REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA, BRANCH ___

Natan Cruz doing business

Under the Name and Style
Raine Trading,
Plaint
iff, CIVIL CASE NO. _______

For: ANNULMENT OF
-versus- CONTRACT DUE TO
BREACH OF CONTRACT
MichelleTin Shipping Lines, WITH DAMAGES
Defendan
t.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, defendant MICHELLE TIN SHIPPING LINES,

INC. (“Michelle Tin Shipping), by undersigned counsel, unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the instant
Answer to the Complaint dated August 2019 of Plaintiff
Gemma Natan Cruz doing business under the name and style
Raine Trading, on the basis of the following presentation:

I.

ADMISSIONS

1. Defendant Michelle Tin, subject to its Affirmative

Allegations and Defenses, only admits the allegations in the
Complaint, contained in the following paragraphs:

I.1 Paragraph 1.1.

I.2 Paragraph 1.2, with the qualification that

Defendant Michelle Tin likewise authorized its Audit
Supervisor, Ms. LARA CADABRA, to represent Defendant
Michelle Tin in the instant case and that all pleadings,
motions, orders, notices, and other processes of the
Honorable Court may be served on Defendant Michelle Tin
through undersigned counsel.
 I.3 Paragraph 2.1., only as regards the fact that
Defendant Michelle Tin is principally engaged in the
business of shipping cargoes within the Philippines Natan,
with the qualification that Plaintiff Natan and Defendant
MIchelleTin Shipping, as a matter of fact, entered into
contracts of carriage in more than two (2) occasions.

I.4 Paragraph 2.2., only as regards the fact that

on two separate occasions, Plaintiff Natan and Defendant
MichelleTin entered into a contract of carriage wherein for
a consideration, MichelleTin shall load, transport, ans
ship cargoes of Plaintiff and Defendant, as a matter of fact,
entered into contracts of carriage in more than two
occasions.

I.5 Paragraph 2.3, only as regards the fact that

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping agreed to load, transport,
ship, and deliver cargoes of Plaintiff Natan consisting of
18,000 kilograms of High Grade Cement, with a declared
value of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00)
from the Port of Manila to the Port of Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan, and with the qualification that the freight for
Waybill No. MCT01619057 cost Thirty-Two Thousand
Pesos (Php 32,000.00).

I.6 Paragraph 2.4., with qualification that the

freight for Waybill No. 2MC02319062 cost Thirty-Two
Thousand Pesos (Php32,000.00).

I.7 Paragraph 2.5, with the qualification that the

freight for Waybill No. MCT01619057 arrived at the Port of
Palawan on 23 May 2019.

I.8 Paragraphs 2.11.

II

SPECIFIC DENIALS

2. Defendant MichelleTin Shipping specifically denies,

for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to their truth or falsity, the following allegations contained
in:
 2.1 Paragraph 2.1., insofar as it is alleged and made
to appear that Plaintiff Natan is primarily engaged in the
business of trading various goods and merchandise.

2.2 Paragraph 2.7., insofar as it is alleged and made

to appear that Plaintiff Natan is primarily engaged in the
business of trading various goods and merchandise.

2.3 Paragraph 2.9., in so far as it alleged and made

to appear that Plaintiff sent another letter dated 10 June
2019 to Defendant demanding for the loading and
shipment of the cargo corresponding to Waybill No.
2MC02319062 to the Port of Destination and/or to release
the same cargo to Plaintiff.

2.4 Paragraph 2.10., in so far as it is alleged and

made to appear that Plaintiff is not aware of any legal right
of Defendant to cause the detention or distraint of the
cargoes under Waybill No. MCT01619057 and Waybill o.
2MC02319062 and that the said cargoes are allegedly not
subject for any tax assessment, deficiencies or a fine
pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodial legis.

2.5 Paragraph 2.12., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that due to the precarious and perishable
nature of the cement cargoes, the same must be used
within a period of not more than sixty (60) days ad that
with Defendant’s refusal to unload the cargoes under
Waybill No. MCT01619057 and Waybill No.
2MC02319062, the usefulness and qualified of the cargoes
have deteriorated and have lost their real value at the
moment.

