MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has junked a P500-million damage claim of shipping giant Aboitiz Transport System Corp. against the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
In an 11-page decision released last week, the CA’s eighth division upheld an earlier ruling of the Manila regional trial court (RTC) turning down the claims of Aboitiz over its transfer to Manila South Harbor.
It dismissed the petition filed by the shipping firm seeking reversal of the RTC ruling.
The CA, through Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, held that the firm should blame itself for losses it incurred as a result of the transfer of its operations from the Manila North Harbor.
The CA noted that based on the records Aboitiz, previously William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc., told PPA that it will transfer its operations to Manila South Harbor to give way to the modernization of the North Harbor.
“In this case, we find no sufficient showing of bad faith on the part of the appellee as its documentary evidence, clearly establish that it was... Aboitiz Transport System Corp. which requested appellee’s permission to transfer operations to Manila South Harbor, not the other way around,†the CA stressed.
Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla concurred in this ruling.
‘Induced, forced’
In its complaint for maritime damages and injunction filed before the Manila RTC, Aboitiz claimed that it was “induced and forced†by the defendant PPA to abandon its operations at Pier 4 and transfer its operations to the South Harbor.
Aboitiz added that the PPA failed to fulfill its promise to provide assistance to offset the adverse effects of the transfer and even reneged on its commitment to allow the company the option to returning to Pier 4.
The shipping firm said the cost of operating at the South Harbor was more expensive than its previous location. Aboitiz said it lost P500 million as a result of the transfer.
The PPA, however, said it was Aboitiz that requested its vessels use Pier 15 on an exclusive basis.
“Plaintiff has no cause of action. Defendant has no basis to make any promise, representation, insurance or guarantee to any company against any business losses,†the PPA said. The CA agreed with the PPA’s explanation.