NFA told not to pay damages to shipping firm

The Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that granted the National Food Authority an injunction against a Regional Trial Court writ ordering the agency to pay Jehan Shipping Corporation for damages and legal expenses.

Jehan complained that the CA erred in granting NFA the motion for certiorari with injunction and temporary restraining order against the firm's motion for a writ of execution, contending that the filing of the NFA motion was fraught with lapses in procedures.

The case started when Jehan's vessel, M/V Phannie, which NFA hired on April 30, 1996 to transport 19,300 bags of imported rice from one anchorage area in Cebu to another pier of Cebu City.

The vessel subsequently capsized the day after due to big waves from fast crafts passing by it. The next day, Jehan filed a suit at a Regional Trial Court against NFA for collection of over P139-million for freight services and damages that it claimed was due to NFA's fault and negligence.

Jehan alleged that an NFA representative did not allow the vessel to leave because there was no berthing space at the pier though the vessel would have immediately left after the bags of rice were unloaded from it.

NFA denied all allegations arguing that it could not be sued either because the sinking of the vessel was the "fault, negligence, and lack of care and foresight of the crew...the unseaworthiness of the vessel," and that NFA was not liable for salvaging and rehabilitation of the vessel.

On August 28, 2001, the RTC rendered a decision ordering NFA to pay Jehan the damages it claimed plus litigation costs. This prompted NFA to elevate the case to the CA, where it also asked for an injunction and TRO against the RTC's resolution, writ of execution, and order.

The CA later granted NFA's petitions, and set aside the earlier orders of the RTC. This prompted Jehan to go to the SC arguing that the CA committed an error in its decision.

The SC tackled the issues on whether the CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari to NFA, if the motion of the NFA was defective or not, and if the RTC decision was final already.

The High Court, in its decision promulgated last December 14, said the notice requirement in a motion is "mandatory" but rendered defective due to non-compliance of the requirements.

But the required notice of time and hearing in a pleading is needed only to apprise one party on the acts of the other.

"Hence, we find no reversible error committed by the CA in ruling that the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and in setting aside the subject orders of the trial court," read the SC decision.

The SC said the arguments on compensation and findings over the damages were not raised in the petition thus the matters are deemed "improper to resolve them at this time." - Liv G. Campo