3. Defendant, for the reasons and/or facts stated in its

Affirmative Allegations and Defenses, specifically denies the
following allegations contained in:

3.1 Paragraph 2.2., insofar as it is alleged and made

to appear that under a contract of carriage, the moment
the cargoes are paid, Defendant is under all
circumstances duty bound to release the cargoes to
Plaintiff Natan.

3.2 Paragraph 2.3, insofar as it is alleged and made

to appear that the cargoes under Wabill No.
MCT01619057 is scheduled toarrive at the port of
destination on 21 May 2019.

3.3 Paragraph 2.6, in so far as it is alleged and

made to appear that on 21 May 2019, Plaintiff allegedly
paid the shipping fees and charges corresponding to
Waybill No. MCT01619057 and thereafter commenced
negotiating for the release of the cargo shipment ad that
despite Plaintiff Alehandrino’s purported payment of the
shipping fees and charges corresponding to Waybill No.
MCT01619057, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
purportedly refused to release the cargo to Plaintiff Natan.

3.4 Paragraph 2.8, insofar as it is alleged and made

to appear that the cargo corresponding to Waybill No.
2MC02319062 was allegedly not loaded and shipped to
the port of destination.

3.5 Paragraph 2.10., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
supposedly has not complied with Plaintiff Natan’s
demand to release the cargo under Waybill No.
MCT01619057, ship and/or release to Waybill No.
2MC02319062, and continued to unjustly detain Plaintiff’s
Natan’s cargoes.

3.6 Paragraph 3.1., insofar as it is alleged and made

to appear that Defendant MichelleTin Shipping’s failure
and refusal to perform its obligation to ship and release
cargoes under the contract of carriage with the plaintiff
constitute a breach of contract.

3.7 Paragraph 3.4, in so far as it is alleged and

made to appear that when Defendant MichelleTin
Shipping refused, without justifiable reason, to release
cargoes under Waybill No. MCT01619057 even after
payment of the shipping and freight charges upon its
arrival in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, and to ship
cargoes under Waybill No. MCT01619057 even after
payment of the shipping and freight charges upon its
arrival in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, and to ship
cargoes under Waybill No. 2MC02319062 from Port of
Manila to Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping purportedly breached its contract of
carriage with Plaintiff Natan and should purportedly be
held liable for damages.
 3.8 Paragraph 3.5., in so far as it is alleged and
made to appear that Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
breached its contractual obligation with Plaintiff Natan
and must be declared to have committed breach of
contract.

3.9 Paragraph 3.6., in so far as it is alleged and

made to appear that Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
purportedly committed a breach of contract.

3.10 Paragraph 3.7., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that for the loss of the value of the goods,
due to its precarious and perishable nature and the freight
charges duly paid, defendant should purportedlybe made
liable to pay Plaintiff Natan actual damages, as follows:

a. Five Hundred Thousand Pesos

(Php500,000.00)-Declared value of cargoes
under Waybill No. MCT01619057

b. Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php

500,000.00)-Declard value of cargoes under
Waybill No. 2MC02319062

c. Thirty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos

(Php34,500.00)-Shipping charges paid for
cargoes under Waybill No. MCT01619057

3.11 Paragraph 3.8., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that due to the non-delivery, Plaintiff
Natan suffered unearned profits and that Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping should be made to pay Plaintiff
Natan the amount equivalent to Twenty-Two Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (Php22,500.00) by way of nominal
damages.

3.12 Paragraph 3.9., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that due to the unjust refusal of
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping to unload the cargoes
under Waybill No. MCT01619057 from the port of
destination and to ship the cargoes under Waybill No.
2MC02319062 from the port of origin to the port of
destination, Plaintiff Natan suffered profound distress,
sleepless nights, and mental anguish, and that Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping must be made to pay Plaintiff Natan
moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php100,000.00)
 3.13 Paragraph 3.10., insofar as it is alleged and
made to appear that so as to prevent others from
committing similar acts, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
must therefore be made to pay exemplary damages in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00)

3.14 Paragraph 3.11., insofar as it is alleged and

made to appear that due to the purported malevolent acts
of Defendant MichelleTin Shipping, Plaintiff Natan was
constrained to seek the services of a counsel and institute
this suit in order to protect its rights, and that Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping must made to pay Plaintiff Natan
attorney’s fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php200,000.00) and cost of this suit.

