Archive for September, 2011


CASE 2011-0190: PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V “EXPLORER”, WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC. (G.R. NO. 175409, 07 SEPTEMBER 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.) SUBJECT: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. (BRIEF TITLE: PHILIPPINE CHARTER VS. EXPLORER MARITIME).

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 17, 2011

CASE 2011-0190: PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V “EXPLORER”, WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC. (G.R. NO. 175409, 07 SEPTEMBER 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.) SUBJECT: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. (BRIEF TITLE: PHILIPPINE CHARTER VS. EXPLORER MARITIME).

 

=================================

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78834 is hereby AFFIRMED.

 

Costs against petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

=================================

 

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

 

 

FIRST DIVISION

 

 

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION,

                     Petitioner,

 

–  versus  –

 

EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V “EXPLORER”, WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC.,

                       Respondents.

   G.R. No.  175409

 

Present:

 

CORONA, C.J.,

     Chairperson,     

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BERSAMIN,

DELCASTILLO, and

VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

 

Promulgated:

 

September 7, 2011

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

 

 

D E C I S I O N

 

 

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

 

 

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1][1] of the Court of Appeals dated July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78834, which affirmed the Order[2][2] of Branch 37, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila dated February 14, 2001 dismissing the Complaint for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the same for an unreasonable length of time.

 

On March 22, 1995, petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), as insurer-subrogee, filed with the RTC of Manila a Complaint against respondents, to wit: the unknown owner of the vessel M/V “Explorer” (common carrier), Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (ship agent), Asian Terminals, Inc. (arrastre), and Foremost International Port Services, Inc. (broker).  PCIC sought to recover from the respondents the sum of P342,605.50, allegedly representing the value of lost or damaged shipment paid to the insured, interest and attorney’s fees.  The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73340 and was raffled to Branch 37.  On the same date, PCIC filed a similar case against respondents Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc., and Foremost International Port Services, Inc., but, this time, the fourth defendant is “the unknown owner of the vessel M/V “Taygetus.”  This second case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73341 and was raffled to Branch 38.

 

Respondents filed their respective answers with counterclaims in Civil Case No. 95-73340, pending before Branch 37.  PCIC later filed its answer to the counterclaims.  On September 18, 1995, PCIC filed an ex parte motion to set the case for pre-trial conference, which was granted by the trial court in its Order dated September 26, 1995.  However, before the scheduled date of the pre-trial conference, PCIC filed on September 19, 1996 its Amended Complaint.  The “Unknown Owner” of the vessel M/V “Explorer” and Asian Terminals, Inc. filed anew their respective answers with counterclaims.

 

Foremost International Port Services, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was later denied by the trial court in an Order dated December 4, 1996.

 

On December 5, 2000, respondent common carrier, “the Unknown Owner” of the vessel M/V “Explorer,” and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time.  PCIC allegedly filed its Opposition, claiming that the trial court has not yet acted on its Motion to Disclose which it purportedly filed on November 19, 1997.  In said motion, PCIC supposedly prayed for the trial court to order respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. to disclose the true identity and whereabouts of defendant “Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V ‘Explorer.’” 

 

On February 14, 2001, the trial court issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 95-73340 for failure of petitioner to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.  Upon receipt of the order of dismissal on March 20, 2001, PCIC allegedly realized that its Motion to Disclose was inadvertently filed with Branch 38 of the RTC of Manila, where the similar case involving the vessel M/V “Taygetus” (Civil Case No. 95-73341) was raffled to, and not with Branch 37, where the present case (Civil Case No. 95-73340) was pending.

 

Thus, PCIC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the February 14, 2001 Order, explaining that its Motion to Disclose was erroneously filed with Branch 38.  PCIC claimed that the mistake stemmed from the confusion created by an error of the docket section of the RTC of Manila in stamping the same docket number to the simultaneously filed cases.  According to PCIC, it believed that it was still premature to move for the setting of the pre-trial conference with the Motion to Disclose still pending resolution.  On May 6, 2003, the trial court issued the Order denying PCIC’s Motion for Reconsideration.

 

On May 21, 2003, PCIC, through new counsel, appealed to the Court of Appeals.  On July 20, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming the February 14, 2001 Order of the RTC.  On November 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued its Resolution[3][3] denying PCIC’s Motion for Reconsideration.

 

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.  On June 27, 2007, this Court required the counsel of the “Unknown Owner” of the vessel M/V Explorer and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. to submit proof of identification of the owner of said vessel.[4][4]  On September 17, 2007, this Court, pursuant to the information provided by Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., directed its Division Clerk of Court to change “Unknown Owner” to “Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd.” in the title of this case.[5][5]

 

In affirming the dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-73340, the Court of Appeals held that PCIC should have filed a motion to resolve the Motion to Disclose after a reasonable time from its alleged erroneous filing.  PCIC could have also followed up the status of the case by making inquiries on the court’s action on their motion, instead of just waiting for any resolution from the court for more than three years.  The appellate court likewise noted that the Motion to Disclose was not the only erroneous filing done by PCIC’s former counsel, the Linsangan Law Office.  The records of the case at bar show that on November 16, 1997, said law office filed with Branch 37 a Pre-trial Brief for the case captioned as “Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Unknown Owners of the Vessel MV ‘Taygetus’, et al., Civil Case No. 95-73340.”  The firm later filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that the same was intended for Civil Case No. 95-73341 which was pending before Branch 38.  All these considered, the Court of Appeals ruled that PCIC must bear the consequences of its counsel’s inaction and negligence, as well as its own. [6][6]

 

PCIC claims that the merits of its case warrant that it not be decided on technicalities.  Furthermore, PCIC claims that its former counsel merely committed excusable negligence when it erroneously filed the Motion to Disclose with the wrong branch of the court where the case is pending. 

