Case Digest (G.R. No. 160219)
Facts:
Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano v. Adelfo B. Macasa et al., G.R. No. 160219, July 21, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. On December 19–20, 1987, passengers including spouses Cornelio and Anacleta Macasa and their grandson Ritchie Macasa boarded MV Dona Paz, owned and operated by respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc., bound for Manila; the vessel collided with MT Vector, an oil tanker owned and operated by petitioners Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano, resulting in massive loss of life and few recovered bodies. The collision prompted a Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) investigation that ultimately found fault with MT Vector (a finding later the subject of administrative review before the Department of National Defense).Relatives of the deceased (the Macasas) filed a Complaint for Damages on October 2, 1991, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Davao City, pursuing claims for civil indemnity, actual and moral damages, exemplary damages, costs and attorney’s fees against Sulpicio Lines for breach of contract of carriage. Sulpicio Lines filed a Third-Party Complaint against Vector Shipping, Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc. (the charterer of MT Vector), alleging MT Vector’s sole fault per BMI findings and seeking indemnity/subrogation.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated May 5, 1995, awarding the Macasas P200,000.00 civil indemnity for each death (Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie), plus P100,000.00 actual damages, P500,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00 exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 attorney’s fees, and holding Vector Shipping and Soriano jointly and severally liable to Sulpicio Lines for reimbursement, subrogation and indemnity of the amounts adjudged against Sulpicio. Aggrieved, Sulpicio Lines, Caltex, Vector Shipping and Soriano appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated September 24, 2003 (authored by Associate Justice Reyes, with Justices Vasquez, Jr. and Magpale concurring), modified the RTC ruling: it exonerated Caltex from third‑party liability, deleted the P100,000.00 award for actual damages, and reduced the indemnity to P150,000.00, while affirming the remaining aspects; the CA thus left Vector Shipping and Soriano subject to indemnity to Sulpicio Lines. Petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
In the Supreme Court proceedings petitioners argued (inter alia) that BMI findings (still pending final action at the DND and therefore “deemed vacated”) could not bind the courts; that MV Dona Paz, a much larger and faster vessel, might have been at fault; and that even if Sulpicio Lines was held liable to the Macasas on a contractual theory, Vector Shipping and Soriano should not be held liable to indemnify. The Macasas urged affirmance of the RTC decision in full....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI), which are pending review before the Department of National Defense, be binding upon the courts in the civil action?
- In the absence of undisputed, clear and convincing proof, can the Court properly hold that MT Vector was solely at fault for the collision rather than MV Dona Paz?
- Can Vector Shipping and Soriano be held liable to indemnify and reimburse Sulpicio Lines for amounts adjudged to the Macasas given that Sulpicio Lines’ liability arises from breach of contract of carriage?
- Should both vessels be declared mutually at fault such that each must bear its own los...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)