Title
Aleson Shipping Lines vs. CGU International Insurance Plc.
Case
G.R. No. 217311
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2020
Aleson Shipping held liable for collision due to captain's negligence; Candano Shipping exonerated for exercising extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 217311)

Facts:

  • Parties and Contractual Background
    • In 2002, Candano Shipping Lines, Inc. (Candano) chartered its vessel M/V Romeo to Apo Cement Corporation (Apo) for cement transport; cargo of 31,250 bags (1,250 MT) was insured by CGU International Insurance (CGU).
    • Aleson Shipping Lines, Inc. (Aleson) owned M/V Aleson Carrier 5; no direct carriage contract with Apo or CGU.
  • Collision and Aftermath
    • On July 14, 2002 at midnight, M/V Romeo, exiting Apo channel, was struck on its side by the bow of M/V Aleson, causing Romeo to sink in five minutes and loss of cargo valued at ₱3,427,500.
    • Apo demanded payment from Candano and Aleson; upon nonpayment, CGU settled the loss and sued both carriers for damages and attorney’s fees.
  • Trial Proceedings and Evidence
    • Aleson denied fault, attributing negligence to Candano and asserting crew exercised due care; Candano claimed seaworthiness and blamed Aleson’s master for negligent command.
    • CGU’s investigator Lopez and Candano’s operations manager Flores testified under res gestae; Captain Cabeltes of Aleson admitted he failed to verify clearance, did not sound horn, and refrained from evasive maneuvering.
  • Trial Court Decision
    • Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Aleson solely liable under Civil Code common-carrier presumption of negligence; awarded CGU ₱3,368,750 plus interest and fees; dismissed case against Candano and Aleson’s counterclaims.
    • RTC admitted Lopez and Flores’s hearsay under res gestae and relied on Cabeltes’s admissions of lapses.
  • Appellate Ruling
    • Court of Appeals affirmed RTC: Aleson’s captain proceeded despite knowing Romeo was loading; failed to signal or maneuver; evidence supported negligence; no need to disturb factual findings.
    • Aleson’s motion for reconsideration was denied; it filed petition for review under Rule 45.

Issues:

  • Procedural and Evidentiary Questions
    • Whether a Rule 45 petition may raise factual issues.
    • Whether the testimonies of Lopez and Flores were inadmissible hearsay improperly admitted as res gestae.
  • Substantive Liability Questions
    • Whether CGU has a cause of action against Aleson and on what legal basis (contract of carriage vs. maritime tort).
    • Whether the RTC and CA erred by applying Civil Code common-carrier provisions or by misapplying the standard of diligence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.