 

The basis for the dismissal by the trial court of Civil Case No. 95-73340 is Section 3, Rule 17 and Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which respectively provide:

 

Section 3.  Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff. – If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.  This dismissal shall have the effect of adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

 

x x x x

 

Section 1. When conducted. – After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.

 

 

In the fairly recent case of Espiritu v. Lazaro,[7][7] this Court, in affirming the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute on account of the omission of the plaintiff therein to move to set the case for pre-trial for almost one year from their receipt of the Answer, issued several guidelines in effecting such dismissal:

 

Respondents Lazaro filed the Cautionary Answer with Manifestation and Motion to File a Supplemental/Amended Answer on July 19, 2002, a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 5, 2002. Believing that the pending motion had to be resolved first, petitioners waited for the court to act on the motion to file a supplemental answer. Despite the lapse of almost one year,[8][8] petitioners kept on waiting, without doing anything to stir the court into action.

 

In any case, petitioners should not have waited for the court to act on the motion to file a supplemental answer or for the defendants to file a supplemental answer.  As previously stated, the rule clearly states that the case must be set for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed.  Since respondents already filed a cautionary answer and [petitioners did not file any reply to it] the case was already ripe for pre-trial. 

 

It bears stressing that the sanction of dismissal may be imposed even absent any allegation and proof of the plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules.  The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested in obtaining the relief prayed for.

 

In this case, there was no justifiable reason for petitioners’ failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial. Petitioners’ stubborn insistence that the case was not yet ripe for pre-trial is erroneous. Although petitioners state that there are strong and compelling reasons justifying a liberal application of the rule, the Court finds none in this case. The burden to show that there are compelling reasons that would make a dismissal of the case unjustified is on petitioners, and they have not adduced any such compelling reason.[9][9] (Emphases supplied.)

 

 

In the case at bar, the alleged Motion to Disclose was filed on November 19, 1997.  Respondents filed the Motion to Dismiss on December 5, 2000.  By that time, PCIC’s inaction was thus already almost three years.  There is therefore no question that the failure to prosecute in the case at bar was for an unreasonable length of time.  Consequently, the Complaint may be dismissed even absent any allegation and proof of the plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules.  The burden is now on PCIC to show that there are compelling reasons that would render the dismissal of the case unjustified.

 

The only explanation that the PCIC can offer for its omission is that it was waiting for the resolution of its Motion to Disclose, which it allegedly filed with another branch of the court.  According to PCIC, it was premature for it to move for the setting of the pre-trial conference before the resolution of the Motion to Disclose.

 

We disagree.  Respondent Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., which was then referred to as the “Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V ‘Explorer,’” had already been properly impleaded pursuant to Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

 

Section 14.  Unknown identity or name of defendant – Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.

 

 

In the Amended Complaint, PCIC alleged that defendant “Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V ‘Explorer’” is a foreign corporation whose identity or name or office address are unknown to PCIC but is doing business in the Philippines through its local agent, co-defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., a domestic corporation.[10][10]  PCIC then added that both defendants may be served with summons and other court processes in the address of Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc.,[11][11] which was correctly done[12][12] pursuant to Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

 

Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. – When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

 

As all the parties have been properly impleaded, the resolution of the Motion to Disclose was unnecessary for the purpose of setting the case for pre-trial. 

 

Furthermore, Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court likewise provides that an agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.  Since Civil Case No. 95-73340 was an action for damages, the agent may be properly sued without impleading the principal.  Thus, even assuming that petitioner had filed its Motion to Disclose with the proper court, its pendency did not bar PCIC from moving for the setting of the case for pre-trial as required under Rule 18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.[13][13]

 

Indeed, we find no error on the part of the lower courts in not giving credit to the purportedly erroneously filed Motion to Disclose. The only document presented by PCIC to prove the same, a photocopy thereof attached to their Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC, is highly suspicious.  Said photocopy[14][14] of the Motion to Disclose contains an explanation why the same was filed through registered mail.  However, it was also stamped as “RECEIVED” by the RTC on November 19, 1997,[15][15] indicating that said attachment was a receiving copy.  The receiving copy was not signed by any court personnel[16][16] and does not contain any proof of service on the parties.  The Motion sets the hearing thereon on the same date of its filing, November 19, 1997.[17][17]

 

Likewise, PCIC’s attempt to shift the blame to the docket section of the RTC of Manila, which allegedly stamped the same docket number to Civil Case No. 95-73340 (involving M/V Explorer) and Civil Case No. 95-73341 (involving M/V Taygetus), is completely unfounded.  A perusal of the Complaint in the case at bar shows that it was correctly stamped Civil Case No. “95-73340,” and the branch number was correctly written as 37.[18][18]  PCIC did not bother to attach the alleged complaint filed in Branch 38 involving M/V Taygetus.  However, it does not escape our attention that PCIC in its own pleadings repeatedly refer to the case pending in Branch 38 as Civil Case No. 95-73341, contrary to its claim that the two cases were docketed with the same number.  In all, PCIC failed to adequately account how its counsel could have mistakenly filed the Motion intended for Branch 37 in Branch 38. Worse, said counsel also allegedly only discovered the error after three years from the filing of the Motion to Disclose. Such a circumstance could have only occurred if both PCIC and its counsel had indeed been uninterested and lax in prosecuting the case.  