III

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS

4. In support of its Admission, Specific Denials, and

Affirmative Defenses, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
respectfully alleges:

4.1 Between the dates of 30 March 2019 ad 24 May

2019, Plaintiff Natan contracted the shipping services of
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping for a total of 37 instances.
A copy of the Statement of Account dated 22 October 2019
under the name of “”AGELESS TRADING” is attached
hereto as Annex “2”.

4.2 As mentioned in paragraph 2.1. of the

Complaint dated August 2019, and as admitted earlier in
paragraph 1.1. hereof, Plaintiff Natan is the registered
owner of Ageless Trading, a single proprietorship duly
registered with the Department of /trade andIndustry,
with principal office andbusiness address at Unit 3310,
33rd Floor D’ Univeersity Place, 2421 Leon Guinto St.,
Malate, Manila.

4.3 Among others, the following Waybills were

issued in relation to the shipping services contracted by
Plaintiff Natan from Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
between the dates of 30 arch 2019 and 24 May 2019:
4.3.1. Waybill No. MCF00819272 with the freight
cost of Thirty-Four thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php34,500.00). The entry of Waybill No.
MCF00819272 in the Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-A”. A copy
of Waybill No. MCF00819272 is attached hereto as
Annex “3”.

4.3.2. Waybill No. 5MC01519021 with the freight

cost of Thirty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php34,500). The entry of Waybill NO.
5MC01519021 in the Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-B”. A copy
of Waybill No. 5MC01519021 is attached hereto as
Annex “4”.

4.3.3. Waybill No. 5MC01519055 with the freight

cost of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty
(Php17,950.00). The entry of Waybill No.
5MC01519055 in the Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-C”. A copy
of Waybill No. 5MC01519055 is attached hereto as
Annex “5”.

4.3.4. Waybill No. MCA01419032 with the freight

cost of Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php34,500.00). The entry of Waybill No.
MCA01419032 in the Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-D”. A copy
of Waybill No. MCA01419032 is attached hereto as
Annex “6”.

4.3.5. Waybill No. MCA01419033 with the freight

cost of Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php34,500.00). The entry of Waybill No.
MCA01419033 in the Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-E”. A copy
of Waybill No. MCA01419033 is attached hereto as
Annex “7”.

4.3.6. Waybill No. MCA01419306 with the freight

cost of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty
Pesos (Php17,950.00). The entry of Waybill No.
MCA01419306 in the Staement of Account dated 22
October 2019 is marked as Annex “2-F”. A copy of
 Waybill No. MCA01419306 is attached hereto as
Annex “8”.

4.3.7 Waybill No. MCA01419310 with the freight

cost of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty
Pesos (Php17,950.00). The entry of Waybill No.
MCA01419310 is attached hereto as Annex “9”.

4.3.8 Waybill No. 2MC02319062 with the freight

cost of Thirty-Two Thousand Pesos (Php32,000.00).
The entry of Waybill No. 2MC02319062 in the
Statement of Account dated 22 October 2019 is
marked as Annex “2-H”. A copy of Waybill No.
2MC02319062 is attached hereto as Annex “10”.

4.3.9 Waybill No. MCT01619057 with the freight

cost of Thirty-Two thousand Pesos (Php32,000.00).
the entry of Waybill No. MCT01619057 in the
Statement of Account dated 22 October 2019 is
attached hereto as Annex “11”.

4.4. In connection to the foregoing Waybills,

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping issued the following
Official Receipts upon receipt of certain payments given b
Plaintiff Natan.

4.4.1. Official Receipt No. 987868 dated 16 May

2018 for the amount of One Hundred Four
Thousand Pesos (Php104,000.00), which fully
covered the freight of Waybill Nos. MCA01419033
and MCA01419310 for the amount of Seventeen
Thousand Fifty (Php17,050.00), leaving an
outstanding balance thereto of Nine Hundred Pesos
(Php900.00). A copy of Official Receipt No. 987868
dated 16 May 2018 is attached hereto as Annex “12”
which is also reflected Statement of Account dated
22 October 2019.

4.4.2. Official Receipt No. 987872 dated 18 May

2019 for the amount of Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos
(Php52,000.00), which fully covered the freight of
Waybill No. 5MC01519021, and partly covered the
freight of Waybill No. 5MC01519055 for the amount
of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php17,500.00), leaving an outstanding balance
thereto of Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php450.00). A
copy of Official Receipt No. 987872 dated 18 May
 2018 is attached hereto as Annex “13”, which is also
reflected in the Statement of Account dated 22
October 2019.

