Case Digest (G.R. No. 93291)
Facts:
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Cresencio G. Castaneda v. Court of Appeals and Aquarius Fishing Co., Inc., G.R. No. 93291, March 29, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from a complaint for damages filed by Aquarius Fishing Co., Inc. against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Cresencio G. Castaneda as defendants in Civil Case No. 14510 before Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bacolod City. Defendants answered and filed a counterclaim. After trial, the RTC issued a decision on May 31, 1986, finding for plaintiff Aquarius and holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for the total loss of fishing boat F/B Aquarius "G" and related damages, awarding P564,448.80 as actual loss, P10,000 per month for deprivation of use, P10,000 for actual expenses and costs, P10,000 exemplary damages, attorney’s fees equivalent to 15% of the total claim plus P300 per court appearance, interest from November 18, 1978, and costs; the counterclaim was dismissed.
Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which distilled the assignments of error into two pivotal issues concerning the application of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (Rules of the Road) and the propriety of the damages and interest awards. On November 29, 1989, the CA affirmed the RTC decision; the appellants’ motion for reconsideration filed December 23, 1989 was denied on April 24, 1990. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, reiterating that the fishing boat (identified at times as F/B Aquarius "B" in pleadings) had no lookout, that the Rules of the Road favored M/V Don Sulpicio as the privileged vessel, and that the damage awards were excessive and speculative.
The Court of Appeals and the trial court found M/V Don Sulpicio was traveling faster (about 15.5–16 knots) and first sighted the fishing boats about four miles away; M/V Don Sulpicio altered course only two minutes before collision. Petitioners argued on appeal that the fishing boat’s failure to keep a lookout and the crossing/overtaking configuration made it the burdened...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in holding M/V Don Sulpicio liable despite the admitted absence of a lookout on the fishing vessel and in applying the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (Rules of the Road), specifically Rule 24‑C, to impose responsibility on the overtaking/privileged vessel?
- Were the awards of actual damages (P564,448.80), deprivation of use (P10,000/month), exemplary damages (P10,000), attorney’s fees (15% of the total claim plus P300 per appearance), and legal interest from N...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)