Case Digest (G.R. No. 146754)
Facts:
The case under consideration involves two petitions for review on certiorari directed at the Amended Decision dated March 3, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65083. The parties in this case are Sealoader Shipping Corporation (Sealoader) as the petitioner in G.R. No. 167363, and Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, Inc. (previously known as Grand Cement Manufacturing Corporation) as the petitioner in G.R. No. 177466. The conflict arose from a maritime incident that occurred on April 4, 1994, at the wharf of Grand Cement in San Fernando, Cebu, when the D/B Toploader, a barge under Sealoader's operation, crashed into the wharf during Typhoon Bising.
Sealoader, a domestic corporation engaged in shipping and hauling cargo, had chartered the M/T Viper from Joyce Launch and Tug Co., Inc. to tow its barge, the D/B Toploader. Upon arrival at the Grand Cement wharf, the D/B Toploader was reportedly not loaded with its intended cargo due to ongoing loading operations on anothe
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146754)
Facts:
- Background of the Parties
- Sealoader Shipping Corporation (Sealoader) is a domestic corporation engaged in shipping and hauling cargo using sea-going inter-island barges.
- Grand Cement Manufacturing Corporation (now Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, Inc.) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling cement and maintaining its own private wharf in San Fernando, Cebu.
- Joyce Launch and Tug Co., Inc. is a domestic corporation owning and operating the motor tugboat M/T Viper.
- Contractual Relationships and Agreements
- On March 24, 1993, Sealoader executed a Time Charter Party Agreement with Joyce Launch, under which the M/T Viper was chartered to tow Sealoader’s unpropelled barges.
- Subsequently, Sealoader entered into a separate contract with Grand Cement for the loading of cement clinkers and delivery to Manila.
- The D/B Toploader, a barge belonging to Sealoader, was to be loaded at Grand Cement’s private wharf.
- Events Leading to the Incident
- On March 31, 1994, the D/B Toploader, tugged by the M/T Viper, arrived at Grand Cement’s wharf in San Fernando.
- At the time of arrival, the barge was not immediately loaded because Grand Cement’s employees were busy with another loading operation involving the vessel Cargo Lift Tres.
- On April 4, 1994, Typhoon Bising struck the Visayas with winds reaching 120 kilometers per hour; public storm signal number 3 was raised over Cebu.
- As the typhoon intensified, the M/T Viper attempted to tow the D/B Toploader away from the wharf.
- The towing line snapped because the mooring lines securing the barge to the wharf had not been cast off.
- The following day, Grand Cement’s employees discovered the D/B Toploader rammed against the wharf, causing significant damage.
- Initiation of Legal Proceedings
- On October 3, 1994, Grand Cement filed a Complaint for Damages (Civil Case No. CEB-16602) against Sealoader, Romulo Diantan (captain of the M/T Viper), and Johnny Ponce (barge patron).
- Sealoader filed a motion to dismiss on November 25, 1994, arguing that Joyce Launch should be the proper defendant due to its control over the tugboat.
- Grand Cement subsequently amended its complaint on December 14, 1994 to implead Joyce Launch.
- On January 2, 1995, Sealoader instituted a cross-claim against Joyce Launch and Romulo Diantan, maintaining that the tugboat’s management fell under Joyce Launch’s duty.
- Sealoader later filed an answer, asserting that it was merely entitled to use the M/T Viper and, given the force majeure occasioned by the typhoon, it was not responsible for the damage.
- Trial Proceedings and Presentation of Evidence
- During trial, Grand Cement presented witnesses to establish:
- The timeline of events and the damage assessment of the wharf.
- Testimonies regarding the lack of precautionary measures on the part of the defendants as well as the expected weather warnings.
- Sealoader, Joyce Launch, and their respective witnesses testified:
- Describing the operational details under the Time Charter Party Agreement.
- Detailing the circumstances of the attempted tow amid deteriorating weather.
- Highlighting issues about malfunctioning or non-existent communication facilities aboard the vessels.
- Cross-examinations revealed conflicting statements, particularly on:
- The availability and functionality of a radio on the D/B Toploader.
- The respective responsibilities to monitor weather conditions and cast off the mooring lines.
- Decisions at the Trial and Appellate Levels
- On April 19, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision finding the defendants (Sealoader, Joyce Launch, and Johnny Ponce) guilty of negligence for failing to avert damage to Grand Cement’s wharf.
- The RTC based its ruling on the defendants’ failure to take precautionary measures in light of the storm signal and their inadequate equipment (lack of proper radio or communication facility).
- The RTC awarded Grand Cement damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
- Sealoader appealed the ruling with the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA-G.R. CV No. 65083.
- On November 12, 2004, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
- Sealoader then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, leading to an Amended Decision on March 3, 2005, which reduced the award for actual damages by 50% on grounds of contributory negligence by Grand Cement.
- Both Sealoader and Grand Cement later filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari with conflicting assignments of errors, which were consolidated due to their identical factual circumstances.
- Core Allegations Raised in the Petitions
- Sealoader contended that:
- Grand Cement had the last clear chance to cast off the mooring lines and prevent the damage.
- The negligence imputed on Sealoader should not preclude recovery of damages by Grand Cement, arguing that contributory negligence on Grand Cement’s part should bar its claim.
- There was an irregularity in the determination of rights and obligations among the parties.
- Grand Cement argued that:
- The negligence of Sealoader, including its failure to maintain proper communication equipment and timely action, was the proximate cause of the damage.
- The Court of Appeals correctly found contributory negligence in reducing damages, which should stand and that the doctrine of last clear chance did not apply.
Issues:
- Issues Raised by Sealoader (G.R. No. 167363)
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Grand Cement was entitled to recover damages despite its alleged contributory negligence.
- Whether Grand Cement, having been in a position to avert the damage (last clear chance), should be barred from recovering damages under the doctrine of last clear chance.
- Whether the trial and appellate courts deviated from the proper course by not determining the ultimate rights and obligations between Sealoader and Joyce Launch as against Grand Cement.
- Issues Raised by Grand Cement (G.R. No. 177466)
- Whether Joyce Launch should have been impleaded as one of the respondents under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 19-91.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in creating a non-existent legal duty on shippers or pier owners to warn docked vessels of approaching typhoons, thereby contributing to a finding of contributory negligence against Grand Cement.
- Whether the appellate court erred in ascribing a legal duty on the owner of a pier to station employees at the pier during a typhoon as a basis for finding contributory negligence.
- Whether the CA erred in not giving due consideration to issues raised in Grand Cement’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding the contributory negligence finding, as the record reflected conflicting evidences between the RTC and CA rulings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)