 

We therefore hold that the RTC was correct in dismissing Civil Case No. 95-73340 for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the same for an unreasonable length of time.  As discussed by the Court of Appeals, PCIC could have filed a motion for the early resolution of their Motion to Disclose after the apparent failure of the court to do so.  If PCIC had done so, it would possibly have discovered the error in the filing of said motion much earlier.  Finally, it is worth noting that the defendants also have the right to the speedy disposition of the case; the delay of the pre-trial and the trial might cause the impairment of their defenses.[19][19] 

 

 

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78834 is hereby AFFIRMED.

 

Costs against petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

 

                                                 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

                                       Associate Justice

 

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

 

 

 

 

 

 

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
   
   
   
   
   
   

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

 

 

[1][1]           Rollo, pp. 33-40; penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.

[2][2]           CA rollo, p. 36.

[3][3]           Rollo, p. 43.

[4][4]          Id. at 90.

[5][5]          Id. at 110a.

[6][6]          Id. at 38-39.

[7][7]           G.R. No. 181020, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 566.

[8][8]           The trial court in the cited case dismissed the complaint on July 24, 2003, slightly less than one year from the plaintiff’s receipt of the Cautionary Answer on August 5, 2002. (Id. at 570.) 

[9][9]          Id. at 572-573.

[10][10]         Records, p. 75.

[11][11]        Id.

[12][12]        Id. at 37.

[13][13]         Rule 18, Section 1 provides that “[a]fter the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pretrial.”

[14][14]         Records, pp. 141-144.

[15][15]        Id. at 141.

[16][16]        Id.

[17][17]        Id.

[18][18]        Id. at 1.

[19][19]         See Olave v. Mistas, G.R. No. 155193, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 479, 493.

Comment

TRIVIA 0024: WHO IS GEN. DANILO LIM?

Filed under: TRIVIA — Leave a comment
September 16, 2011

TRIVIA 0024: WHO IS GEN. DANILO LIM?

 

DANILO LIM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the Filipino General. For the Malaysian writer, see Danny Lim.

Danilo D. Lim

Born June 2, 1955 (1955-06-02) (age 56)
Place of birth Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines
Allegiance  Philippines
Service/branch Army
Rank Brigadier General
Commands held Manila Peninsula rebellion

Danilo Lim (born June 2, 1955 in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines) is a retired Filipino brigadier general. He has been incarcerated at the Camp Crame in Quezon City from 2006 to 2010 for rebellion charges and attempted coup d’état. After more than 4 years in prison, Lim was granted temporary freedom by the Armed Forces of the Philippines on May 31, 2010.

In 2003, Lim joined then Navy lieutenant and now Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and other young military officers in taking over the Oakwood Hotel in Makati City to air their grievances against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

On November 29, 2007, the same group triggered a standoff at the Peninsula Manila hotel in Makati City, where he called for Arroyo’s ouster.[1]

On September 20, 2009, Lim announced his plan to join the 2010 senatorial race, as an independent candidate, but later joined the Liberal Party of Senator Benigno Aquino III.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Biography

[edit] Early life

Danilo Lim was born on June 2, 1955, on Solano,Nueva Vizcaya,Philippines. The youngest of five brothers, he is of Chinese descent: his roots can be traced toXiamen,China, formerlyAmoy. His father married a girl fromBohol.

He finished elementary and high school in Solano with flying colors. He was in his first year at UP when he took the entrance exams to the Philippine Military Academy. He topped the exams.

[edit] PhilippineMilitaryAcademy

Brigadier General Danilo “Danny” Lim is a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy Makatarungan Class 1978. He is the mistah of adopted member, Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, President, Republic of the Philippines and the current Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Delfin N. Bangit, AFP.

While a plebe, he took the entrance exam to the United States Military Academy (USMA) atWest Point, one of the world’s premier military academies, because of an outstanding performance as cadet. He topped the exams.

[edit] Early career

After graduation, he returned to the country, took the Scout Ranger Course where he graduated No. 1 and led his team in registering the only encounter of the class during their test mission. He opted to be assigned to Jolo after that. He commanded the forward Recon Unit of the 1st Infantry Division (Philippines) in Sulu where he was wounded twice in combat.

[edit] Involvement with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM)

Capt. Danny Lim was recruited into the rightist Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) during the 1980s and was involved in the People Power Revolution, but came into public knowledge during the botched 1989 Coup d’État against the Cory Aquino government. It was then Capt. Danny Lim along with Capt. Abraham Puruganan who led the 1st Scout Ranger Regiment into what has been known as the “Siege of Makati.”

[edit]ManilaPeninsula Incident

Main article: Manila Peninsula mutiny

On the morning of November 29, 2007, Antonio Trillanes IV, Brigadier General Danilo Lim, Capt. Nicanor Faeldon and other Magdalo officials walked out of their trial and marched through the streets of Makati City, calling for the ouster of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. They then had a meeting on the second floor of The Peninsula Manila Hotel along Ayala Avenue. Former vice-president Teofisto Guingona joined the march to the Manila Peninsula Hotel, as well as some soldiers from the AFP.

3 P.M. Deadline

Thirty soldiers who stood on trial for the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny walked out of court and set up a meeting at The Peninsula Manila Hotel, where they called for the ouster of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. They had been joined by former vice-president Teofisto Guingona, who called the gathering a “New Edsa“.

Arroyo called for an emergency Cabinet meeting as she took a chopper back to the Palace amid tight security. Novaliches Catholic Bishop Antonio Tobias, Infanta Bishop Emeritus Julio Labayen, and Fr. Robert Reyes joined the Antonio Trillanes IV group, while Exec. Sec. Eduardo Ermita and Ignacio Bunye rushed back to Malacañang. PSG sealed off the Palace, while troops secured the north and southLuzonexpressways.

