GR 110853; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110853 ; July 31, 2000
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE CLEMENTE SORIANO OF RTC, MANILA, Branch 3, and FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) received a shipment of a submersible pump in good order in Los Angeles for transport to Manila, issuing a clean through bill of lading. The cargo was insured by FGU Insurance Corporation. The shipment was transshipped in Hong Kong onto the vessel MS “Partas,” which delivered it to Manila. Upon discharge, one box was in bad order. The consignee later discovered a shortage of parts. After the consignee’s claim was denied by the carriers, FGU, as insurer, paid the consignee and was subrogated to its rights. FGU then filed a complaint for recovery against APL, among others.
The Regional Trial Court held APL liable, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that under the through bill of lading, APL, as the first carrier, undertook responsibility for the entire carriage from loading to final destination. Therefore, APL was liable for the loss even if it might have occurred during the subsequent leg of the voyage handled by MS “Partas.”
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual finding that APL issued the through bill of lading and is thus liable as the common carrier responsible for the entire voyage.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The core of APL’s petition challenged the factual finding that it issued the bill of lading through its agent, contending instead that a freight forwarder issued it independently. This challenge raised a question of fact, not law. Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court must raise only questions of law.
The Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to re-examine evidence and overturn such findings. Since APL’s arguments essentially sought a re-evaluation of the evidence concerning the issuance of the bill of lading—a factual matter—the petition was improper. Consequently, the legal conclusion of APL’s liability, based on the affirmed factual premise of it being the issuing carrier under a through bill of lading, was upheld.