G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013.* ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., petitioner, vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.

 Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; “Question of Law” and “Question of Fact,” Distinguished.―A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.

Same; Same; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.―The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari. This rule, however, is not ironclad and admits certain exceptions, such as when (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 fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Contiquincybunge Export Company loaded 6,843.700 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal in Bulk on board the vessel MN “Sea Dream” at the Port of Darrow, Louisiana, U.S.A., for delivery to the Port of Manila to respondent Simon Enterprises, Inc., as consignee. When the vessel arrived at the South Harbor in Manila, the shipment was discharged to the receiving barges of petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), the arrastre operator. Respondent later received the shipment but claimed having received only 6,825.144 metric tons of U.S. Soybean Meal, or short by 18.556 metric tons, which is estimated to be worth US$7,100.16 or P186,743.20. 3

shortage of 199.863 metric tons, e

 RTC of Manila rendered a Decision 9 holding petitioner ATI and its co-defendants solidarily liable to respondent for damages arising from the shortage. The RTC held:

 

T H E C O UR TA - Q UO C O M M I T T E D SE R I O US A N D R E V E RSI B L E E R R O R I N H O L D I N G D E F E N D A N T [ - ] A P P E L L A N T A T I SO L I D A R I L Y L I A B L E W I T H C O - D E F E N D A N T A P P E L L A N T I N T E R - ASI A M A R I N E T R A NSP O R T , I N C. C O N T R A R Y T O T H E E V I D E N C E P R ESE N T E D.1 2

CA affirmed

ATI failed to establish that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods or exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss as provided in Article 1742 1 4 of the Civil Cod e. The CA also ruled th

ATI filed motion for reconsideration - CA denied

ATI filed the present petition raising the sole issue of whether the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding petitioner ATI solidarily liable with its codefendants for the shortage incurred in the shipment of the goods to respondent.

SC find merit

We note that the matters raised by petitioner ATI involve questions of fact which are generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as the Court is not a trier of facts. Section 1 thereof provides that “[t]he petition x x x shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth.”

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises  as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. 1 9

The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari. This rule, however, is not ironclad and admits certain exceptions, such as when (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 fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10)

the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties

. The CA misapprehended the following facts.

First, petitioner ATI is correct in arguing that the respondent failed to prove that the subject shipment suffered actual shortage, as there was no competent evidence to prove that it actually weighed 3,300 metric tons at the port of origin.

 Second, as correctly asserted by petitioner ATI, the shortage, if any, may have been due to the inherent nature of the subject shipment or its packaging since the subject cargo was shipped in bulk and had a moisture content of 12.5%.

Third, we agree with the petitioner ATI that respondent has not proven any negligence on the part of the former. 

Considering that respondent was not able to establish conclusively that the subject shipment weighed 3,300 metric tons at the port of loading, and that it cannot therefore be concluded that there was a shortage for which petitioner should be responsible; bearing in mind that the subject shipment most likely lost weight in transit due to the inherent nature of Soya Bean Meal; assuming that the shipment lost weight in transit due to desorption, the shortage of 199.863 metric tons that respondent alleges is a minimal 6.05% of the weight of the entire shipment, which is within the allowable 10% allowance for loss; and noting that the respondent was not able to show negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the weighing methods which respondent relied upon to establish the shortage it alleges is inaccurate, respondent cannot fairly claim damages against petitioner for the subject shipment’s alleged shortage.