Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 86, Manila

NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY

and NATIONAL TRUCKING
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- Civil Case No. 62709

ALLIED SHIPPING CORPORATION

Accused,

x--------------------------------------------/

DECISION

Plaintiffs National Supplies Authority (NSA) and National Trucking

Corporation (NTC) filed this action for damages against defendant Allied
Shipping Corporation (ASC) for breach of the contract of carriage to deliver
the former’s commodities of non-fat dried milk.

FACTS

Examination of the respective evidence presented in trial showed that NSA

entered into an Agreement with CARE Philippines (CARE) for the
continuation of Food Assistance Programs. CARE bound itself to acquire
by donation commodities such as non-fat dried milk deemed suited for the
project. In turn, NSA engaged the service of NTC to receive and store said
commodities, and to eventually deliver the same to the beneficiaries, as
directed by the Department of Health (DOH).

DOH issued several delivery orders to consignee Hassan Salim of NTC

Branch, Zamboanga City, totaling five thousand eight hundred twenty four
(5,824) bags of non-fat dried milk. NSA shipped the said bags through the
vessels of ASC that issued bill of ladings for NTC.

Page 1 of 3
 EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs presented Vicente Tuason as the first witness who testified to the
fact that NTC contracted the services of ASC for the delivery of non-fat
dried milk. Tuason also attested that NSA sent a bill of lading to Salim, and
that the latter did not receive the commodities because the bill of lading
was later returned to NSA by Salim in 2003.

Atty. Gregorio Lantana as second witness for the plaintiff testified that on
investigation Salim denied receipt of the commodities from ASC and
returned to Manila with the original bill of lading. On reinvestigation, Atty.
Lantana was served a Salim’s resignation through proxy and confirmed
with the checker of ASC that Salim had already withdrew the commodities
but was unable to produce signed copies of the delivery receipts.

Atty.Lantana later sent ASC a claims letter, but was denied in two (2)
separate replies by the defendant.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT

Defense presented Ricardo Samson as first witness who testified that

Salim had received from him the commodities from October to December
2003. He attested that he had copies of the cargo delivery receipts as proof
of delivery to Salim. He claimed that Lito Asis was also authorized to
receive deliveries as NTC’s representative aside from Salim. Samson
further stated that signatures other than Salim and Asis were affixed on
some of the delivery receipts.

Ismael Zamora as second witness testified that he had delivered

commodities to Salim from October 2003 to January 2004. Zamora also
claimed that Asis or Armand Lara of NTC sometimes received deliveries in
behalf of Salim.

Atty. Ariel Luna as third witness testified that he sent a letter reply to the
claims of NTC denying liability, and sent another letter confirming Salim’s
withdrawal of the goods with cargo delivery receipts and container list as
evidence. Lastly, he attested that ASC received a letter from Helen Jacinto
of NTC claiming that Salim was no longer the authorized representative of
NTC.

Page 2 of 3
Atty. Luna prepared a list of expenses, with supporting documents, incurred
by ASC due to the filing of this case.

ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether or not ASC delivered the cargoes to NTC
or Salim. Likewise, the subsequent issue of whether the former is entitled
to recover damages from NSA and NTC.

DISCUSSION

Facts supported by evidence show that Salim as consignee and

representative of NTC received the cargoes from ASC. Witnesses Samson
and Zamora attested to Salim’s or his subodinates’ presence during
deliveries. Plaintiffs never rebutted these testimonies and failed to present
Salim to deny the statements.

Further, the sudden resignation of Salim upon reinvestigation of Atty.

Lantana, the plaintiffs own witness, shows the former’s aversion to the
issue, and serve as tell-tale signs of guilt.

Lastly, the Plaintiff failed to rebut the strong evidence presented by the
defense showing Salim had received the commodities in their behalf.
Hence, the plaintiffs failed to prove their cause for action by clear
preponderance of evidence.

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered dismissing the complaint in favor of

the defendant. Further, plaintiffs are ordered to pay, jointly and solidarily, to
the defendant, actual damages, attoney’s fees plus the costs of suit,
pursuant to the latter’s counterclaim.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, May 14, 2008.

(Name Omitted)
Judge

Page 3 of 3