APPENDIX C

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTT
Branch 86, Manila

NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY

and NATIONAL TRUCKING
AUTHORITY,
Plaintiffs,
- versus -
Civil Case No. 62709

ALLIED SHIPPING cORP,

Defendant.

X- X

DECISIONN
This is an action for damages arising from alleged breach of
the contract of carriage, filed by the plaintiffs National Supplies
Authority (NSA) and National Trucking Corporation, both
government corporations, against defendant Allied Shipping
Corporation (Allied Shipping) for its alleged failure to deliver to
plaintiff NSA's consignee 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk worth
P2,794,232.00 plus freight prepaid in the amount of P8,707.65 for
a total of P2,862,939.64.

316
 APPENDIX C 317

During the pre-trial, the parties offered for resolution by the

court the following issues:
1.Whether or not defendant Allied Shipping was able
to deliver the cargo involved herein, which it carried on board
its vessel, to the consignee Mr. Hassan Salim of plaintiff NTC in
Zamboanga;
2 Whether or not defendant Allied Shipping exercised
the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in
connection with the cargo subject matter of this case;

3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to its claim for

actual, exemplary, and moral damages; and
4. Whether or not the defendant is entitled to recover
damages from the plaintiffs under its counterclaim.

After the pre-trial, the parties presented their respective

evidence, testimonial and documentary.

Evidence for the plaintiffs.

1. Vicente Tuason, plaintiff NSC's manager for Relief
perations, testifying on direct examination on May 19, 2003
with respect to the procedural flow in the transport of relief
goods, declared that his department engaged the services of
eTendant common carrier to ship the commodities involved;
that upon NSC's delivery of the commodities to the commorn
carrier, the latter would issue the corresponding bill of lading
A Wledging receipt of the commodities on board its vessel
o f the payment of freight; that the NSC sent the bill of lading
e Consignee of its goods, namely, Mr. Hassan Salim of NTC:
p o n receipt of the bill of lading Mr. Salim would go to the
defendant common carrier to surrender the consignee's copy of
the bi of lading in exchange for the release of the commodities
accordingly, sign the corresponding delivery receipt; that
NTC
sti is lstill
l in possession of the consignee's copy of the bill of
lading covering its commodities because they were not received
by
a l i m ; and that Salim, however, had no letter explaining why
he was
returning the bill of lading in 2003.
 D F G H
shift
J
Z
V B N
ctrl fn
alt

FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING

318

On cross-examination, however, Ruiz testified that from

2000 to the present, he has been in charge of relief operations; that
Hassan Salim belornged to the Freight Forwarding Operations
Department of the NTC; that they have some amount of control1
or supervision over those in the Freight Forwarding Operations
aCII
Department; that he sent the bills of lading by registered mail to
WerL
Salim who received them; that he never went to Zamboanga City
and did not hold office there; that Salim allegedly reported, by
telephone call the non-delivery of the commodities covered by Pve
the bills of lading to supervisor Leonora Sotto, who was in charge bear
of shipping but is no longer connected with the NTC, and this
information was relayed or told to him by manager Justo Belema SIgn-
of the Freight Forwarding Department; that no written report, are i
however, was made to him by Sotto or Belema; that he did not
require Salim to reportin writing; that they were supposed tomake sign
monthly reports; that he does not know if Salim made a report the c
to Belema; that he is familiar with the Sali
he
signature of Salim
though
saw him signing documents; that Salim is no longer
never a cla
connected with the NTC, P-1)
having voluntarily
investigation was conducted on the missing resigned
when an
commodities that a re-
were
allegedly not received by their Zamboanga office; that Exh
Salim resented the
what happened to the investigation; and that Ruiz does not know
pers
investigation. that
2. Atty. Gregorio Lantana, second witness for the
plaintiff, testified on August 25, 2007 that he has
deliv
insurance manager of the NTC since 2003; that hebeen the claim that
the defendant Allied Shipping when he was came to know den
the
loss of 5,824 bags of non-fat dried asked to
investigate teter
2003, went to Zamboanga City and
he milk; that in December Cou
Salim, Banch Supervisor of their conferred with Hassan NTC
told him that he did not receive the Zamboanga office; that sain he
the original copies of the shipment and showed nn t ser
to the local consignee's
office of Allied bill of lading; that he
WEthe xh
latter's representative; Shipping and conferred
witn that
the
goods were already that said representative told hnn* and
produce any receipt signedwithdrawn by Salim but he coula not he
bearing with him the by Salim; that he went ne
report dated Decemberoriginal bills of lading; that back to v anilaa
he
Homer Garrido 14,
(Exh. L to L1);2003, which he mad K
that on submitted to-
February 3, 2004, he w
Atty.
une
amor
et
 APPENDIX C 319