4.4.3. Official Receipt No. 1000519 dated 21 May

2019 for the amount of Thirty-Four Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (Php34,500.00), which fully covered
freight of Waybill No. MCF00819272. A copy of
Official Receipt No. 1000519 dated 21 May 2018 is
attached hereto as Annex “14”, which is also
reflected in the Statement of Account dated 22
October 2019.

4.5. The Waybills enumerated above, as well as the

corresponding payments rendered is summarized in the
table below:

Waybill No. Freight Partial OR No. Outstanding

Payment Balance
MCF00819272 34,500.00 34,500.00 100159 0.00
5MC01519021 34,500.00 34,500.00 987872 0.00
5MC01519055 17,950.00 17,500.00 987872 450.00
MCA01419032 34,500.00 34,500.00 987868 0.00
MCA01419033 34,500.00 34,500.00 987868 0.00
MCA01419306 17,950.00 17,050.00 987868 900.00
MCA01419310 17,950.00 17,950.00 987868 0.00
2MC02319062 32,000.00 0.00 - 32,000.00
MCT01619057 32,000.00 0.00 - 32,000.00

4.6 Meanwhile, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping has

yet to receive from Plaintiff Natan the payment of the
Freight for Waybill Nos, 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057
amounting to a total of Sixty Four Thousand Pesos
(Php64,000.00).

4.7 It bears noting that Defendant MichelleTin

Shipping has already shipped the cargoes under Waybill
Nos. 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057 from Manila to
Puerto Princesa Palawan. The cargoes on both shipments
have arrived and have been stored in the Port of Palawan
beginning, respectively, on 23 May 2019 and 26 May
2019. A copy of Statement of Account Re: Storage Fees
dated 22 October 2019 is attached hereto as Annex “15”.

4.8. As a consequence of Plaintiff Natan’s failure to

pay the freight for Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062 and
MCT01619057, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping was
constrained to hold the release of the cargoes
corresponding to the two waybills. It bears pointing out
that both of the said Waybills expressly provide thereto
that “NOTE NO PAYMENT NO RELEASE.”

4.9. Further, due to the failure of Plaintiff Natan to

pay the freight and the consequential non-release of the
cargoes, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping was constrained
to continuously incur storage fees for the cargoes under
Waybill Nos, 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057
amoounting to a total of at least Ninety Thousand Nine
Hundred Pesos (Php90,900.00).

4.9.1. For Waybill No. MCT01619057,

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping incurred the
storage fee of Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred
Pesos (Php45,900.00) for the period of 23 May 2019
to 22 October 2019 and continues to incur Three
Hundred Pesos (Php300.00) for each day after 22
October 2019.

4.9.2. For Waybill No. 2MC02319062,

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping incurred the
storage fee of Forty Five Thousand Pesos
(Php45,000.00) for the period of 26 may 2019 to 22
October 2019 and continues to incur Three
Hundred Pesos (Php300.00) for each day after 26
October 2019.

4.10 As mentioned in paragraph 2.11., of the

Complaint dated August 10, 2019 and as admitted earlier
in paragraph 1.8. hereof, Defendant Moretta Shipping
previously sent to Plaintiff Natan a Statement of Account
dated 16 July 2019 to demand the payment of freight
charges.

4.11 Thus, in order to follow up on the previous

demand made upon Complainant, on 7 November 2019,
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping,through counsel,send a
demad letter to to Plaintiff Natan demanding for the
payment of the outstanding balance on the freight cost for
all the shipping services contracted by Plaintiff Natan from
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping. A copy of the Demand
Letter dated 6 November 2019 is attached hereto as Annex
“16.” A copy of the Affidavit dated 7 November 2019 of
Jesus Rufin III, messenger of the undersigned counsel, is
attached hereto as Annex “17”
 4.12 Despite the repeated demands made, no
payment has yet been given by Plaintiff Natan to
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping.

4.13 As regards the demand letters allegedly sent,

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping has not received Plaintiff
Natan’s Demand Letter dated 21 May 2019 and demand
letter dated 10 June 2019, contrary to the claims of
Plaintiff Natan.

