GR, No, 201822, August 12, 2015." MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC,"" petitioner, vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent, Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari: It is evident that the resolution of the instant case requires the scrutiny of factual issues which ‘are, however, ouside the scope of the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court —At the outset, it wident that the resolution of the instant ease requires ‘the acrutiny of factual issues which are, however, outside ‘tho scope of the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, However, the Court held in Asian Terminals, Inc. v, Philam Insurance Co., Ine., 702 SCRA 88 (2013), that: But while it isnot our duty to review, examine and evaluate or weigh all over again the probative value of the evidence presented, the Court may nonetheless resolve questions of fact when the case falls under any of the following exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, oF conjectures: (2) when ‘the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or Impossible; (8) when there is grave abuse of discretion; () when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (©) when the findings of fact are conflicting: (6) when in making its finding the Court of Appeals went beyond the "3 of the caso, or its findings are contrary to the pinata com shisrentonen9310 HSNO NNHIORHD ONY or aoeadmissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when. the findings are contrary to those of tho trial court; (8) ‘when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the {acts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and roply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the tvidence on record. The Court finds that the instant case falls under the aforementioned second, fourth, fifth, and seventh exceptions. Hence, it shall proceed to delve into factual matters essential to the proper determination of the merits of this case, + SECOND DIVisiON, 4 No Rosa Asia Terai, oe VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 409) “Marina Port Services, In vs. American Home Assurance Corporation Mercantile Law; Common Carriers; Warehouse Receipts Act Arrastre Operators; An arratire operator should adhere to the ‘same degree of diligence as that legally expected of 0 lwarehouseman or @ common carrier asset forth in Section SI} of the Warehouse Receipts Act and Article 1738 ofthe Ciuil Code — ‘The relationship between an srrastre operator and a onsignee ie Similar to that betwaen a warehouseman and a depositor, or to pin cntal com shirt SHSOHDEeSONNHIOREDONor eee‘that betwoon @ common carricr and the consignee sndior the ‘owner of the shipped goods, Thus, an arrastre operator should sudhero to the same degree of diligence as that legally expected of A warehouseman or a common carrier as at forth in Section 3 fof the Warehouse Hecoipta [Act] and Article 1733 of the Civil Coil. As custodian of the shipment discharged from the vessel ‘the arzastre operator must take good eare of the same and turn it ‘over to the party entitlod to its possession. ‘Same; Same; Same; Same; In case ofelaim for lose fied by a ‘consignee or the insurer as subrogee, it isthe arrastre operator that carries the burden of proving compliance with the obligation to deliver the goods fo the appropriate party —In case of claim for lowe fled by consignee or the insurer as subrogee, itis the srtastre operator that catriee the burden of proving compliance with the obligation to deliver the goods to the appropriate party [te must show thatthe losses were not due to ita negligence or that of its employces, It must establish that it obsereed the required diligence im handling the shipment. Otherwise, it shall be presumed that the loss was duo to its fault. In the same manner. fn arrastre operator shall be lable for damages ifthe seal and lock of tho goods doposited and delivered to it as closed and sealed, be broken through ite faull, Such fault on the part of the srrastteoporator is likewise presumed unless ther is proof to the contrary. ‘Same; Same; Same; Same: As held in International Container ‘Terminal Services, In. v, Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc, 820 SCRA 244 (2898), the signature of the consignee’ representative on the gate pass is evidence of receipt of the ‘shipment in good order and condition—As held in International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co, Ine, $20 SCRA 244 (1999), the signature of the ‘onsignee's ropresentative on th gato pass is evidence of receipt fof the shipment in good order and condition, Alto, that MPST delivered the subject shipment to MSC’s representative in good nd complete condition and with lock and pin cnta comshisrntornein9310SHSOHDEeSNNHIOREONor aoe