Lack to Zamboanga city for further investigation and conferred

with Salim; that Salim insisted that he did not withdraw the
gOods fromAllied shipping; that he postponed the investigation
80
fo the following day, appear and, instead, sent
but Salim did not
Helen
somebody to submit his signed resignation to him and
that he then
Jacinto, the domestic forwarding manager NTC;
of
who
went to Allied Shipping to confer with its representative
goods
that the were withdrawn by Salim; that he was
insisted
which did not
given xerox copies of the cargo delivery receipts told
bear the signature Salim; that the checker of Allied Shipping the
him that the signatures o n the receipts are not the
s a m e as

o n the receipts
signature of Salim; that he knows the signature s a w the
are not the the signature of Salim; that he just
s a m e as
ask
if Salim, but did not see him sign; that he did
not
signature statement that
the checker of Allied Shipping to makea written
Salim signed the receipts; that upon arrival in Manila, he prepared
a claim letter to Allied Shipping, dated March 11, 2004 (Exh. F,
sent
F-1); that Artemio Carpio, claims officer of Allied Shipping,
2004, denying their (NTC's) claim
a reply letter, dated Marchin15,March or April, 2004, be conferred
(Exh. G); that, thereafter,
asked for evidence showing
personally with Carpio whom he submitted
that Salim received the good, and copies of the cargo
delivery receipts earlier submitted by Allied Shipping checker;
dated April 26, 2004,
that Carpio sent another letter to NTC, that the NTC management
aenying the claim of NTC (Exh. H); the Government Corporate
Eerred the matter to the Office of for OGCC's services,
Ounsel (OGCC) which filed this case; that that CARE, on
agreed to pay P100,000.00 at attorney's fees;
Other hand, prepared a report Loss,
of Damage, etc. which
value of the lost relief goods
n t to the NTC containing the
(Exhibits I, -1 to I-17); that the figures
contained in Exhibits I-17
the claims of CARE,
Aand 14 are not clear; that after receiving
the NTC pai
aid the same to CARE Philippines, as evidenced by
the subrogat
ation receipts by
issued CARE, dated January 31,
2006
2006 (Exh. K);
K); July 10, 2002 (Exh. K-2); October 8, 2006 (Exh
Xh.
K.-3); Febru 27, 2007 (Exh. K-5);
ebruary 27, 2003 (Exh. K-4); February
June
29, 29, 2007
2007 (Exh. K-6); and June 29, 2007 (Exh. K-7), in the total
mount
int of P3,295,475.03, out of which the plaintiff NTC has paid
otal amount of P2,257,141.64.
 FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING
320

On cross-examination, the same witness testified that

in December 2004, he went to Zamboanga City to conduct
an investigation on the CARE goods and conferred with a
representative of Allied Shipping; that when he learned that the
commodities were no longer in the custody of Allied Shipping
he went back to Zamboanga; that he was not satisfied with the
first investigation he conducted; that he was not able to pinpoint
the persons responsible for the loss of the commodities; that he
conducted further investigation and asked additional questions
from Salim; that after talking to the checker of Allied Shipping,
he wanted to test the credibility of Salim whose credibility he
doubted to some extent; that he had several persons to suspect
- Salim, the checker and other personnel of Allied Shipping and
third parties, or a conspiracy of all of them; that the day before
Salim resigned, he talked to him on February 2, 2005; that after
reluctant to and
asking Salim several questions; he was answer