4.14 Upon perusal of the Demand Letter dated 21

May 2019, it appears that the same was received by a
certain person that goes by the name of “Manual Chico.”

4.15 In this regard, Defelidant MichelleTin

Shipping notes that it has no employee that goes by the
name of “Manuel Chico.” Likewise, Defendant MichelleTin
Shipping did not also authorize a certain “Manuel Chico”
to receive any documents for and on behalf of Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping. A copy of the Affidavit of Human
Resources Manager Leilani B. Perez, thereby stating that
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping does not have an
employee that goes by the name of “Manuel Chico” and
that Defendant MichelleTin Shipping did not authorize a
certain “Manuel Chico” to receive any documents for and
on behalf of Defendant MichelleTin Shipping, is attached
hereto as Annex “l9.”

IV

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. Defendant MichelleTin Shipping, in support of the

foregoing Specific Denials and Affirmative Allegations,
respectfully pleads the following defenses.

A. Contrary to Plaintiff
Natan’s Allegation,
There Was NO Breach of
Contract on The Part of
Defendant MichelleTin
Shipping Considering
That PLaintifff Natan
 Has Not Yet Paid The
Freight For Waybill Nos.
2MC02319062 And
MCT01619057;Thus,
Defendant MichelleTin
Shipping Has The Right
to Withhold The Release
of the Cargoes.
_________________________________

5.1 Basic is the rule that a contract is the law

between the parties. As held in Morla v. Belmonte.

“It is basic that a contract is the law between

the parties. Obligations arising from contracts
have the force of law between the contracting
parties and should be complied with in good
faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy, the same are binding as
between the parties.”

5.2 In the context of the instant case, Plaintiff

Natan even posits that “[t]ne Waybill in itself is valid
written contract of carriage whereby for a consideration,
defendant undertook to load, transport, ship and deliver
plaintiff’s cargoes from the port of origin to the port of
destination.

5.3 Also, in Philam Insurance Company, Inc. vs.

Heung-A Shipping/corporation, the Supreme Court had
the occasion to characterize the nature of a “bill of lading”,
a document which is akin and/or identical to a waybill, to
wit:
“A bill of lading is a written
acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and
an agreement to transport and to deliver them
at a specified place to a person named or on his
or her order. It operates both as a receipt and
as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods
shipped and a contract to transport and deliver
the same as therein stipulated.”

5.4 Further, under Articles 374, 375 and 376 of

the Code of Commerce, a carrier is provided with certain
remedies for the collection of freight. Among others, a
carrier may avail the remedy of “retaining lien”, under
which “the carrier cannot be compelled to deliver or
surrender cargo unti the freightage is paid.”

5.5 In Ouano vs. Court of Appeals, it has been

explained a carrier has lien for the payment of freight
charges, which constitutes as the right of the carrier to
withhold the goods from being released, to wit:

“A carrier has such a lien only while it

retains possession of the goods, so that delivery
of the goods to the consignee or a third person
terminates, or constitutes a waiver of, the lien.
The lien of a carrier for the payment of freight
charges is nothing more than the right to
withhold goods, and is inseparably
associated with its possession and dependent
upon it.”

5.6 In this case, it is clear that Plaintiff Natan has

not yet paid the freight corresponding to Waybill Nos.
2MC02319062 and MCT01619057.

5.7 Following the clear terms stipulated on the

face of Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057,
that “NOTE NO PAYMENT NO RELEASE,” Respondent
MichelleTin Shipping is, in fact, under no obligation to
release the cargoes considering the lack of payment
thereof.

5.8 Further, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping is

even entitled to the remedy of “retaining lien,” as a
response to the non-payment of the freight. IN availing
the remedy of “retaining lien”, it is well within the right of
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping to withhold the release of
the cargoes.

5.9 Clearly, there was no breach of contract by

Defendant in this case.

5.10. According to the case of Spouses Guanio v.

Makati Shangri-la Hotel and Resort Inc., breach f contract
is defined as the failure without legal reason to comply
with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the
failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise
which forms the whole or part of the contract.
 5.11 While Plaintiff Natan insists that Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping purportedly breached its contractual
obligations, the fact is, rather than violating the contract,
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping was in fact executing the
terms thereof.

