Western Shipy v.

CA
G.R. No. 110340 – May 28, 2001
Justice Prado

Topic: Contract, Rule 45 of Civil Procedure

Petitioner: Western Shipy and Services, Inc.
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Santiago Lighterage Corporation

Case: This is an appeal from the resolution of CA amending its earlier decision which resolution
reduced the amount awarded by the court for payment for services rendered by WSSI on a
cargo vessel that respondent owned and which reversed the decision of the RTC, branch 113,
Pasay

FACTS:

 SLC was the owner of a 229-foot general cargo vessel, known as “Dinky,” which had an
actual value of P4M
 February 14, 1983: SLC entered into a contract of services with WSSI for the conversion
of “Dinky” into an LCT, to be known as “Loadmaster” which involved the lengthening of
the shop to 268ft, the extension of the vessel’s moulded breath to 54ft to 14ft.
o In accordance with the contract of services, SLC paid WWSI P200k
 February 28, 1983: The vessel was docked as WSSI’s shipyard
o Under the contract of services, completion and delivery to SLC of the renovated
vessel shall be within 130 days from the docking, and WSSI had the obligation to
pat demurrage to SLC in the amount of P10k, for everyday delay beyond 130d
period.
 January 30, 1986: SLC filed with the RTC, Pasay, a complaint against WWSI for the
following:
o Rescission of contract with damages and replevin;
o WSSI defaulted on its commitment to deliver the vessel to SLC after stipulated
period;
o WSSI violated the terms and conditions of the “contract and services,” with
respect to the scope of work to be accomplished and quality thereof;
o The vessel has been in continued possession of WSSI and has suffered
deterioration due to exposure to the element; and
o Due to delay incurred by WSSI, SLC has suffered unrealized profits the non-
operation of the vessel at the minimum rate of P400k a month.
 Apparently, there were two contracts for services, Annex A attached to SLC’s and Annex
I for WSSI’s answer.
Ruling of the RTC:
 April 25, 1990: The trial Court rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant as follows:
o The Contract is declared rescinded;
 o Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P4M by way of liquated
damages;
o Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P30k by way of Atty’s fees;
and
o To pay the costs
Ruling of the CA:
 February 7, 1992: The decision being appealed from is set aside and in lieu thereof
another rendered:
o Dismissing the complaint;
o Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the following amounts for service rendered;
 P1,253,498.88M with legal interest from the filing Answer on March 19,
1986 until fully paid for work accomplished on the vessel “Dinky”;
 P352,617.17M with legal interest from filing Answer on March 19, 1986
until fully paid for work accomplished on the LCT Placer;
o Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the sum of P25k by way of attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses; and
o Ordering plaintiff to pay costs
 February 29, 1992: SLC moved for reconsideration
 January 28, 1993: The decision dated Feb 7, 1992 is hereby correspondingly amended to
read as follows:
o Dismissing the complaint;
o Ordering the plaintiff to pay the amount of P1,067,228.72M with legal interest
from the filing of the answer on March 19, 1986, until fully paid for work
accomplished on the vessel “Dinky/LCT”;
o Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant the sum of P25k by way of Atty’s fees and
litigation expenses
 February 23, 1993: Petitioner filed with CA a motion for reconsideration
 May 14, 1993: The CA denied the reconsideration

ISSUES+HELD:

 WON THE CA ERRED IN DELETING THE AWARD FOR WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY WSSI
ON THE LCT PLACER – NO
o Under Rule 45, Sec 1. Of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
 Section 1. Filing of petition with supreme court – A party desiring to
appeal y certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the CA,
the Sandiganbayan, The RTC, or other courts whenever authorized by
law, may file with the SC a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set
forth.
o Questions that may be entertained in a petition for certiorari must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigations
 o A question of law exists when doubt or difference arises as to what is pertaining
law given a certain state of facts
o WWSI casts doubt on the factual findings of the CA stating that the CA “drew
incorrect conclusions from the evidence extant on the records”, and that “this
misapprehension of facts led to it to misapply the law and therefore, committed
reversible error
o When the factual findings of CA are supported by substantial evidence 1, they are
conclusive and binding on the parties.
o We find that substantial evidence supports the finding of CA, neither do the
records show that the CA’ reduction of the amounts originally awarded was
based on speculation, hence, the factual findings in support can not be disturbed

THE FALLO:

 WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the resolution appealed from, the petition is
Dismissed

1
Substantial Evidence – is that amount of relevant evidence which reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify the conclusion.