Title
Supreme Court
Caltex , Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 131166
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1999
MT Vector and MV Doña Paz collided in 1987, causing a maritime disaster. Caltex, as voyage charterer, was ruled not liable; liability fell on shipowner Vector Shipping and Sulpicio Lines.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131166)

Factual Background and Collision

On December 19, 1987, MT Vector departed Limay, Bataan, bound for Masbate. On December 20, 1987, MV Doña Paz sailed from Tacloban for Manila. At about 10:30 p.m. on December 20, the two vessels collided near Dumali Point, resulting in the ignition of MT Vector’s cargo and one of the worst maritime disasters in Philippine history.

Board of Marine Inquiry Findings

The Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI Case No. 653-87) concluded on March 22, 1988, that MT Vector, its operator Francisco Soriano, and Vector Shipping Corporation were at fault for the collision. The BMI report formed the factual and technical basis for subsequent civil liability proceedings.

Trial Court Proceedings and Third-Party Complaint

In February 1989 the heirs of Sebastian and Corazon Caáezal sued Sulpicio for damages under a contract of carriage theory. Sulpicio filed a third-party complaint against Vector, Soriano, and Caltex, alleging that Caltex chartered an unseaworthy vessel with gross bad faith. The Regional Trial Court granted plaintiffs’ recovery against Sulpicio and dismissed Sulpicio’s third-party complaint against Caltex for lack of proof.

Court of Appeals Decision and Apportionment of Liability

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (April 15, 1997) affirmed plaintiffs’ damages but modified the judgment to hold Vector and Caltex jointly liable to reimburse half each of the amounts Sulpicio was ordered to pay. The appellate court found Caltex negligent in shipping flammable cargo aboard MT Vector despite knowledge of its deficiencies.

Issue: Charterer’s Liability under Maritime Law

The core issue is whether a charterer under a voyage charter is liable to third parties for damages caused by the carrier’s negligence. Caltex contended that under Philippine maritime law and the 1987 Constitution’s public service doctrine, only the vessel owner-operator, not the charterer, may be held liable for collision damages.

Nature of Charter Party and Common Carrier Status

Under Philippine Admiralty and Maritime Law and Civil Code provisions, a contract of affreightment (voyage charter) hires only the vessel; the owner remains in possession and control of ship, stores, crew, and navigation. MT Vector continued as a common carrier despite the charter, retaining its public duty and implied warranties.

Duties and Liability of a Common Carrier

Article 1732–1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code, and Section 3(1) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, impose on common carriers an implied warranty of seaworthiness and a duty to properly man, equip, and supply the ship. Failure to exercise due diligence renders the carrier—and not a mere charterer—liable for quasi-delictual damages to persons or property.

Civil Code Principles on Negligence and Quasi-Delict

Articles 20, 2176, and 1173 of the Civil Code define liability for negligent or willful acts causing damage. Negligence requires omission of diligence corresponding to the nature of the obligation. In maritime contexts, shippers and passengers are not obligated to inspect carrier documents or qualifications, relying instead on the carrier’s public service obligation.

Analysis of Charterer’s Diligence Obligations

Caltex as voyage charterer owed only ordinary diligence in selecting MT Vector, and evidence showed it trusted longstanding partner Vector and relied on Coast Gua

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.