G.R. No. 174610 ; July 14, 2009
SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., and PATRICK RONAS, Petitioners, vs. SPRINT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., RICARDO CRUZ PAPA, doing business under the style PAPA TRANSPORT SERVICES, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Sprint Transport Services, Inc. filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against petitioner Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc. and its general manager, Patrick Ronas. Sprint alleged that it entered into an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) with Soriamont for chassis units. Through authorization letters issued by Ronas, Papa Transport Services (PTS) and Rebson Trucking withdrew two specific chassis units from Sprint’s yard in June 1996. Soriamont subsequently failed to pay rental fees and, through a letter from Ronas, informed Sprint that the chassis units were lost. Despite demands, Soriamont neither returned the equipment nor paid the accrued rentals.
Soriamont admitted to a lease agreement but only for a period ending in January 1994, denying the specific ELA dated December 1993. It argued it was not a party-in-interest, contending that PTS and Rebson Trucking were the entities that withdrew and failed to return the equipment. Soriamont and Ronas filed a Third-Party Complaint against Ricardo Cruz Papa (PTS), who was declared in default. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Soriamont liable for the value of the lost chassis and unpaid rentals, while absolving Ronas and Papa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that Soriamont is liable to Sprint for the value of the lost leased chassis units and the unpaid rentals.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual conclusions of the lower courts, which are generally binding. The records substantiated the existence of a lease agreement between Sprint and Soriamont. Crucially, the authorization letters signed by Ronas, Soriamont’s general manager, expressly permitted PTS to withdraw the specific chassis units from Sprint’s yard. This act constituted a clear exercise of Soriamont’s rights under the lease, making it responsible for the equipment. Soriamont’s subsequent letter to Sprint, acknowledging the loss and requesting a hold on further releases to PTS, further confirmed its recognition of liability for the units.
The Court upheld the award for the chassis value and unpaid rentals. However, it modified the interest rate in accordance with established jurisprudence. Interest on the monetary awards was set at 12% per annum from the date of the RTC’s decision until its finality. Thereafter, the total amount would earn interest at 6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction. The Court sustained the award of attorney’s fees, finding it justified under the circumstances. The liability of Soriamont is solidary with the third-party defendant, Ricardo Cruz Papa, given his default and the established fact that his company, PTS, was the entity that physically received and failed to return the equipment.