so, he postponed his investigation; that instead the following

day, Salim sent somebody else to submit his resignation letter;
that since Salim was one of his suspects, he asked him questions
which would tend to show that Salim received, or know what
he
happened to the commodities; that after February 3, 2005,
went back to the office ofAllied
never saw Salim anymore; that he but
Shipping at the Pier in Zamboanga and talked to the checker
did not write down his name in his report (Exh. N); that when
he believed that he had completed his investigation; he made his
report; that the Allied Shipping checker gave him copies of the
cargo delivery receipts showing that Salim received the goods
subjectmatter of this case, and these are part of the exhibits(Exn.
4, dated October 17, 2003; Exh. 4-A, dated October 20, 2003; EX:
4-B, dated October 25, 2003, and Exhibit 4-C, dated October19
and up to December 1999); that Helen Jacinto continued doing
business with Allied Shipping after Salim resigned; that sal
was only five (5) years in service and not yet entitled to retireme
(hearing of July 27, 2007); that he met Salim on February 2, 200
that on February 3, 2005, Salim never showed up; that his mee
with a representativeof Allied Shipping took place on Februa
4, 2004; that the Allied Shipping representative gave him cope
of cargo delivery receipts; that he received some of the delivey
 APPENDIX C 321

December 2004; that he showed the receipts to

receipts earlier in
him that the signatures are not his; that, except
Salim who told
the delivery receipts dated December, 2003 and
for some ot
the rest were submitted to him by a representative
lanuary, 2004,
dated December 3,
of Allied Shipping; that the delivery receipts,
11, 2004,
2003, December 19, 2003, December 23, 2003, January
from the Allied Shipping
February 4, 2004, were received by him
representative in Zamboanga; that Salim denied having signed
the first week of
the said receipts when he showed them to him on
their office, after
December, 2003; thatwhenhe talked with Salim in
of Allied
receiving the delivery receipts from the representative
him to Allied Shipping
Shipping, he did not ask Salim to go with whno
for confrontation with the representative of Allied Shipping
and
said Salim did not sign those receipts because of the peace
order conditions at that time; that there were constant bombings
Muslims
in the and the relationship between Christian and
area
was not good; that he did not know what
would happen if there
confrontation between Salim and the Allied Shipping and
Was
he had no reason to doubt the signature of Salim; that he went
back to Zamboanga in 2005 for further investigation because he
Was not satisfied with the outcome of his first investigation as he
Was unable to pinpoint the person responsible for the loss of the
Salim
cargoes; that he went to Zamboanga to couldinvestigate
further
he not point to any
ecause he doubted his credibility; that 2004 Salim w a s
on February 2,
ennite person responsible; that
Euctant to answer his questions, while on February 3, Salim did
that these
t appear anymore at the scheduled conference,
so

that as of
t s strengthened his doubt o n Salim's credibility;
W has n o reason, on the basis of the documentary evidence,
he
u t Salim's guilt; that he had no participations that it ishearing
in the

e d Shipping for the shipment of thetogoods;that it should stated

e back of the Bills of Lading (Exhs. D D-8) be

released only
thaed only to the consignee oof r his authorized representative;

that there is
A:ere is nothing in the bill lading
which would prohibit
Allied Shipping from delivering the cargoes to the consignee's
Presentative who would acknowledge receipt thereof in the
Cargo delivery receipt. (Hearing of August 20, 1996)
 FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING
322

Evidence for the defendants.

