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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160219)

Factual Background

On December 19, 1987, Cornelio and Anacleta Macasa and their eight-year-old grandson, Ritchie Macasa, boarded the MV Dona Paz, owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., en route from Tacloban, Leyte to Manila. On December 20, 1987, MV Dona Paz collided with MT Vector, an oil tanker owned and operated by petitioners, which was laden with 860,000 gallons of gasoline and other petroleum products, in the vicinity of Dumali Point, Tablas Strait. Only twenty-six persons survived; both vessels were lost and most victims’ bodies were never recovered. The Macasa family members who were passengers perished and their remains remain unrecovered.

Trial Court Proceedings

Respondents the Macasas filed a Complaint for Damages on October 2, 1991 against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for breach of contract of carriage and alleged negligence as a common carrier. The complaint sought civil indemnity, unearned income, actual and compensatory damages for lost personal effects, moral damages, exemplary damages, costs and attorney’s fees. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. filed an answer denying negligence, pleaded seaworthiness and extraordinary diligence, and asserted the collision was the fault of MT Vector. Thereafter, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation, Francisco Soriano, and Caltex Philippines Inc., the charterer of MT Vector. Trial on the merits ensued before the RTC.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated May 5, 1995, the RTC awarded P200,000.00 as civil indemnity for the deaths of each of Cornelio, Anacleta and Ritchie, P100,000.00 as actual damages, P500,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The RTC adjudged Sulpicio Lines, Inc. liable to the plaintiffs and ordered Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano, together with Caltex, jointly and severally liable to reimburse, subrogate and indemnify Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for the amounts the latter was ordered to pay the plaintiffs.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by Decision dated September 24, 2003, affirmed the RTC judgment with modification. The CA exonerated Caltex Philippines, Inc. from liability, deleted the award of P100,000.00 actual damages, and reduced the civil indemnity to P150,000.00 for the death of each victim. All other aspects of the RTC judgment were affirmed.

Issues Presented on Petition for Review

In the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, petitioners raised chiefly legal and factual disagreements: whether the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry, which remained pending review at the Department of National Defense and thus not final, bind the courts; whether MT Vector alone could be held solely at fault absent clear and convincing proof and despite the relative sizes and speeds of the two vessels; whether Vector Shipping and Soriano may be held liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines, Inc. where the latter’s liability derived from breach of contract of carriage; and whether both vessels should have been declared mutually at fault in the absence of clear proof.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that the BMI findings are not binding on the courts and that prior decisions, including Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., do not operate as res judicata here because other final judgments existed that favored petitioners; they argued that MV Dona Paz was at fault due to navigational negligence and absence of proper officers on the bridge and that a slower vessel like MT Vector could not have rammed a faster ship like MV Dona Paz. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. asserted that the Court’s ruling in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. is controlling and that the BMI findings, affirmed by the Philippine Coast Guard, rest on substantial evidence and technical expertise and therefore deserve respect; it urged denial of the petition. The Macasas focused on their claims against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for breach of contract of carriage, defended the RTC findings, objected to the CA deletion of actual damages, and urged reinstatement of the original civil indemnity.

Standard of Review and Jurisdictional Constraint

The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45 only questions of law may be raised and reviewed on a petition for certiorari. A question of law exists where resolution requires no reexamination of the probative value of evidence. Conversely, a question of fact that requires weighing, crediting, or re-evaluating evidence cannot be entertained on Rule 45 review. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and will not reassess the credibility of witnesses or the weight of evidence already passed upon by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

Supreme Court’s Disposition and Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 24, 2003. The Court found no reversible error in the factual findings sustained by the lower courts that MT Vector was negligent and unseaworthy and that petitioners were liable to reimburse and indemnify Sulpicio Lines, Inc. The Court took judicial notice of its prior decision in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., and of its Resolution denying a separate petition in Francisco Soriano v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., which had left intact a CA ruling that Sulpicio Lines, Inc. had a right to reimbursement and indemnification from Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano. Costs were imposed against petitioners.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court afforded deference to the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and invoked the general rule that such findings are binding on this Court unless one of several recognized exceptions applies. The Court noted the exceptions, including findings grounded on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, conclusions unsupported by citation of evidence, and other circumstances demonstrating that the CA overlooked undisputed relevant fa

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160219)

Parties and Posture

Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano were the petitioners before the Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Adelfo B. Macasa, Emelia B. Macasa, Timoteo B. Macasa, Cornelio B. Macasa, Jr., and Rosario C. Macasa were the private respondents and plaintiffs below seeking damages for the deaths of family members.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and several other named respondents appeared below as defendant and third-party plaintiff against Vector Shipping Corporation, Francisco Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc..
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 24, 2003 affirming with modification the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Davao City Decision dated May 5, 1995.

Key Facts

On December 19, 1987, spouses Cornelio and Anacleta Macasa and their eight-year-old grandson Ritchie boarded the MV Dona Paz bound for Manila.
On the evening of December 20, 1987, MV Dona Paz collided with the MT Vector, an oil tanker owned and operated by Vector Shipping and Francisco Soriano, which was carrying 860,000 gallons of gasoline and other petroleum products.
Only twenty-six persons survived the collision, and both vessels sank and were not retrieved.
Cornelio, Anacleta, and Ritchie were among the victims whose bodies were not recovered.
The Macasas alleged that Sulpicio Lines was uncooperative and offered P250,000.00 in settlement before suit, which they rejected.

Procedural History

On October 2, 1991, the Macasas filed a Complaint for Damages for breach of contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines before the RTC.
Sulpicio Lines filed a Third-Party Complaint against Vector Shipping, Francisco Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc. alleging that MT Vector caused the collision and citing findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI).
The RTC rendered judgment on May 5, 1995 awarding various damages to the Macasas and ordering third-party defendants jointly and severally liable to Sulpicio Lines for reimbursement and indemnity.
The judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its decision on September 24, 2003 modifying the RTC award by exonerating Caltex, deleting actual damages of P100,000.00, and reducing civil indemnity to P150,000.00.
Vector Shipping and Francisco Soriano filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

Whether the factual findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) are binding on the court despite the BMI findings being pending review with the Department of National Defense (DND).
Whether MT Vector alone was at fault for the collision in the absence of eyewitnesses and considering comparative size and speed of the vessels.
Whether Vector Shipping and Soriano could be held liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines when Sulpicio Lines was sued for breach of contract of carriage and common-carrier duties.
Whether both vessels should be declared mutually at fault in the absence of clear and convincing proof attributing sole fault to either vessel.

Contentions of Petitioners

Petitioners urged that the BMI decision was not binding on the courts because it was administrative and pending review by the DND.
Petitioners argued that MV Dona Paz, being larger and faster, was the vessel at fault due to alleged navigational negligence and absence of competent officers on the bridge.
Petitioners contended that it was improbable for the slower MT Vector to have rammed the faster MV Dona Paz and thus insisted on reversal of liability.
Petitioners asserted that prior decision