A website forthwith appeared, proclaiming General Lim and Senator Antonio Trillanes IV as the leaders of the incident.[2] The website entry read: “Senator Antonio Trillanes, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, Magdalo soldiers, their guards and the people have started marching towards Makati triangle. We presently find in existence a dangerous concept where the armed forces now owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the government rather than to the country and the Constitution they have sworn to protect. That is a concept we defy and struggle to eradicate. If you believe you are a man of will and courage with unselfish motives and brave enough to fight against such tyranny, rise up and be counted!“[3]

The Philippine National Police (PNP) gave Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim until 3 p.m. to surrender, as it evacuated guests and personnel inside the Manila Peninsula Hotel.[4]

The PNP general also ordered later the evacuation of the press in the hotel. Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, stated, “We make this fateful step of removing Mrs. Macapagal-Arroyo from the presidency and undertake the formation of a new government.”[5]

Security forces were scheduled the ManilaPeninsulain MakatiCityat exactly 3 p.m. to arrest rebel soldiers. Judge Oscar Pimentel, Makati Regional Trial Court, issued the arrest order, and Director Geary Barias, National Capital Region Police Office director, stated: “Arrests will be made at 3 p.m.“[6]

After 3 p.m., police director Geary Barias of the National Capital Region Police Office left The Peninsula Manila Hotel, since he was asked to leave by troops supportive of Trillanes. A defiant Antonio Trillanes IV dismissed the PNP 3 p.m. deadline, saying, “Believe me, nothing will happen after three o’clock.”[7]

At least 50 Special Weapons and Tactics commandos lined up outside to assault the Manila Peninsula Hotel inMakatiCityto enforce the arrest of rebel soldiers. Sporadic warning shots were heard from the police outside the hotel, as smoke was seen coming from the hotel seconds after the shots. (4:01 p.m.) The Palace asked reporters to move out of the hotel, as armored personnel carriers arrived. Hundreds of guests scrambled to vacate, and Trillanes said they will ‘wait and see'[?] Bishop Julio Labayen appealed: “Please do not storm the place, so nobody gets hurt.” (4:37 p.m.)

Firing stopped at 4:30 p.m.[8][9] GMA crew, and other media personnel were trapped in the hotel, while the Palace appealed to the media and the public to stay away from Makati. Tear gas was fired into the hotel lobby as government troops advanced. Soldiers surrounded the hotel at 5 p.m.).[10]

The armored tank then destroyed the main facade of the Manila Peninsula Hotel to allow the troops to enter.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who had just arrived from Guam, stated that he would not head a caretaker government if President Arroyo was removed from power, for he wants to insulate the judiciary from politics. Prominent businessmen denounced Trillanes and Lim.

[edit] Temporary liberty

On February 16, 2010, Lim was allowed by a Makaticourt to post bail on a rebellion charge, along with Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and 16 other soldiers.[11] The bail was set for P200,000 each. The bail was supposed to give them temporary liberty while the case is being heard. However, they cannot leave the prison yet; Armed Forces spokesman Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. said: “The group of Senator Trillanes cannot be released until after the military has agreed already, because they are still facing general court martial.” Brawner also added: “Under the military law, there is no such thing as bail.”[12]

After 4 years in detention, on May 31, 2010, Lim was granted temporary freedom by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), which approved his request to be placed under the custody of another military officer.[13] AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Delfin Bangit also approved the grant of temporary liberty to Lim. After proper custodial procedures and medical examination were conducted, the retired Brigadier General was released 5:35 p.m. from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center in Camp Crame in Quezon City. Lim, however, still faces a charge of violation of Article 67 (mutiny) of the Articles of War in relation to a supposed plan to grab power last February 2006. His co-accused in the 2006 case include former Marine commandant Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda and former Marine Col. Ariel Querubin. He is also charged with violation of Articles of War 63 (disrespect to the President), 96 (conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman), 97 (conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline), and 70 (escape from confinement). These charges are in connection with the November 2007 Manila Peninsula Incident.

[edit] Political career

[edit] Senatorial race in 2010

See also: Philippine Senate election, 2010

On September 20, 2009, Lim declared his intention to run for senator in 2010. He filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for senator on November 27, 2009. When interviewed by some reporters, the Brigadier General said: “I would like to bring the people’s awareness on corruption to a higher level, so that the issue of corruption will not be limited to one branch of the government.” He also added: “I have served the military for 36 years and throughout my 36 years of military service, I have been consistent in advocating reforms in the military, but the military career being behind me now, this is now my alternative arena.” Under existing laws, all active military and police personnel are forced to resign from the service after filing their respective certificates of candidacy for any elective posts. As a result, Lim had to leave his military position.[14] Lim is not allowed to get out of detention to campaign. He has also been endorsed by Senators Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, Antonio Trillanes IV.[15] Senator Ma. Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal also threw her support behind Lim.[16]

Initially an independent candidate, he later joined the Liberal Party as a guest candidate. The LP is fielding senators Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III and Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas II.[17] At first, General Lim intended to run under the Magdalo Para Pagbabago, but the Commission on Elections denied the group’s accreditation to become a political party.