Ricardo Samson, first witness for the defendant
3.
testified on October 8, 2007 that he has been a delivery checker
of Jose Razon Shipping Agency, with office at Zamboanga City,
since 1999; that he took care of the delivery of cargoes from the
to the consigneeor his authorized representative; that he
port
required the production of the consignee's copy of the original

covering the particular shipment or a certified true copy thereof

from their office; that upon production of said bill of lading, he
checked the container van and its seal; that, if it is okay, he asks
the consignee or his representative to break the seal and opeen
the van and then they load the cargo of non-fat dry milk on the

consignee'struck; that they checked the cargo loaded on the

truck and he counts them; that he then prepares the delivery
receipt and have it signed by the consignee's representative; that
he knows NTC which has kept a branch in Zamboanga City from
1998; that he made deliveries to NTC; that the last time he made
deliveries to it was from October to December, 2003, specifically
to Hassan Salim whom he had known personally since 1998 when
he was still a delivery checker for Compania Maritima; that he
started working as a delivery checker of Jose Razon Shipping
Agency in August, 1999; that proof of the deliveries he made to
Salim from October to December 2003 are the original and xerox
copies of the cargo delivery receipts; that he has other original
delivery receipts but they got lost because in 2006, their office
was renovated and all records and files were placed temporariy
in boxes; that said receipts got lost and cannot be located, despite
diligent efforts to locate them; that exhibits 4, 4-a to 4-g, 4-4 4
are original copies, while exhibits 4-h to 4-p are xerox copies
thereof; that he signed the cargo delivery receipts marked as
Exh. 4-J and 4-J-1; 4-K and 4-K-11; 4-P and 4-P-1; 4-q and 4-
4-r and 4-r-1; that the other cargo receipts were signed by AB
de
Leon, their head checker (Exhs. 4, 4-x-1 and 4-x-2; 4-q a
4-q-1; that the other cargo delivery receipts were signed by his
co-checker Ismael Zamora (Exhs. 4-a and 4-a-1; 4-b and 4+01
4-c and 4-c-1; 4-d and 4-d-1; 4-e and 4-e-1; 4-f and 4-f-1; 4-h a r
4-h-1; 4-i and 4-i-1; 4-1 and 4-1-1; 4-m and 4-m-1; 4-n and 4-n
4-0 and 4-0-1; that aside from his signatures, he could identy
 APPENDIX C 323

the signatures of his co-checkers Armand Lara and Ariel Zumar

hecause they have been working together for the same company
and he has seen them sign their signatures in
for many years
he is tamiliar with their signatures; that he can
his presence and
left-hand portion
identify the signatures appearing at the lower under the
of the cargo delivery receipt. Exh. 4 (Rollo, p. 493),
in good order
printed words reading: "Received the above under the
condition;" that in Exhibit 4, the signature appearing
of NTC
said printed word is that of Lito Asis, a representative
of the
who went to Allied Shipping when there is a shipment
is familiar
NTC to withdraw the cargo, and that his signature
to him because there were several occasions when Asis signed
does not know the
the delivery receipts in his presence; that he
the same printed words
signature (Exh. 4-a-2) appearing under that he does
in the cargo delivery receipt, Exh. 4-a (Rollo, p. 494);
under the same
not know the signature (Exh. 4-b-a) appearing
marked as Exh. 4-B
printed words in the cargo delivery receipt
as Exh. 4-c-a, appearing
(Rollo, p. 495); that the signature marked
496) is that of Lito Asis;
on the delivery receipt, Exh. 4-c (Rollo, p.
that he does not know the signature (Exh. 4-D-2) appearing on

the delivery receipt, Exh. 4-D (Rollo, p. 497); that the signature
marked
marked as Exh. 4-E-2 appearing on the delivery receipt
that the signature marked as
as Exh. 4-E is that of Hassan Salim; marked as Exhibit
on the delivery receipt
Exhibit 4-F-2 appearing
that the signature marked as
(Rollo, p. 499) is that of Salim;
508) is that of Salim; that
EXhibit 4-0-2 in Exhibit 4-0 (Rollo, p. 4-k-2, and 4-1-2 and
ne signatures marked as Exhibits 4-i-2;4-j-2, marked, respectively
PPearing in the cargo delivery receipts, 503); 4-K (Rollo, p.
(Rollo, p.
Exhibits 4-i (Rollo, p. 502); 4-J of Asis; that he does not
and 4-1 (Rollo, p. 505), are those
L consignee's representatives marked
W the signatures of the
asxhibits 4-g-2, 4-m-2, 4-p-2, and 4-r-2, appearing in the cargo
Exhibits 4-g (Rollo, p.
respectively as
0 C y receipts marked,
01); 4-n (Rollo, p. 507), 4-p (Rollo, p. 509), 4-q (KOllo, P. 510),
the representation of a certified
- T (Rollo, p. 511); that with
true COPy of the bill of lading stamped "Please release" by the
doubt in releasing the cargo to such
On
carrying it, ha had n o
person.
324 FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING

