Case Digest (G.R. No. 125483)
Facts:
Ludo and Luym Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Gabisan Shipping Lines, Inc. and/or Anselmo Olasiman, G.R. No. 125483, February 01, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ludo & Luym Corporation is a domestic copra-processing corporation which owned and operated a private wharf in Cebu City equipped with fender pile clusters used for docking and mooring. Private respondent Gabisan Shipping Lines, Inc. owned and operated the motor vessel MV Miguela, whose captain was private respondent Anselmo Olasiman.
On May 21, 1990 at about 1:30 P.M., while MV Miguela was docking at petitioner’s wharf, the vessel allegedly rammed and damaged a fender pile cluster. Petitioner demanded indemnity; respondents refused, and petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch IX.
At trial petitioner offered eyewitness testimony from Ireneo Naval (who guided the vessel) and security guard Alfredo Espina that the vessel failed to slow and the crew did not release the anchor; Naval shouted “Reverse” but the order was belated and the pile cluster was struck. Marine surveyor Carlos Degamo inspected the damage and hired diver Marvin Alferez, who reported broken and cracked piles; Degamo estimated repair at P95,000. Respondents denied responsibility, maintaining the damage predated their arrival or was due to wear, and presented witnesses who testified there were seashells and seaweeds under the uprooted post and that other vessels had recently berthed at the same spot. Respondents’ bodega man, Ronilo Lazara, gave inconsistent statements about what he observed.
On May 14, 1993, the RTC found for petitioner, awarded Php70,000 actual damages (with 12% interest), Php15,000 exemplary damages, Php15,000 attorney’s fees, and Php10,000 litigation expenses, and held respondents jointly and severally liable. On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed on January 10, 1996 and dismissed the complaint, finding among other things that Naval was incompetent to testify on vessel maneuvering, petitioner failed to positively prove that MV Miguela caused the damage, and the photographs and shell deposits suggested prior damage. The CA denied reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking annulment of the CA decision and reinstatement of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals go beyond the issues raised by the parties on appeal?
- May the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in this Rule 45 petition?
- Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable to establish respondents’ negli...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)