On December, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) disqualified Lim from the 2010 Senate race, as the poll body does not think Lim has the capacity to run a national elections. A few days later, Lim submitted evidence seeking to reverse the Comelec’s decision. LP spokesman Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III said: “The LP believes that the Comelec will reconsider its previous decision and allow Gen. Danny Lim to run for senator under the LP banner.”[18] A month later, the Comelec reinstated Lim as an official candidate for Senator, along with Nicanor Perlas, who was running for president.[19]

However, Lim was not as lucky as Antonio Trillanes in 2007. Several presidential aspirants courted the Magdalo group prior to the official campaign period; the Magdalo also received financial support from some close people in the Philippine Military Academy, the Guardians (a fraternity of soldiers led by Sen. Gregorio Honasan), assorted businessmen, and party-list groups. These efforts were only enough to push Lim to 17th place in the senatorial race with over 6 million votes as of Comelec tallies released on 2 p.m. Tuesday (May 11). On May 11, the former brigadier general conceded defeat, after partial election results by the Comelec showed him far from the top 12 aspirants.[20]

=================================

=================================

=================================

 

 

SOURCE: PCIJ

Search

February 24, 2006 · Posted by: Yvonne Chua · In: In the News

Who is Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim?

MALAYA columnist Romeo Y. Lim wrote about then newly promoted Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim in his April 22, 2005 column, heaping praises on the military officer who has “consciously chosen to live a simple life dedicated to serving his country and people.”  General Lim is under military custody for his supposed role in a destabilization attempt against President Arroyo.

Following is Romeo Lim’s piece (reprinted with Malaya’s permission): 

 

Who is BGen Danilo Lim?

 I want to take time out today to write about a man I greatly admire. It may be biased, but I have no apologies. In these times of endless shenanigans perpetuated by people who are supposed to serve our country and people, this man shines as a small candle in a sea of callousness and indifference.

The roots of newly promoted Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim can be traced to Xiamen, China, formerly Amoy. His father married a girl from Bohol but Danny, as he is called by both friends and detractors, was born and raised in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. He is the youngest of five brothers.

He finished elementary and high school in Solano with flying colors. He was in his first year at UP when he took the entrance exams to the Philippine Military Academy. He topped the exams.

While a plebe, he took the entrance exam to the US Military Academy at West Point, one of the world’s premier military academies. He topped the exams.

After graduation, he returned to the country, took the Scout Ranger Course where he graduated not only No. 1 but also led his team in registering the only encounter of the class during their test mission. He opted to be assigned to Jolo after that. He commanded the forward Recon Unit of the 1st Infantry (Tabak) Division in Sulu where his name became a byword due to his combat exploits. He was wounded twice in combat.

Then AFP chief Gen. Romeo Espino noticed this officer and promptly directed GHQ to transfer then Lt. Lim to his alma mater, PMA, for instructor duty. He stayed for a few years then packed his bags again for the US to take up the Advanced Infantry Course at the Infantry School in Fort Benning, Georgia. He not only topped the course but was also awarded the Distinguished Allied Student Award for that year. When he returned, he joined the First Scout Ranger Regiment as chief of operations.

In 1989, then Capt. Lim led the Makati siege that lasted seven days. The failed coup attempt resulted in his incarceration for two years. He was released during the Ramos administration after the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement between government and the military rebels. He was a member of the RAM-SFP-YOU peace panel in the negotiations.

Moving on with his life, Lim took the Command and General Staff course which he again topped. He ran off with seven of the eight awards given by the school. Only the physical fitness award called the “Tarzan Award” slipped through his fingers and was given to a much younger officer.

He later commanded the 42nd Infantry Battalion where he again made a name for himself for the various combat accomplishments of his unit. He also endeared himself to the Bicolanos in Camarines Sur where his battalion was based.

He then became deputy commander of the First Scout Ranger Regiment and later regiment commander.

BGen. Lim is married with a daughter still in high school. Despite all his achievements and accolades, this soft-spoken and modest officer does not have his own house yet –  in direct contrast to his siblings who occupy senior positions in huge corporations (also in direct contrast to some AFP officers we know). He has consciously chosen to live a simple life dedicated to serving his country and people.

In six years, he will be bowing out of the military service.

I take my hat off to this officer and gentleman whose values and principles seem to be dying traits in this mess of an AFP. We need more people like him if we are to even hope to lift our country out the quagmire it is in.

So today, I greet all the other people who are not like BGen. Danilo Lim: Mabuhay ang mga kurakot sa gobyerno ni GMA!

 

 

=================================

================================

================================

Lim takes oath as deputy Customs commissioner

By Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News

Posted at 09/15/2011 11:19 AM | Updated as of 09/16/2011 7:15 AM

MANILA,Philippines- Retired brigadier general and Scout Rangers commander Danilo Lim has taken his oath as Customs deputy commissioner for intelligence.

 

 President Aquino administered his oath in Malacanang.
 
Danilo Lim is back in government service after a controversial career in the military. Lim was part of the 1989 coup d’ etat against then President Cory Aquino. The irony is Lim has taken his oath before the son of Cory who has trusted Lim to contribute in the administration’s campaign against smuggling and other illegal activities in the Customs.
 
Lim was detained for mutiny and rebellion charges for his role in attempts to overthrow former President Arroyo during the 2006 standoff in Fort Bonifacio and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.
 
Lim availed of the amnesty offered by President Aquino for those involved in uprisings against former President Arroyo.
 
Lim lost when he ran for senator in the 2010 elections, along with former Muntinlupa Representative Ruffy Biazon who has been appointed as Customs commssioner. Biazon will replace Angelito Alvarez.
 
We are awaiting word on when Biazon would be taking his oath.

President Aquino has previously said that Alavarez’ replacement has requested for private time until September 16, for a chance to spend time with his family before he takes on his new task.
 

