Case Digest (G.R. No. 193914)
Facts:
Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation owned and operated the cargo ship M/V "Diamond Rabbit"; respondent DMC-Construction Resources, Inc. owned a coal-conveyor facility at the PICOP Pier in Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. On 23 February 1996, while weather was windy (10–20 knots) and seas rough (6–8 feet waves), the vessel left a safe anchorage at the port causeway to dock at the PICOP Pier. A heaving line broke, the astern mooring rope became entangled in the propeller and disabled the main engine, and the vessel’s anchor and moorings failed to hold it against wind and current; the vessel drifted and struck several pier structures, including respondent’s conveyor facility.
Respondent sent a demand letter on 5 March 1996. When petitioner did not pay, respondent filed a Complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 132, Makati City, on 23 March 1998. The RTC, after trial, found that respondent’s loading conveyor and related structures were damaged, that no force majeure excused the voyage because the captain proceeded despite adverse weather, and that the captain’s negligence made petitioner liable as owner. The RTC awarded actual damages in the amount of P3,523,175.92 (representing 50% of the claimed replacement cost P7,046,351.84, reflecting five years remaining of a ten-year useful life), plus 6% legal interest and costs, and promulgated its Decision on 18 January 2001.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated 30 April 2010 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69819, the CA affirmed the finding of negligence but concluded that respondent failed to prove actual damages with sufficient documentary evidence (no receipts), and therefore modified the RTC award to nominal damages — oddly phrased as nominal damages "in the amount of P3,523,175.92." Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration (filed 19 May 2010); the CA denied the motion in a Resolution promulgated 24 September 2010. Petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding nominal damages to respondent after finding that actual damages were not duly prove...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)