5.12 In the instant case, and as alreadv explained

above, the clear terms stipulated on the face of Waybill
Nos. 2MC02319062 and ICT01619057 state that “NOTE
NO PAYMENT NO RELEASE.”

5.13 What Plaintiff Natan failed to divulge to this

Honorable Court is the fact that it was she who actually
failed to comply with her obligations.

5.14 It bears also noting that in her

Complaint, Plaintiff Natan relied, albeitly wrongly, on the
case of Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Reyes. As may be
perused in the portion Plaintiff Natan hereself quoted, the
said case involves a breach in the transportation of
passenger over the air. The issue therein, essentially,
revolved around the boarding of passengers in the plane.
On the contrary, the issue in the instant case involves
the transportation of goods and propriety of releasing the
cargoes despite the non-payment of the freight.

5,15. In order to mask his clear non-compliance

with his obligations, Plaintiff Natan even had the temerity
to file this frivolous Complaint against herein Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping.

5.16 The foregoing demonstrates that Defendant

MichelleTin Shipping was clearly not remiss in its
obligations to comply with the provisions of Waybill Nos.
2MC02319062 and MCT01619057. Nothing is clearer
than this.

B. Further, Plaintiff
Alejandrino Failed to
Declare Which Debt Her
Payment to Defendant
Moreta ShippingShould
be Applied To
_________________________________
 5.17. Under Article 1252 of the Civil Code, a person
who has various debts of the same kind in favor of one
and the same creditor, may declare at the time of making
the payment, wot which of the said debts the payment
must be applied, to wit:

“Article 1252. He who has various

debts of the same kind in favor of one and
the same creditor, may declare at the time
of making the payment, to which of them
the same must be applied. xxx””

5.18 In the absence of such declaration, Article

1254 of the Civil Code provides that the payment shall be
applied on the most onerous debt, to wit:

“Article 1254. When the payment

cannot be applied in accordance with the
preceding rules, or if application cannot be
inferred from other circumstances, the debt
which is most onerous to the debtor, among
those due, shall be deemed to have been
satisfied.

If the debts due are of the same nature

and burden, the payment shall be applied to
all of them proportionately.”

5.19 The rule under Article 1254 of the Civil Code

was applied in the case of Traders Insurance and Surety
Company and Dy Eng Giok, to wit:

The second reason is that, since the

obligations of Dy Eng Giok between August
4, 1951 to August 4, 1952, were
guaranteed, while his indebtedness prior to
that period was not secured, then in the
absence of express application by the
debtor, or of any receipt issued by the
creditor specifying a particular imputation
of the payment (New Civil Code, Art. 1252),
any partial payments made by him should
be imputed or applied to the debts that were
guaranteed, since they are regarded as the
more onerous debts from the standpoint of
the debtor (New Civil Code, Art. 1254).
 5.20. In her Complaint dated August 2019, Plaintiff
Natan alleged that on 21 May 2019, she deposited the
amount of Thirty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php34,500.00) purportedly for the payment of the freight
under Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057.

5.21.2. For Waybill No. 5MC01519055, the

outstanding balance of Four Hundred Fifty Pesos
(Php450.00) out of the Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred
Fifty Pesos (Php17,950.00) total freight.

5.21.3. For Waybill No. MCA01419306, the

outstanding balance of Nine Hundred Pesos
(Php900.00) out of the Seventeen Thousand Nine
Hundred Fifty Pesos (17,950.00) total freight.

5.21.4. For Waybill No. 2MC02319062, the full

amount of Thirty-Two Thousand Pesos
(Php32,000.00).

5.21.5. For Waybill No. MCT01619057, the full

amount of Thirty-Two Thousand Pesos
(Php32,000.00).

5.22. Plaintiff Natan alleged that she "paid"

Defendant MichelleTin Shipping's ban account.

5.23. Given that Plaintiff Natan owes Defendant

MichelleTin Shipping a number of debts, she should have
declared under which of these debts her purported
payment of Thirty-Four Thousand Pesos (Php34,500.00)
on 21 May 2019 is to be applied. However, it appears that
Plaintiff Natan failed to make such declaration.

5.24. Consequently, in the absence of such

declaration on the part of Plaintiff Natan, it becomes well
within the right of Defendant MichelleTin Shipping to
apply the payment of Thirty-Four Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (Php34,500.00) on 21 May 2019 to the most
onerous debt.

