods and the
Here, HEUNG-A failed to rebut this prima
passengers they transport. Thus, common carriers
facie presumption when it failed to give adequate
are required to render service with the greatest
explanation as to how the shipment inside the
skill and foresight and ‘to use all reasonable
container van was handled, stored and preserved
means to ascertain the nature and characteristics
to forestall or prevent any damage or loss while
of the goods tendered for shipment, and to
the same was in its possession, custody and
exercise due care in the handling and stowage,
control.
including such methods as their nature
requires.’”41
 PROTOP is solidarily liable with HEUNG-A for the 372 of the Code of Commerce fills in this gap,
lost/damaged shipment in view of the bill of lading thus:
the former issued to NOVARTIS. “A bill of lading is _______________
a written acknowledgment of the receipt of goods
43 Unsworth Transport International (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of
and an agreement to transport and to deliver Appeals, G.R. No. 166250, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 357, 366.
them at a specified place to a person named or on 44 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES , Article 1766.
his or her order. It operates both as a receipt and  
as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped 538
and a contract to transport and deliver the same 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
as therein stipulated.”43 PROTOP breached its Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
contract with NOVARTIS when it failed to deliver Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
the goods in the same quantity, quality and Article 372. The value of the goods which the
description as stated in Bill of Lading No. PROTAS carrier must pay in cases if loss or misplacement
200387. shall be determined in accordance with that
The CA did not err in applying the provisions of declared in the bill of lading, the shipper not
the COGSA specifically, the rule on Package being allowed to present proof that among the
Liability Limitation. goods declared therein there were articles of
greater value and money.
Under Article 1753 of the Civil Code, the law of
Horses, vehicles, vessels, equipment and all other
the country to which the goods are to be principal and accessory means of transportation shall
transported shall govern the liability of the be especially bound in favor of the shipper, although
common carrier for their loss, destruction or with respect to railroads said liability shall be
deterioration. Since the subject shipment was subordinated to the provisions of the laws of
being transported from South Korea to the concession with respect to the property, and to what
Philippines, the Civil Code provisions shall apply. this Code established as to the manner and form of
In all matters not regulated by the Civil Code, the effecting seizures and attachments against said
rights and obligations of common carriers shall be companies. (Emphasis ours)
governed by the Code of Commerce and by In case, however, of the shipper’s failure to
special laws,44 such as the COGSA. declare the value of the goods in the bill of lading,
While the Civil Code contains provisions making Section 4, paragraph 5 of the COGSA provides:
the common carrier liable for loss/damage to the Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be
goods transported, it failed to outline the manner or become liable for any loss or damage to or in
connection with the transportation of goods in an
of determining the amount of such liability. Article
amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of
the United States, or in case of goods not shipped in
packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent held responsible for any discrepancy if the
of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and description in the bill of lading is different from
value of such goods have been declared by the shipper the actual contents of the container.47
before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading. This Consonant with the ruling in the recent Asian
declaration, if embodied in the bill of lading shall
Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.,48 the
be prima facie evidence, but shall be conclusive on
the carrier.
prescriptive period for filing an action for
Hence, when there is a loss/damage to goods lost/damaged goods governed by contracts of
covered by contracts of carriage from a foreign carriage by sea to and from Philippine ports in
port to a Philippine port and in the absence a foreign trade is governed by paragraph 6, Section
shipper’s declaration of the value of the goods in 3 of the COGSA which states:
(6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the
the bill of lading, as in the present case, the
general nature of such loss or damage be given in
foregoing provisions of the COGSA shall apply. writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of
The CA, therefore, did discharge before or at the time of the removal of the
536 goods into the custody of the person entitled to
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery
Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of
not err in ruling that HEUNG-A, WALLEM and lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent,
_______________
PROTOP’s liability is limited to $500 per package
or pallet.45 45 If the number of cartons inside the container is disclosed in
The Court likewise affirms the CA in the bill of lading, each carton shall be treated as the COGSA
packages. See Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate
pronouncing HEUNG-A, WALLEM and PROTOP Appellate Court, No. L-71478, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 464, 476-
liable only for the lost/damaged 17 pallets instead 477.
of 19 pallets stated in the bill of lading. This is 46 United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, No. L-
73490, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 189, 194.
because, per the “Shipper’s Load and Count” 47 Id.
arrangement, the contents are not required to be 48 G.R. No. 181319, July 24, 2013, 702 SCRA 88.
checked and inventoried by the carrier at the port 537
of loading or before said carrier enters the port of VOL. 730, JULY 23, 2014 537
unloading in the Philippines since it is the shipper Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
who has the sole responsibility for the quantity, Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
description and condition of the cargoes shipped the notice must be given within three days of the
in container vans.46 As such, the carrier cannot be delivery.
 Said notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon The amount which PHILAM is entitled to receive
the receipt for the goods given by the person taking shall earn a legal interest at the rate of six
delivery thereof. percent (6%) per annum
The notice in writing need not be given if the state 538
of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
subject of joint survey or inspection. In any event the
carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (now Chartis Philippines
liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is Insurance, Inc.) vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or from the date of finality of this judgment until its
the date when the goods should have been full satisfaction pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery
delivered: Provided, That if a notice of loss or damage, Frames.49
either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the
for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice Decision dated January 30, 2009 of the Court of
the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 89482 is
after the delivery of the goods or the date when the
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that
goods should have been delivered.
the interest rate on the award of US$8,500.00
It was further ruled in Asian Terminals that
shall be six percent (6%) per annum from the date
pursuant to the foregoing COGSA provision, failure
of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
to comply with the notice requirement shall not
SO ORDERED.
affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De
suit within one year after delivery of the goods.
Castro, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
The consignee, NOVARTIS, received the subject
Judgment affirmed with modification.
shipment on January 5, 2001. PHILAM, as the
Notes.—The Civil Code does not limit the
subrogee of NOVARTIS, filed a claim against
liability of the common carrier to a fixed amount
PROTOP on June 4, 2001, against WALLEM on
per package; The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
October 12, 2001 and against HEUNG-A on
(COGSA) supplements the Civil Code by
December 11, 2001, or all within the one-year
establishing a provision limiting the carrier’s
prescriptive period. Verily then, despite
liability in the absence of a shipper’s declaration
NOVARTIS’ failure to comply with the three-day
of a higher value in the bill of lading. (Unsworth
notice requirement, its subrogee PHILAM is not
Transport International [Phils.], Inc. vs. Court of
barred from seeking reimbursement from
Appeals, 625 SCRA 357 [2010])
PROTOP, HEUNG-A and WALLEM because the
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA),
demands for payment were timely filed.
Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress, was
accepted to be made applicable to all contracts
for the carriage of goods by sea to and from
Philippine ports in foreign trade by virtue of
Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 65. (Insurance
Company of North America vs. Asian Terminals,
Inc., 666 SCRA 226 [2012])
——o0o——
_______________

49 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved.