G.R. No. 160219 - Vector Shipping Corp. vs. Macasa

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160219)

Facts of the Collision

On December 19, 1987, Cornelio and Anacleta Macasa and their eight‑year‑old grandson Ritchie boarded MV DoAa Paz at Tacloban bound for Manila. On the evening of December 20, 1987, MV DoAa Paz collided with MT Vector, which at the time was loaded with 860,000 gallons of gasoline and other petroleum products. Only twenty‑six persons survived (24 passengers of MV DoAa Paz and 2 crew of MT Vector). Both vessels were never retrieved and only a few victims’ bodies were recovered; Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie remain missing.

Pre‑litigation Conduct and Settlement Offer

After news of the collision, the Macasas sought information from Sulpicio Lines at North Harbor; Sulpicio Lines denied the incident and was described by the Macasas as uncooperative. Prior to suit, Sulpicio Lines, through counsel, intimated an offer to settle the deaths of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie for P250,000.00, which the Macasas rejected.

Complaint, Claims and Third‑Party Practice

On October 2, 1991, the Macasas filed a Complaint for Damages against Sulpicio Lines alleging breach of contract of carriage and negligence as a common carrier. They claimed, among other items, P800,000.00 as civil indemnity for the deaths, alleged unearned income, P100,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages for lost belongings, P600,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00 exemplary damages, and P100,000.00 for costs and attorney’s fees. Sulpicio Lines denied liability, pleaded seaworthiness and extraordinary diligence, and asserted that MT Vector was at fault per BMI findings. Sulpicio Lines filed a Third‑Party Complaint against Vector Shipping, Soriano and Caltex Philippines, Inc.

Board of Marine Inquiry Findings and Administrative Posture

The BMI (BMI Case No. 653‑87) is reported in the record as having found MT Vector at fault and exonerated Sulpicio Lines; MT Vector was said to have sailed with an expired coastwise license, expired certificate of inspection and to have been manned by unqualified or incompetent crew. The BMI findings were pending further review by the Department of National Defense at times referenced in the pleadings.

Regional Trial Court Ruling (May 5, 1995)

The RTC awarded: P200,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie; P100,000.00 actual damages; P500,000.00 moral damages; P100,000.00 exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 attorney’s fees. The RTC ordered Sulpicio Lines liable to the plaintiffs and held MT Vector Shipping (Vector) and/or Francisco Soriano jointly and severally liable to Sulpicio Lines for reimbursement, subrogation and indemnity of the amounts adjudged against Sulpicio Lines.

Court of Appeals Ruling (September 24, 2003)

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment with modification: it exonerated Caltex Philippines, Inc. from liability, deleted the P100,000.00 award for actual damages, and reduced the civil indemnity award to P150,000.00. All other aspects of the judgment were affirmed by the CA.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

The petition to the Supreme Court raised primarily questions whether: (1) BMI findings, pending review by the DND, are binding on the courts; (2) the available evidence sufficed to hold MT Vector solely at fault rather than MV DoAa Paz, given differences in size and speed; (3) Vector and Soriano may be held liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines when Sulpicio’s liability to the Macasas arose from breach of contract of carriage and the carrier’s duty of extraordinary diligence; and (4) whether both vessels should be declared mutually at fault in the absence of clear and convincing proof of sole fault.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners (Vector and Soriano) argued the BMI decision was not binding because it was pending and not final, invoked other authorities that purportedly held petitioners jointly and severally liable in related cases but contended MV DoAa Paz was solely at fault due to navigational negligence, absence of officers on the bridge and excessive speed. Sulpicio Lines relied on the CA and BMI findings, argued the BMI’s technical factual findings deserve respect, and maintained that existing Supreme Court precedent (Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.) supported third‑party liability of petitioners.

Legal Standard on Scope of Review — Rule 45 and Questions of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. A question of law exists when doubt concerns what the law is on a given state of facts; a question of fact exists when doubt concerns the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If resolution requires re‑examination of the probative value or weighing of evidence, the issue is factual and not cognizable under Rule 45.

Application of the Standard to the Case

The Court held petitioners’ central contention — that MV DoAa Paz was at fault — would require re‑weighing and re‑evaluation of evidence and credibility determinations already made by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. Because the petition sought reconsideration of factual findings and probative weight, it raised factual issues outside the proper scope of a Rule 45 petition. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts and will not reassess evidence already passed upon by lower courts.

Precedent, Judicial Notice and Characterization of MT Vector

The Court took judicial notice of its prior decision in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., which had sustained the CA’s ruling that Vector Shipping and Soriano are liable to reimburse and indemnify Sulpicio

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160219)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 24, 2003, which itself affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 of Davao City, Decision dated May 5, 1995.
Case before the Supreme Court is docketed as G.R. No. 160219, decided July 21, 2008 (Third Division, Nachura, J., delivering the decision).
RTC rendered judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs; third-party complaints were filed by Sulpicio Lines against Vector Shipping, Francisco Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc.
CA modified RTC judgment: exonerated Caltex Phils., Inc., deleted P100,000.00 actual damages, and reduced indemnity to P150,000.00; affirmed other aspects.
Petitioners are Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano; respondents include the Macasa family members, Sulpicio Lines, and various Go family members.
Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the CA decision, and imposed costs against petitioners.