5.25. Based on the list above, the most onerous

debt is the one corresponding to Waybill No.
MCF00819272 in the amount of Thirty-Four Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (Php34,500.00).
 5.26 Rightfully so, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping
applied the payment of Thirty Four Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (Php34,500.00) on 21 May 2019 on
Waybill No. MCF00819272, as may be seen in the more
recent Statement of Account dated 22 October 2019.

5.27. Considering that Plaintiff Natan failed to

declare as to the application of her payment and that
Defendant MichelleTin Shipping applied the same on the
freight corresponding to Waybill No. MCF00819272, it is
further affirmed that indeed, Plaintiff Natan failed to pay
the freight corresponding to Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062
and MCT01619057.

C. In any Case,
Plaintiff Natan Failed
To Make A Demand to
Defendant MichelleTin
Shipping.

__________________________

5.28. Under Article 1169 of the Civil Code, a delay

in the performance of an obligation is incurred when a
demand is made, to wit:

"Article 1169. Those obliged to deliver

or to do something incur in delay from the
time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially
demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation.xxx"

5.29.Here, while Plaintiff Natan alleged that she has

supposedly sent out two (2) demand letters, Defendant
MichelleTin Shipping has not received any of the said
demand letters.

5.30. With regard to the Demand Letter dated 21

May 2019, Defendant MichelleTin Shipping does not have
an employee under the name of "Manuel Chico" who
purportedly received the Demand Letter dated 21 May
2019 does not represent Defendant MichelleTin Shipping.

5.31. With regard to the Demand Letter dated 10

June 2019, a perusal of the same document would readily
 show that it does not bear any indication that it has been
received by Defendant MichelleTin Shipping, by or any of
its duly authorized representative.

5.32. Considering that Defendant MichelleTin

Shippine has not received any of the purported demand
letters, there is no obligation due yet on its part,
particularly the delivery of the subject shipents pursuant
to Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062 and
MCT01619057,pursuant to Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

FIRST (1st) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

(UNPAID OBLIGATION
PLUS PENALTIES AND/OR LEGAL INTEREST)

6. Defendant Diamante Satoquia Shipping repleads by

reference all the foregoing all allegations.

6.1. Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that parties

are obliged to comply with their contractual obligations in
good faith, to wit:

“Article 1159. Obligations arising from

contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with
in good faith”

6.2. Once again, as held in Morla v. Belmonte.

“It is that a contract is the law between the

parties. Obligations arising from contracts have
the force of law between the contracting parties
and should be complied with in good faith.
Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary
to law, morals, good custom, public order or
public policy, the same are being as between the
parties.”

6.3. Plaintiff Nataniel contracted the shipping services of

Defendant. Corollary, the former has the obligation to pay the
corresponding freight for the shipping services he has
contracted.
 6.4. As previously discussed, Plaintiff Nataniel has an
unpaid obligation to Defendant due to the insufficient
payment of the freight of Waybill No. 5MC01519055 and
MCA01419306, as well as the non-payment of the freight for
Waybill Nos. 2MC02319062 and MCT01619057.

6.5. In sum, Plaintiff owes Defendant the aggregate

amount of Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Pesos
(Php65,350.00) plus penalties and/or legal interests as her
outstanding balance of the insufficiently paid and unpaid
freight.

6.6. Plaintiff’s obligation is due and demandable. Despite

the demands given, Plaintiff refused and/or failed to pay the
same.

SECOND (2nd) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

(ACTUAL DAMAGES
PLUS PENALTIES AND/OR LEGAL INTEREST)

7. Defendant DIAMANTE SATOQUIA Shipping repleads

by reference all the foregoing allegations.

7.1. Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides for the right
to claim actual damages fro the pecuniary loss on has
suffered, to wit:

“Article 2199. Except as provided by law or

by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.”

7.2. As explained in Albenson Enterprise Corp. v. Court

of Appeals.

“Actual and compensatory damages are those

recoverable because of pecuniary loss – in business,
trade, property, profession, job or occupation.”

7.3. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the freight for a

number of shipping services contracted from Defendant as
specified above, the latter was constrained to exercise its right
of “retaining lien.”
 7.4. Consequently, Defendant incurred storage fees for
the cargoes under Waybills Nos. 2MC02319062 and
MCT01619057.