On cross-examination, the same witness testified that the

cargoes covered by the delivery receipts, Exhibits 4-p, 4-q and
4-r, were delivered to the persons who presented the true copies
of the delivery receipts and paid the handling charges, whom he
presumed was a representative of the NTC; that their practice
was to released the goods to the consignee or his authorized
representative; that there were times when the consignee Hassan
Salim went to the port just to make sure if the shipments were
delivered to them; that Salim told them to just allow his driver,
assistant, or brother to sign the delivery receipts because he
has allegedly many other appointments to attend to; that Salim
talked personally to him and Armand Lara, head checker; that
the goods covered by the delivery receipts, Exh. 4-e, 4-E, 4-h and
4-0 were signed by Salim in his presence.
4. Ismael Zamora, second witness for the defendant
testified on October 29, 2007 that he has been a delivery and
release checker of Jose Razon Shipping Agency from 1986 to
the present; that he knows plaintiff NTC which frequently
shipped goods through defendant Allied Shipping; that these
were unloaded at the port and were brought to NTC warehouse
by trucks belonging to Jose Razon Trucking; that January 2004
was the last time for them to deliver bags of non-fat dried milk;
that from October 2003 to January 2004 they handled similar
shipments of non-fat dried milk and, as a delivery checker,
he delivered those cargoes to Hassan Salim, manager of NTC
who received the cargoes himself; that he saw Salim personally
receive the cargoes for every delivery made; that after he
made
the deliveries, he told Salim to sign the delivery receipts which
he did sign either personally or made his companion sign; that
he
asked the consignee or his representative to sign the delivery
receipts, Exhibits 4 to 4-r; that Exh. 4-x-1 is the signature of the
head checker Armand Lara; that they were and he sa
him sign;
together
that Exh. 4-x-2 is the signature of Lito Asis, assistant
manager of Salim; that he saw Asis sign the delivery recep s

whenever he received the goods; that Exh. 4-a-1 is his

that Exh. 4-a-2 is his signature; that Exh. 4-b-2 is the
signatu
of Salim's subordinate; that Exhibit 4-c1 is his
signatthat
signature
Exhibits 4-d-1, 4-e-1, 4-h-1;4-i-1; 4-1-1; 4-m-1, 4-n-1 and 4-0-l aare
 APPENDIX C 325

his signatures; that Exhibits 4-m-2, 4-n-2, 4-p-2,

4-d-2, 4-g-2 and
4-g-2 are the signatures of Salim's subordinate; that Exhibits 4-e
9.4-f-2, 4-h-2 and 4-0-2 are the signatures of Salim; that Exhibits
that Exhibits
4-f-1 and 4-8-1 are the signatures of Armand Lara;
of Lito Asis; that
4-1-2, 4-j-2, 4-k-2 and 4-1-2 are the signatures
Exhibits 4-j-1, 4-k-1, 4-p-1,4-q-1 and 4-r-1 are the signatures of his
the
Co-checker Ariel Zumar; that after the delivery of the cargo,
the cargo signed the delivery receipt; that
person who received
some were
not all the delivery receipts were signed by Salim,
because sometimes
signed by his subordinates, and this is so he
and so
Salim told him that he had other appointments
instructed his subordinates to sign the receipt in his
absence; that
during all the deliveries he made, Salim and his subordinates
were present.
testified that e v e n
On cross-examination, the s a m e witness
the
if the consignee Hassan Salim was present all the time during
deliveries, there were times when he did not sign the delivery
because sometimes he went to attend s o m e important
receipts
deliveries w e r e completed
appointments and left before the
and just directed his subordinates to sign for him (Hearing of
November 17, 2007).
5.
5. Atty. Ariel M. Luna, third witness for the defendant
and administrative
festified that he is the corporate secretary
head of Allied Shipping; that on March 15, 2004, Allied Shipping,
hru Artemio Carpio, head of its Claims Department, sent aa
to 5,824
eply-letter to NTC's letter of March 11, 2004, relative
conducted
Dags of milk loaded on its vessels (Exh. 1); that Carpio
letter to NTC, datedd
investigation and then wrote another
of milk were
April 26, 2004, informing him that the 5,824thebagsNTC authorized
Hassan Salim,
Envered the consignee
to
uch representative as per the Allied Shipping cargo delivery
that Allied
cpts and container list attached thereto (Exh. 2);
1989, from Helen
TPPing received a letter, dated February 1,
nto, Domestic Freight Forwarding Operations Manager,
longer authorized to
To Stating that Hassan Salim was n o

