Title
F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. vs. Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 188144
Decision Date
Aug 30, 2017
DPWH contractor F.F. Cruz sued AMC for damages after AMC's vessels allegedly caused allision during Typhoon Welpring. SC affirmed AMC's liability but reduced damages due to F.F. Cruz's contributory negligence in securing barges. BMI findings deemed non-binding.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188144)

Factual Background

F.F. Cruz brought its fleet, comprising the tugboat M/T "Imma," Barge 609, Barge 1001, and Barge Piling Rig "Pilipino," to the construction site of a government pier. On the same day, the tugboat M/T "Jasaan," owned by Anchor Metals Corporation (AMC) and chartered from Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, came to tow another vessel, Barge "Florida." The rapid approach of the typhoon led to significant maritime damage—F.F. Cruz's Barge 609 and Pilipino sank, while Barge 1001 collided with driven piles at the construction site, leading to this litigation.

Legal Proceedings and Findings

After the incident, a marine protest was filed, leading to investigations by the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) and the Philippine Coast Guard. The BMI absolved AMC and PICMW from administrative liability, attributing fault instead to F.F. Cruz for failing to secure its vessels adequately. F.F. Cruz subsequently filed a complaint for damages against AMC and PICMW in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found clear liability on the part of AMC for the damage caused to F.F. Cruz’s vessels.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's findings that AMC was liable for damages, but reduced its liability based on F.F. Cruz’s contributory negligence. The CA noted that F.F. Cruz did not secure its vessels properly during the typhoon, which contributed to the damage they sustained. The CA also ruled that PICMW was not liable because the charter arrangement positioned AMC as the effective owner of the vessels during the voyage.

Supreme Court's Review Parameters

The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions for review and ruled that it operates under a limited scope of review restricted to questions of law, emphasizing that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive. The Court rejected the petitions, asserting that F.F. Cruz and AMC did not meet the threshold required to overturn the CA’s factual findings, particularly those related to contributory negligence and the handling of the vessels during the storm.

Analysis of Negligence

The Supreme Court highlighted that contributory negligence was appropriately assigned to F.F. Cruz due to its failure to ensure that its vessels were secured in anticipation of the typhoon. The BMI report sub

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.