 

Comment

CASE 2011-0189: ANTONIO FRANCISCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS: NELIA E.S. FRANCISCO, EMILIA F. BERTIZ, REBECCA E.S. FRANCISCO, ANTONIO E.S. FRANCISCO, JR., SOCORRO F. FONTANILLA, AND JOVITO E.S. FRANCISCO VS. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS, INCORPORATED (G.R. NO. 193577, 07 SEPTEMBER 2011, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECTS: REQUIRED DILIGENCE OF A BLIND PERSON; SALE. (BRIEF TITLE: FRANCISCO VS. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS).

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 15, 2011

CASE 2011-0189: ANTONIO FRANCISCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS: NELIA E.S. FRANCISCO, EMILIA F. BERTIZ, REBECCA E.S. FRANCISCO, ANTONIO E.S. FRANCISCO, JR., SOCORRO F. FONTANILLA, AND JOVITO E.S. FRANCISCO VS. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS, INCORPORATED (G.R. NO. 193577, 07 SEPTEMBER 2011, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECTS: REQUIRED DILIGENCE OF A BLIND PERSON; SALE.  (BRIEF TITLE: FRANCISCO VS. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS).

=============================

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 31 May 2010 Decision and 31 August 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

=============================

 

 

SECOND DIVISION

 

ANTONIO FRANCISCO, substituted by his heirs: NELIA E.S. FRANCISCO, EMILIA F. BERTIZ, REBECCA E.S. FRANCISCO, ANTONIO E.S. FRANCISCO, JR., SOCORRO F. FONTANILLA, and JOVITO E.S. FRANCISCO,

Petitioners,

 

 

– versus –

 

 

 

CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS, INCORPORATED,

Respondent.

 G.R. No. 193577

 

Present:

 

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,

PERALTA,*

PEREZ, and

MENDOZA,** JJ.

 

 

 

Promulgated:

 

September 7, 2011

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

 

 

D E C I S I O N

 

 

CARPIO, J.:

 

The Case

 

This is a petition for review1 of the 31 May 2010 Decision2 and 31 August 2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 63591. In its 31 May 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the 21 August 1998 Decision4 of the Regional Trial of Pasig City, Branch 71 (trial court), and ordered petitioner Antonio Francisco (Francisco) to pay respondent Chemical Bulk Carriers, Incorporated (CBCI) P1,119,905 as actual damages. In its 31 August 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Francisco’s motion for reconsideration.

 

The Facts

 

Since 1965, Francisco was the owner and manager of a Caltex station in Teresa, Rizal. Sometime in March 1993, four persons, including Gregorio Bacsa (Bacsa), came to Francisco’s Caltex station and introduced themselves as employees of CBCI. Bacsa offered to sell to Francisco a certain quantity of CBCI’s diesel fuel.

 

After checking Bacsa’s identification card, Francisco agreed to purchase CBCI’s diesel fuel. Francisco imposed the following conditions for the purchase: (1) that Petron Corporation (Petron) should deliver the diesel fuel to Francisco at his business address which should be properly indicated in Petron’s invoice; (2) that the delivery tank is sealed; and (3) that Bacsa should issue a separate receipt to Francisco.

 

The deliveries started on 5 April 1993 and lasted for ten months, or up to 25 January 1994.5 There were 17 deliveries to Francisco and all his conditions were complied with.

 

In February 1996, CBCI sent a demand letter to Francisco regarding the diesel fuel delivered to him but which had been paid for by CBCI.6 CBCI demanded that Francisco pay CBCI P1,053,527 for the diesel fuel or CBCI would file a complaint against him in court. Francisco rejected CBCI’s demand.

 

On 16 April 1996, CBCI filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Francisco and other unnamed defendants.7 According to CBCI, Petron, on various dates, sold diesel fuel to CBCI but these were delivered to and received by Francisco. Francisco then sold the diesel fuel to third persons from whom he received payment. CBCI alleged that Francisco acquired possession of the diesel fuel without authority from CBCI and deprived CBCI of the use of the diesel fuel it had paid for. CBCI demanded payment from Francisco but he refused to pay. CBCI argued that Francisco should have known that since only Petron, Shell and Caltex are authorized to sell and distribute petroleum products in the Philippines, the diesel fuel came from illegitimate, if not illegal or criminal, acts. CBCI asserted that Francisco violated Articles 19,8 20,9 21,10 and 2211 of the Civil Code and that he should be held liable. In the alternative, CBCI claimed that Francisco, in receiving CBCI’s diesel fuel, entered into an innominate contract of do ut des (I give and you give) with CBCI for which Francisco is obligated to pay CBCI P1,119,905, the value of the diesel fuel. CBCI also prayed for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and other expenses of litigation.

 

On 20 May 1996, Francisco filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of forum shopping.12 CBCI filed its Opposition.13 In an Order dated 15 November 1996, the trial court denied Francisco’s motion.14

Thereafter, Francisco filed his Answer.15 Francisco explained that he operates the Caltex station with the help of his family because, in February 1978, he completely lost his eyesight due to sickness. Francisco claimed that he asked Jovito, his son, to look into and verify the identity of Bacsa, who introduced himself as a radio operator and confidential secretary of a certain Mr. Inawat (Inawat), CBCI’s manager for operations. Francisco said he was satisfied with the proof presented by Bacsa. When asked to explain why CBCI was selling its fuel, Bacsa allegedly replied that CBCI was in immediate need of cash for the salary of its daily paid workers and for petty cash. Francisco maintained that Bacsa assured him that the diesel fuel was not stolen property and that CBCI enjoyed a big credit line with Petron. Francisco agreed to purchase the diesel fuel offered by Bacsa on the following conditions:

 

