Title
Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. vs. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 193914
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2014
A cargo ship's negligence in adverse weather caused property damage; SC awarded temperate damages due to unproven actual damages but acknowledged loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193914)

Factual Background

On February 23, 1996, the cargo ship M/V "Diamond Rabbit," owned by Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation, was docked at PICOP Pier amidst windy and rough seas. Prior to approaching the Pier, the vessel was safely anchored at the causeway of Bislig, but the Master decided to leave for the Pier despite the unfavorable weather conditions. During this maneuver, a lifeboat attempted to assist the vessel's docking, but the heaving line attached to the vessel broke, leading to its propeller becoming entangled with the mooring rope. Consequently, the vessel became uncontrollable and drifted into the coal-conveyor facility owned by DMC-Construction Resources, Inc., leading to the destruction of the facility.

Procedural History

On March 5, 1996, DMC sent a demand letter to Seven Brothers for damages arising from the incident. When the petitioner did not respond, DMC filed a complaint for damages on March 23, 1998, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC found that the coal-conveyor facility was indeed damaged due to the captain's negligence, ruling that no force majeure was present since the captain was aware of the bad weather but chose to dock the vessel anyway. The RTC awarded DMC actual damages amounting to P3,523,175.92.

Court of Appeals Decision

Dissatisfied with the RTC's decision, Seven Brothers appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which eventually dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC's ruling, albeit modifying the nature of damages awarded from actual to nominal damages, citing a lack of sufficient proof presented by DMC to substantiate its claim for actual damages due to the absence of actual receipts.

Issues Raised

The primary legal issue escalated to the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in awarding nominal damages after determining that the actual damages awarded by the RTC were unfounded. Seven Brothers contended that nominal damages should not simply replace unproven actual damages. Conversely, DMC claimed that nominal damages were justified due to the confirmed violation of its property rights resulting from Seven Brothers' negligence.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of DMC, stating that temperate damages, rather than nominal damages, should be awarded due to the established fact of injury to DMC’s conveyor facility. The Court emphasized that while actual

...continue reading

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