7.4.1. For Waybill No. MCT01619057, the

amount of Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos
(Php45,900.00) and Three Hundred Pesos (Php300.00)
for each day after 22 October 2019, plus penalties
and/or legal interest.

7.4.2. For Waybill No. 2MC02319062, the

amount of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (Php45,000.00)
and Three Hundred Pesos (Php300.00) for each day after
26 October 2019, plus penalties and/or legal interest.

THIRD (3rd) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

(EXEMPLARY DAMAGES)

8. Defendant DIAMANTE SATOQUIA Shipping repleads

by reference all the foregoing allegations.

8.1. In filing this clearly unfounded suit, Plaintiff acted

in a wanton, oppressive, and malevolent manner.

8.2. Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides:

“Exemplary or corrective damages are

imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.”

8.3. The purpose of exemplary damages has been

explained in People v. Catubig, to wit:

“Also known as ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’

damages, exemplary or corrective damages are
intended to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured or a punishment for those guilty of
outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but
not always, used interchangeably. In common law,
there is preference in the use of exemplary
damages when the award is to account for injury to
feelings and for the sense of indignity and
 humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
injury that has been maliciously and wantonly
inflicted, the theory being that there should be
compensation for the hurt caused by the highly
reprehensible conduct of the defendant –
associated with such circumstances as willfulness,
wantonness, malice, gross negligence or
recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross
fraud – that intensifies the injury. The terms
punitive or vindictive damages are often used to
refer to those species of damages that may be
awarded against a person to punish him for his
outrageous conduct. In either case, these
wrongdoer, and others like him from similar
conduct in the future.”

8.4. Hence, by way of example and correction for the

public good, Plaintiff should be made liable to Defendant for
exemplary damages in the amount of at least Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).

FOURTH (4th) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

(ATTORNEY’S FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES,
AND COST OF SUIT)

9. Defendant DIAMANTE SATOQUIA Shipping repleads

by reference all the foregoing allegations.

9.1. By reason of filing this baseless, unwarranted, and

vexatious civil complaint, Defendant was compelled to engage
the services of a counsel for a fee, and also, to incur litigation
expenses and costs incident to this case in order to protect its
rights and interests.

9.2. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be directed to pay

Defendant the amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php500,000.00) as attorney’s fees and at least One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as litigation
expenses, pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code, plus cost
of suit.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant
DIAMANTE SATOQUIA Shipping respectfully prays that after
due proceedings, the Honorable Court render judgment:

1. DISMISSING the Complaint dated August 2019;

2. ORDERING Plaintiff NATANIEL to pay Defendant the

following:

a. On the FIRST (1ST) COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM – the amount of Sixty-Six
Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Pesos
(Php66,350.00), plus penalties and/or interests
for the unpaid obligation;

b. On the SECOND (2ND) COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM:

i. The amount of Forty-Five Thousand Nine

Hundred Pesos (Php45,900.00) and Three
Hundred Pesos (Php300.00) for each day
after 22 October 2019, plus penalties
and/or legal interest, as actual damages in
relation to Waybill No. MCT01619057; and
ii. The amount of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos
(Php45,000.00) and Three Hundred Pesos
(Php300.00) for each day after 26 October
2019 plus penalties and/or legal interest, as
actual damages in relation to Waybill No.
2MC02319062.

c. On the THIRD (3RD) COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM – the amount of at least Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00), as
exemplary damages; and

d. On the FOURTH (4TH) COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM – the amount of at least Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) as
attorney’s fees and at least One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as litigation
expenses, plus cost of suit.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, __________________.

DIAMANTE, SATOQUIA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Unit 789, Makati Estates
#2 Paseo de Roxas
Salcedo Village, Makati City
Tel Nos. 8888-9999
dsaa@gmail.com.ph

By:

ATTY. KRISTINE T. DIAMANTE

PTR No. 1234567 / 01-06-2020 / City of Manila
IBP LRN 02456 / 1-16-2018 / City of Manila
Roll of Attorneys 72005
MCLE Exemption no. III-10987

ATTY. MICHELLE SATOQUIA

PTR No. 7654321 / 01-06-2020 / City of Manila
IBP LRN 02242 / 1-16-2018 / City of Manila
Roll of Attorneys 75034
MCLE Exemption no. III-12345