Title
Cortes vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 79010
Decision Date
May 23, 1988
A boat owner sued for damages after his vessel was destroyed during a historical re-enactment; the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, citing excusable negligence and liability.
fishing boat owner
damages
boat destruction
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95469)

Facts:

  • Ownership and location of the vessel
  • Petitioner Generoso Cortes was the owner of a fishing boat beached along the shore of Mactan Island.
  • The boat became an obstruction within the area selected for an historical re-enactment.
  • Re-enactment of the Battle of Mactan and need to clear the area
  • Respondent David S. Odilao, Jr. was the Collector of Customs at Mactan Island.
  • Odilao headed a committee of the Ministry of Youth and Sports Development and the City of Lapu-Lapu which conceived the idea of re-enacting the historic battle of Mactan on April 27, 1979.
  • To give the battle scene an aura of realism, the committee found it necessary to clear the area of obstructions.
  • Cortes’s beached fishing boat happened to be within the “battle” area.
  • Pre-move discussions and the decision to transfer
  • About a week before April 27, Odilao located Cortes and talked to Cortes’s wife and brother-in-law Imigdio Llanos.
  • Odilao explained the need to transfer Cortes’s boat to another place.
  • Llanos suggested that Odilao wait for high-tide.
  • Odilao was in a hurry and stated that if Cortes could not transfer the boat, Odilao would have it transferred.
  • Transfer attempt on April 26 and resulting damage
  • In the afternoon of April 26, a payloader was brought to the site for the purpose of lifting and transferring the boat.
  • The payloader was operated by two (2) men under the supervision of Basilio Igot, the barrio captain of Mactan.
  • After the boat was lifted, it broke into two crosswise in the middle.
  • The wreckage and debris fell into the sea and on the shore.
  • The two engines were saved, but the boat itself was destroyed.
  • Trial court proceedings and initial liability findings
  • Cortes filed an action for damages against Odilao and Igot in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu City.
  • After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (which replaced the CFI) rendered a decision on February 16, 1983.
  • The RTC ordered:
1) Odilao to pay Cortes P10,000.00 as actual damages; and P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. 2) Igot to be absolved from liability. 3) Cortes’s counterclaim to be dismissed. 4) Costs against Odilao.
  • Odilao’s appeal and failure to perfect on time
  • Odilao filed a notice of appeal on March 22, 1983.
  • The lower court denied due course to the appeal because it was filed seven (7) days late, beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period.
  • Petition for relief from judgment
  • On April 11, 1983, Odilao filed a Petition for Relief of Judgment.
  • The petition was dismissed on May 4, 1983.
  • Odilao appealed the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals.
  • Court of Appeals proceedings and reversal
  • The Court of Appeals (Third Division) rendered a decision on March 19, 1987.
  • The CA vacated the lower court’s order of May 4, 1983 denying the petition for relief from judgment.
  • The CA reversed the RTC decision of February 16, 1983 without costs.
  • Cortes then filed the present petition for review, contesting the CA’s action.
  • Grounds raised in the present petition
  • The petition for review predicated its arguments on:
1) that the CA rendered a decision not in accord with law and applicable Supreme Court decisions; and 2) that the CA departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by reversing the trial court’s findings of fact even in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
  • Circumstances surrounding counsel’s handling of the appeal
  • Cortes’s adverse decision was served ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the lower court’s denial of the petition for relief from judgment due to excusable negligence in the late filing of the notice of appeal
  • Whether counsel’s failure to withdraw his appearance after being appointed an RTC judge constituted excusable negligence under the circumstances.
  • Whether the seven (7) day delay in filing the notice of appeal warranted outright dismissal.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court’s finding on the merits regarding whether Odilao directed the use of the payloader and thus incurred liability for the destruction of the boat
  • Whether there was sufficient factual basis to conclude that Odilao ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

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.

About Privacy Terms