1) Defendant [Francisco] will not accept any delivery if it is not company (Petron) delivered, with his name and address as shipping point properly printed and indicated in the invoice of Petron, and that the product on the delivery tank is sealed; [and]

 

2) Although the original invoice is sufficient evidence of delivery and payment, under ordinary course of business, defendant still required Mr. Bacsa to issue a separate receipt duly signed by him acknowledging receipt of the amount stated in the invoice, for and in behalf of CBCI.16

 

 

During the first delivery on 5 April 1993, Francisco asked one of his sons to verify whether the delivery truck’s tank was properly sealed and whether Petron issued the invoice. Francisco said all his conditions were complied with. There were 17 deliveries made from 5 April 1993 to 25 January 1994 and each delivery was for 10,000 liters of diesel fuel at P65,865.17 Francisco maintained that he acquired the diesel fuel in good faith and for value. Francisco also filed a counterclaim for exemplary damages, moral damages and attorney’s fees.

 

In its 21 August 1998 Decision, the trial court ruled in Francisco’s favor and dismissed CBCI’s complaint. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s 21 August 1998 Decision reads:

 

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered:

 

1. Dismissing the complaint dated March 13, 1996 with costs.

2. Ordering plaintiff (CBCI), on the counterclaim, to pay defendant the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.18

 

 

CBCI appealed to the Court of Appeals.19 CBCI argued that Francisco acquired the diesel fuel from Petron without legal ground because Bacsa was not authorized to deliver and sell CBCI’s diesel fuel. CBCI added that Francisco acted in bad faith because he should have inquired further whether Bacsa’s sale of CBCI’s diesel fuel was legitimate.

 

In its 31 May 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s 21 August 1998 Decision and ruled in CBCI’s favor. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ 31 May 2010 Decision reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Antonio Francisco is ordered to pay Chemical Bulk Carriers, Incorporated the amount of P1,119,905.00 as actual damages.

 

SO ORDERED.20

 

On 15 January 2001, Francisco died.21 Francisco’s heirs, namely: Nelia E.S. Francisco, Emilia F. Bertiz, Rebecca E.S. Francisco, Antonio E.S. Francisco, Jr., Socorro F. Fontanilla, and Jovito E.S. Francisco (heirs of Francisco) filed a motion for substitution.22 The heirs of Francisco also filed a motion for reconsideration.23 In its 31 August 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals granted the motion for substitution but denied the motion for reconsideration.

 

Hence, this petition.

 

The Ruling of the Trial Court

 

The trial court ruled that Francisco was not liable for damages in favor of CBCI because the 17 deliveries were covered by original and genuine invoices. The trial court declared that Bacsa, as confidential secretary of Inawat, was CBCI’s authorized representative who received Francisco’s full payment for the diesel fuel. The trial court stated that if Bacsa was not authorized, CBCI should have sued Bacsa and not Francisco. The trial court also considered Francisco a buyer in good faith who paid in full for the merchandise without notice that some other person had a right to or interest in such diesel fuel. The trial court pointed out that good faith affords protection to a purchaser for value. Finally, since CBCI was bound by the acts of Bacsa, the trial court ruled that CBCI is liable to pay damages to Francisco.

 

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

 

The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s 21 August 1998 Decision and ruled that Bacsa’s act of selling the diesel fuel to Francisco was his personal act and, even if Bacsa connived with Inawat, the sale does not bind CBCI.

 

The Court of Appeals declared that since Francisco had been in the business of selling petroleum products for a considerable number of years, his blindness was not a hindrance for him to transact business with other people. With his condition and experience, Francisco should have verified whether CBCI was indeed selling diesel fuel and if it had given Bacsa authority to do so. Moreover, the Court of Appeals stated that Francisco cannot feign good faith since he had doubts as to the authority of Bacsa yet he did not seek confirmation from CBCI and contented himself with an improvised receipt. Francisco’s failure to verify Bacsa’s authority showed that he had an ulterior motive. The receipts issued by Bacsa also showed his lack of authority because it was on a plain sheet of bond paper with no letterhead or any indication that it came from CBCI. The Court of Appeals ruled that Francisco cannot invoke estoppel because he was at fault for choosing to ignore the tell-tale signs of petroleum diversion and for not exercising prudence.

 

The Court of Appeals also ruled that CBCI was unlawfully deprived of the diesel fuel which, as indicated in the invoices, CBCI had already paid for. Therefore, CBCI had the right to recover the diesel fuel or its value from Francisco. Since the diesel fuel can no longer be returned, the Court of Appeals ordered Francisco to give back the actual amount paid by CBCI for the diesel fuel.

The Issues

 

The heirs of Francisco raise the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT DEFENDANT ANTONIO FRANCISCO EXERCISED THE REQUIRED DILIGENCE OF A BLIND PERSON IN THE CONDUCT OF HIS BUSINESS; and

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. WHETHER ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT AND ADMITTED FACTS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PLAINTIFF APPROVED EXPRESSLY OR TACITLY THE TRANSACTIONS.24

 

 

The Ruling of the Court

 

The petition has no merit.

 

Required Diligence of a Blind Person

 

The heirs of Francisco argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that Francisco was liable to CBCI because he failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family when he bought the diesel fuel. They argue that since Francisco was blind, the standard of conduct that was required of him was that of a reasonable person under like disability. Moreover, they insist that Francisco exercised due care in purchasing the diesel fuel by doing the following: (1) Francisco asked his son to check the identity of Bacsa; (2) Francisco required direct delivery from Petron; (3) Francisco required that he be named as the consignee in the invoice; and (4) Francisco required separate receipts from Bacsa to evidence actual payment.