Facts of the Case

On December 19, 1987, spouses Cornelio and Anacleta Macasa and their eight-year-old grandson Ritchie boarded MV DoAa Paz (owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines) at Tacloban, Leyte, bound for Manila.
On the evening of December 20, 1987, MV DoAa Paz collided with MT Vector (an oil tanker owned and operated by Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano) in the vicinity of Dumali Point, Tablas Strait, between Marinduque and Oriental Mindoro.
MT Vector was loaded with 860,000 gallons of gasoline and other petroleum products at the time of collision.
Only twenty-six persons survived: 24 passengers of MV DoAa Paz and 2 crew members of MT Vector.
Both vessels were never retrieved; only a few bodies of victims (who either drowned or were burned alive) were recovered.
Cornelio, Anacleta, and Ritchie were among the victims whose bodies have not been recovered to date.
Some Macasa relatives went to North Harbor to await the arrival of the victims, later heard news of the ramming, visited Sulpicio Lines’ office where the company initially denied the incident, and found the company uncooperative and reluctant to entertain inquiries.
The Macasas conducted their own searches for bodies without success.
Before filing suit, Sulpicio Lines, through counsel, offered P250,000.00 for the deaths of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie; the Macasas rejected the offer.
On October 2, 1991, the Macasas filed a Complaint for Damages for breach of contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines, alleging negligence as a common carrier and praying for specified damages.

Parties and Relationships

Plaintiffs/Petitioners (before the Supreme Court): Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano (third-party defendants below and appellants).
Respondents: Adelfo B. Macasa, Emelia B. Macasa, Timoteo B. Macasa, Cornelio B. Macasa, Jr., Rosario C. Macasa (the Macasas - family of victims), and Sulpicio Lines, Inc.; also listed are Go Guioc So and several members of the Go family as respondents.
Sulpicio Lines: owner and operator of MV DoAa Paz; defendant in plaintiffs' complaint and third-party plaintiff below.
Third-party defendants: Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano (owners/operators of MT Vector), and Caltex Philippines, Inc. (charterer of MT Vector).

Pleadings, Claims, and Relief Sought by the Macasas

Cause of action: breach of contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines as common carrier.
Allegation: Sulpicio Lines was remiss in its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.
Prayers for relief:
- Civil indemnity of P800,000.00 for the death of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie.
- Compensation for Cornelio’s and Anacleta’s alleged unearned income (they were vocational instructors).
- P100,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages for lost cash, checks, jewelries and other personal belongings.
- P600,000.00 in moral damages.
- P100,000.00 exemplary damages.
- P100,000.00 as costs and attorney’s fees.

Defenses and Third-Party Allegations (Sulpicio Lines and Third-Party Defendants)

Sulpicio Lines’ traverse to complaint included affirmations that:
- MV DoAa Paz was seaworthy in all aspects.
- Sulpicio Lines exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting passengers and goods.
- Sulpicio Lines acted in good faith and gave immediate assistance to survivors and kin.
- The sinking of MV DoAa Paz was without contributory negligence on its part.
- The collision was MT Vector’s fault, citing the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) findings (BMI Case No. 653-87) that MT Vector sailed with expired coastwise license, expired certificate of inspection, and was manned by unqualified and incompetent crew; BMI had exonerated Sulpicio Lines from liability.
Accordingly, Sulpicio Lines filed a Third-Party Complaint against Vector Shipping, Francisco Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc., seeking reimbursement, subrogation and indemnity.

Trial and Lower Court Proceedings

Trial on the merits was conducted in the RTC, Branch 17 of Davao City.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated May 5, 1995 awarding specific damages to the plaintiffs and ordering third-party defendants jointly and severally liable to reimburse Sulpicio Lines.
Sulpicio Lines, Caltex, Vector Shipping, and Soriano appealed to the Court of Appeals.
CA rendered Decision dated September 24, 2003 modifying the RTC judgment in part (exonerating Caltex, deleting actual damages award, reducing indemnity), affirming other aspects.
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision.

RTC Decision (May 5, 1995) — Disposition and Awards

RTC awarded:
- P200,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie.
- P100,000.00 as actual damages.
- P500,000.00 as moral damages.
- P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
RTC ordered that:
- Sulpicio Lines, Caltex Philippines, Inc., and MT Vector Shipping Corporation and/or Francisco Soriano were liable to plaintiffs (and Sulpicio liable to plaintiffs) for the above amounts.
- MT Vector Shipping and/or Francisco Soriano were ordered jointly and severally liable to pay third-party plaintiff Sulpicio Lines by way of reimbursement, subrogation and indemnity for all amounts ordered against Sulpicio Lines.

Court of Appeals Decision (September 24, 2003) — Modifications

CA modified the RTC decision as follows:
- Exonerated third-party defendant Caltex Philippines, Inc. from liability.
- Deleted the P100,000.00 award for actual damages.
- Reduced the indemnity award to P150,000.00 (the CA’s language: “the indemnity for (sic) is reduced to P150,000.00”).
All other aspects of the RTC judgment were affirmed by the CA.
CA decision authored by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Associate Justices Condrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Arsenio J. Magpale concurring.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition raises the following principal issues (as enumerated in the petition):
1. Whether the BMI decision, which is pending with the Department of National Defense (and thus not final and executory), can be binding on the courts.
2. Whether, in the absence of clear, convincing, solid and concrete proof (including absence of eyewitnesses), it is proper to hold MT Vector solely at fault, and whether MV DoAa Paz — being larger (2,324.08 GT, 5-deck cargo passenger vessel, cruising at 16.5 knots) as compared to MT Vector (629.82 GT, tanker, cruising at 4.5 knots) — could have avoided the collision, e.g., by having an official on the bridge or by radar detection.
3. Whether Vector and Soriano may be held liable to indemnify/reimburse Sulpicio Lines for amounts Sulpicio is ordered to pay the Macasas, given that Sulpicio’s liability arises from breach of contract of carriage and that under culpa contractual a carrier is presumed at fault and must exercise extraordinary diligence.
4. Whether both vessels should be declared mutually at fault and each bear its own loss, and who is solely at fault i