View full case

ANNIE TAN v. GREAT HARVEST ENTERPRISES

FACTS:

Annie Tan filed a petition for review on certiorari against the Court of Appeals' decision, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling in favor of Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc. Tan was hired by Great Harvest to transport 430 bags of soya beans worth P230,000 from Manila to Quezon City. However, when the shipment was rejected at the intended destination, Tan was instructed to deliver it to Great Harvest's warehouse in Malabon. Unfortunately, the truck and its shipment did not reach the warehouse. Tan admitted that she couldn't locate either the truck or the goods. Tan filed a complaint accusing her employee and another person of stealing the shipment but refused to pay for the missing goods or settle the matter with Great Harvest. The trial court held Tan liable for the missing shipment, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision. The Court of Appeals found that Tan did not meet the extraordinary level of diligence expected of her as a common carrier.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the questions of fact raised by the petitioner can be entertained in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  2. Whether the judgments of the Court of Appeals are supported by substantial evidence.

  3. Whether there was a verbal contract for the hauling and delivery of the soya beans, and if so, whether it was breached by the petitioner.

  4. Whether the loss of the soya beans falls under any of the exceptions to the common carrier's liability under Article 1734 of the Civil Code.

  5. Whether the loss of the soya beans was attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force" that would absolve the petitioner from liability.

RULING:

  1. No. The Rules of Court expressly state that only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of appellate courts, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon the Supreme Court. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. In this case, a review of the records shows that the judgments of the Court of Appeals are supported by substantial evidence.

  2. Yes. The Court of Appeals' judgments are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court found that the respondent was able to prove its contract of carriage with the petitioner. The testimony of the respondent's witness, Cynthia Chua, was deemed more believable than the petitioner's claims regarding the details of their contract of carriage. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's appreciation of Chua's testimony.

  3. The Supreme Court held that there was a verbal contract for the hauling and delivery of the soya beans, and that the petitioner breached the contract by failing to deliver the cargo to the respondent. The Court affirmed the lower court's findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.

  4. The Court also ruled that the loss of the soya beans did not fall under any of the exceptions to the common carrier's liability under Article 1734 of the Civil Code. The petitioner failed to deliver the goods due to her driver absconding with them, and there was no evidence to show that any of the enumerated exceptions caused the loss.

  5. Furthermore, the Court found that the loss of the soya beans was not attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force" that would absolve the petitioner from liability. The loss was brought about by the petitioner's failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in vetting her driver, providing security for the cargo, and taking out insurance on the shipment's value.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is primarily due to the nature of their business and the public policy behind it.

  • Common carriers are mandated to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods and the safety of passengers.

  • A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons.

  • In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or negligent, unless they can prove extraordinary diligence.

  • Common carriers are required to internalize or shoulder the costs and consequences of their contract of carriage.

  • The law intervenes in the contracts of carriage to impose sanctions on common carriers to achieve allocative efficiency between the parties.

  • The Supreme Court accords the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility.

  • Article 1734 of the Civil Code holds a common carrier fully responsible for the goods entrusted to them, unless the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods falls under any of the enumerated exceptions.

  • The loss of goods by theft or robbery does not automatically exempt a common carrier from liability. The carrier's liability for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers can only be diminished or divested if the theft or robbery was attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force."