Aesent NTC in whatever capacity, effective January 31, 2004,

and that Antonio Evanglelista was appointed O.I.C for the NTC
Zamboangi
amboanga Branch (Exh. 3); that because oftthe filing of this case,
 326 FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING

Allied Shipping was compelled to engage the services of counsel

for P150,000.00 and has further spent P60,000.00 to secure the
attendance of witnesses from Zamboanga, including airplane
tickets, hotel bills, allowances of witnesses and expenses of
counsel in coming to court; and the cost of filing this case, plus
moral damages for tainting the defendant's reputation by filing
this suit in the amount of P2,000,000.00 and exemplary damages
in the amount of P1,000,000.00.
On cross-examination, the same witness testified that the
filing of this case affected the business credibility of the defendant
and brought hardship in soliciting business. (Hearing of January
23, 2008).
On February 1, 2008, the same witness further testified that
he prepared a summary of expenses incurred by LSC in this case
(Exh. 4; Rollo, p. 492), with supporting documents. (Exhs. 4-a to
4-f; 4-h to 4-n; Rollo, pp. 312-325.)
From the evidence adduced by the parties during the trial, it
is established that on April 20, 2003, plaintiff NSC and CARE en-
tered into an Agreement under which they undertook to continue
a Food Assistance Programs, a jointly sponsored nutrition proj
ect for preschool children and pregnant and nursing mothers, in
support of which CARE bound itself to acquire by donation from
the food commodities
United States Government, (non-fat driea
milk and other available USDA foods deemed suited to the need)
for a three-year period beginning January 1, 2003 to December
31, 2004 (Exh. A); that in order to comply with such agreement
plaintiff NSC engaged the services of its co-plaintiff NTC to re
ceive and store the commodities, including their transshipments
and deliveries to various beneficiaries as may be directed by the

Department of Health (DOH), as per the Contract of Services e

tered into on August 12, 2000 between NSC and NTC (Exh. D
that to its agreement with NTC, the DOH
pursuant issuedto
several delivery orders (Exh. C, C-1 to C-16) directing the latter
to effect the shipment and delivery of non-fat dried milk to t
Municipal Health Oficer (MHO), Isabela, West, Basilan (Exhs
C-1); to the MHO, Isabela North, Basilan (Exh. C-2); to the MH
Lamitan East, Basilan (Exh. C-3); to the MHO, Lamitan ve
 APPENDIX C 327

to the MHO, Lantawan, Basilan (Exh. C-5);

Basilan (Exh. C-4);
Maluso, Basilan (Exh. C-6); to the MHO, Sumisip.
to the MHO,
Basilan (Exh. C-8); to
Basilan (Exh. C-7); to the MHO, Tipo-tipo,
to the Provincial Health
the MHO, Tuburan, Basilan (Exh. C-9);
Officer (PHO), Jolo, Sulu (Exh. C-10); to the PHO, Dipolog City
(Exh.
Exh. C-11); to the City Health Officer (CHO), Dapital City
C-12); to the CHO, Dipolog City (C-13); to the PHO, Pagadian
and to the CHO,
City (C-14); to the CHO, Pagadian City (C-15); on various dates
Zamboanga City (Exh. C-16); that, accordingly,
Five Thousand
in September and October, 2003, NTC shipped
dried milk to
Eight Hundred Twenty Four (5,824) bags of non-fat
its consignee Hassan Salim, NTC Branch, Zamboanga City, thru1
various vessels of the common carrier, defendant Allied Ship-

