benguet exploration v ca

8/10/2019 Benguet Exploration v CA

1/3

Benguet Exploration, Inc. v CA (2001)Mendoza, J.Re: Rule 6-9

** I really dont know which part of the case is relevant to the topic. The casediscussed issues on evidence and nothing on civpro.

FACTSBenguet Exploration exported cargo consisting of 2,243.496 wet tons of copper concentrates (asprovided in the bill of lading) to japan. It was loaded to respondent Seawood Shippings vesseland was insured by Switzerland Insurance. However, when the cargo was unloaded in Japan, thecargo was 355 metric tons short of the amount state in the bill of lading. Petitioner Benguet madea formal demand for the value of the alleged shortgage but both Seawood Shipping andSwitzerland Insurance refuse the demand.

Petitioner Benguet Exploration filed a complaint for damages against Seawood Shipping Inc withRTC. Benguet filed another complaint for damages against respondent Switzerland GeneralInsurance, Co., LTD.

The two cases were consolidated. Switzerland Insurance filed a 3rd party complaint against

Seawood Shipping, praying that the latter be ordered to indemnify it for whatever might beadjudged against it in favor of petitioner.

Trial Court: Based on the evidence presented, the trial court dismissed petitioners comp laintas well as Switzerland Insurances third party complaint against Seawood shipping.

CA:CA affirmed TCs decision.

Petitioner Benguet contends that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that it failed toestablish the loss or shortage of the subject cargo because such loss was sufficiently established bydocumentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the admissions of private respondents.

1. Petitioner argues that documents regarding the tonnage of the copper concentrates havebeen properly identified and that the bill of lading, the Certificate of Weight, and the

Mates Receipt, all of which stated that 2,243.496 wet metric tons of copper concentrateswere loaded on the ship, create a prima faciepresumption that such amount was indeedwhat was loaded on the vessel.

2. Petitioner asserts that the Draft Survey Report of OMIC was sufficient evidence to provethat the cargo which arrived in Japan had a shortage of 355 wet metric tons.

ISSUE1.

Whether petitioner was able to prove the there was actually a shortage2.

Whether the establishment of the genuineness and due execution of the documentsresults to prima facie presumption that the their contents are true.

HELD

1.

PROVING THE SHORTAGEIt is settled that only questions of law may be raised on appeal by certiorari under Rule45. Contrary to this rule, petitioner is raising questions of facts as it seeks an evaluationof the evidence presented by the parties. However, we find no basis for concluding that

both the trial court and the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence in this case.

Petitioner failed to present evidence to prove that the weight of the copperconcentrates actually loaded on the ship Sangkulirang No. 3 was 2,243.496 wet


2/3


3/3

admissions made by Lumibao and Cayabyab that they had no personal knowledge of the actualamount of copper concentrates loaded on the vessel.

benguet exploration v ca

Documents