 

Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and place.25 The most common standard of conduct is that of a good father of a family or that of a reasonably prudent person.26 To determine the diligence which must be required of all persons, we use as basis the abstract average standard corresponding to a normal orderly person.27

 

However, one who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use.28 Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as blindness or deafness, are treated as part of the circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind.

 

We note that Francisco, despite being blind, had been managing and operating the Caltex station for 15 years and this was not a hindrance for him to transact business until this time. In this instance, however, we rule that Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is blind. First, Francisco merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to determine if he was authorized by CBCI. Francisco did not do any other background check on the identity and authority of Bacsa. Second, Francisco already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, fearing that they might be stolen property,29 yet he did not verify with CBCI the authority of Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel. Third, Francisco relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were typewritten on a half sheet of plain bond paper.30 If Francisco exercised reasonable diligence, he should have asked for an official receipt issued by CBCI. Fourth, the delivery to Francisco, as indicated in Petron’s invoice, does not show that CBCI authorized Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel to Francisco. Clearly, Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is blind.

 

 

Express or Tacit Approval of the Transaction

 

The heirs of Francisco argue that CBCI approved expressly or tacitly the transactions. According to them, there was apparent authority for Bacsa to enter into the transactions. They argue that even if the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the later to act as though he had full powers.31 They insist CBCI was not unlawfully deprived of its property because Inawat gave Bacsa the authority to sell the diesel fuel and that CBCI is bound by such action. Lastly, they argue that CBCI should be considered in estoppel for failure to act during the ten month period that deliveries were being made to Francisco.

 

The general principle is that a seller without title cannot transfer a better title than he has.32 Only the owner of the goods or one authorized by the owner to sell can transfer title to the buyer.33 Therefore, a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell and the buyer can, as a consequence, acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer.34

 

Moreover, the owner of the goods who has been unlawfully deprived of it may recover it even from a purchaser in good faith.35 Thus, the purchaser of property which has been stolen from the owner has been held to acquire no title to it even though he purchased for value and in good faith.

 

The exception from the general principle is the doctrine of estoppel where the owner of the goods is precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.36 But in order that there may be estoppel, the owner must, by word or conduct, have caused or allowed it to appear that title or authority to sell is with the seller and the buyer must have been misled to his damage.37

 

In this case, it is clear that Bacsa was not the owner of the diesel fuel. Francisco was aware of this but he claimed that Bacsa was authorized by CBCI to sell the diesel fuel. However, Francisco’s claim that Bacsa was authorized is not supported by any evidence except his self-serving testimony. First, Francisco did not even confirm with CBCI if it was indeed selling its diesel fuel since it is not one of the oil companies known in the market to be selling petroleum products. This fact alone should have put Francisco on guard. Second, it does not appear that CBCI, by some direct and equivocal act, has clothed Bacsa with the indicia of ownership or apparent authority to sell CBCI’s diesel fuel. Francisco did not state if the identification card presented by Bacsa indicated that he was CBCI’s agent or a mere employee. Third, the receipt issued by Bacsa was typewritten on a half sheet of plain bond paper. There was no letterhead or any indication that it came from CBCI. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this was a personal receipt issued by Bacsa and not an official receipt issued by CBCI. Consequently, CBCI is not precluded by its conduct from denying Bacsa’s authority to sell. CBCI did not hold out Bacsa or allow Bacsa to appear as the owner or one with apparent authority to dispose of the diesel fuel.

 

Clearly, Bacsa cannot transfer title to Francisco as Bacsa was not the owner of the diesel fuel nor was he authorized by CBCI to sell its diesel fuel. CBCI did not commit any act to clothe Bacsa with apparent authority to sell the diesel fuel that would have misled Francisco. Francisco, therefore, did not acquire any title over the diesel fuel. Since CBCI was unlawfully deprived of its property, it may recover from Francisco, even if Francisco pleads good faith.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 31 May 2010 Decision and 31 August 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOSE C. MENDOZA

Associate Justice

 

 

 

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1074 dated 6 September 2011.

** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1066 dated 23 August 2011.

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Rollo, pp. 7-27. Penned by Presiding Judge Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicidican and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.

3Id. at 28-30.

4Id. at 150-157. Penned by Judge Celso D. Laviña.

5 Annexes “1” to “17,” Records, pp. 11-27.

6Id. at 196.

7 Rollo, pp. 77-85.

8 ART. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

9 ART. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

10 ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

11ART. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

12 Rollo, pp. 86-93.

13Id. at 94-98.

14Id. at 99.

15 Records, pp. 97-113.

16Id. at 99-100.

17 The first delivery on 5 April 1993 was for 10,000 liters at P66,065; Annex “1,” id. at 11.

18 Rollo, p. 157.

19 CA rollo, pp. 12-43.

20 Rollo, p. 27.

21 CA rollo, p. 150.

22Id. at 120-124.

23Id. at 126-136.

24 Rollo, p. 39.

25 Civil Code, Art. 1173.

26 Civil Code, Art. 1173.

27 Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of thePhilippines, Vol. 4 125 (1991).

28 Timoteo B. Aquino, Torts and Damages 92 (2001).

29 Records, pp. 98-99.

30 Exhibits “7” to “7-N,” id. at 61-77.

31 Civil Code, Art. 1911.

32 Civil Code, Art. 1505.

33Id.

34 Nool v. Court of Appeals, 342 Phil. 106 (1997); Segura v. Segura, 247-A Phil. 449 (1988).

35 Civil Code, Art. 559.

36 Civil Code, Art. 1505.

37Id.

 

Comment