ping which issued the corresponding Bills of Lading in favor of

NTC (Exhs. T-1, T-2, T-3; T-6; T-8; T-9; T-10 and T-11; Exhs. D, D-1,
to D-8),withfreight and wharfage dues prepaid in Manila in the
total amount of P68,707.65 (Exhs. E, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6,
E-7 and E-8); that Hassan Salim was the consignee designated in
all the bills of lading covering the various shipments (Exhs. L to
L-1-a; N to N-1); that in a letter dated March 11, 2004 (Exh. F to
F-3), plaintiff NTC demanded from the defendant Allied Ship-
reimbursement of the value of the subject bags of non-fat
ping
dried milk, but said demand was denied on the ground that the
said goods were already delivered to Salim (Exhs. C andH;1 and
2).
It appears that while Hassan Salim was the consignee
named in all the bills of lading, and while he personally attended
the deliveries of the individual shipments to NTC, together with
nis subordinates, there were times when, although present at the
early stages of the deliveries, he had to leave in order to attend
other appointments allegedly, and allowed or authorized his
Subordinates to continue receiving the deliveries and to sign the
corresponding delivery receipts after the deliveries of the cargoes
aken out of the container vans were completed. Ricardo Samson
and Ismael Zamora, who were there, attested to the presence of
iassan Salim when Allied Shipping made its deliveries to NTC.
aintiffs NTC and NSC never etfectively rebutted these. They
atterly failed to present Hassan Salim to refute or deny the same
 328 FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL WRITING

if they were not true. Hence, delivery of the commodities in

question by Allied Shipping to NTC is established.
It is also significant to point out that even Atty. Gregorio
Lantana, second witness for the plaintiff, testified that on
February 2, 2005, the day before Hassan Salim resigned from
his position as Branch Supervisor of NTC, Zamboanga City, he
talked to Salim. He asked Salim several questions on the missing
cargoes and the latter was reluctant to answer. And s0, Atty.
Lantana postponed his investigation to another day. Why was
Salim reluctant to answer when he was the person responsible for
the goods, being the consignee thereof and the Branch Supervisor
of the NTC? According to Atty. Lantana, instead of appearing for
further investigation the following day, Salim, whose credibility
he doubted and who was one of his suspects, sent somebody
else to submit his resignation letter; that Atty. Lantana wanted to
ask Salim questions which would tend to show that he received
or knew what happened to the commodities, but after February
3, 2005, he never saw Salim anymore. Salim's avoidance of
further investigation and his resignation from the NTC are tell-
tale evidence of his guilt. "The wicked flee, even when no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Furthermore, why was Salim allowed to resign? Why were
administrative charges not filed against him? And why was
he not included as a party defendant in this case so that the
plaintiffs could have recovered damages from him? Why was the
government so weak-kneed, fearful and impotent against Salim?
Why? Why?
Under the circumstances, and considering the evidence
presented by the plaintiffs as against the unrebutted evidence for
the defendant on the delivery of the commodities in question to

Salim, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their causes of action by

clear preponderance of evidence. Hence, their complaint must be
dismissed. The defendant, orn the other hand, must be awardea
aamages on its counterclaims which the court finds justifiea
nder the circumstances, by way of reimbursement for their
expenses arising out of this litigation in the amount of P50,000.00
and attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00.
 APPENDIX C 329

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor

defendant and against the plaintiffs, dismissing the
of the
latter's complaint, and ordering the plaintiffs, pursuant to the
defendant's counterclaims, to pay, jointly and solidarily, to the
defendant, actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and
attorney's fees in the amount of P70,000.00 plus the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, May 14, 2008.

(Name omitted)
Judge