Transpo Assign 2

7/27/2019 Transpo Assign 2

1/13

RUBISO VS. RIVERA Case Digest

Facts: The counsel of plaintiff brought a suit alleging that his clients were the owners of the pilot

boat named Valentine, which has been in bad condition and on the date of the complaint, was

stranded in the place called Tingly, of the municipality of Battings. The defendant Rivera took

charge or took possession of the said boat without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and

refused to deliver it to them, under the claim that he was the owner thereof. The refusal on the

part of the defendant has caused the plaintiff damages because they were unable to derive profit

from the voyages for which the said pilot boat was customarily used. The defendant, on the other

hand, alleged that they purchased the subject pilot boat. The plaintiff alleged that the sale on

behalf of the defendant Rivera was prior to that made at public auction to Rubio, but the

registration of this latter sale was prior to the sale made to the defendant.

Issue: Whether or not, the plaintiff still has the better right over the subject vessel?

Held: Under the Code of Commerce, Art 573 provides:

Merchant vessels constitute property that may be acquired and transferred by any of the means

recognized by law. The acquisition of a vessel must be included in a written instrument, which

shall not produce any effect with regard to third persons if not recorded in the commercial

registry.

The requisite of registration in the registry of the purchase of a vessel is necessary and

indispensable in order that the purchasers rights may be maintained against a claim filed by

third person. It is undeniable that Riveras right cannot prevail over those acquired by Rubiso in

the ownership of the pilot boat, thought the latters acquisition of the vessel at public auction was

subsequent to its purchase by the defendant, Rivera.
http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=927108349632114149&postID=6074226964414664521&target=email


2/13

CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INC. VS. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA

Facts:

1. On July 25, 1990 at Puerto Princesa, Palawan, the petitioner received on board its vessel, the

M/V Central Bohol, 376 pieces of Philippine Apitong Round Logs and undertook to transport

said shipment to Manila for delivery to Alaska Lumber Co., Inc.

2. During the voyage the degree of the position of the ship would change due to the shifting of

the logs inside. Eventually at about 15 degrees the captain ordered for everyone to abandon the

ship.

3. Respondent alleged that the total loss of the shipment was caused by the fault and negligence

of the petitioner and its captain. Petitioner while admitting the sinking of the vessel, interposed

the defense that the vessel was fully manned, fully equipped and in all respects seaworthy; that

all the logs were properly loaded and secured; that the vessels master exercised due diligence to

prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the storm.

4. It raised as its main defense that the proximate and only cause of the sinking of its vessel

and the loss of its cargo was a natural disaster, a tropical storm which neither [petitioner] nor the

captain of its vessel could have foreseen.

5. The RTC was unconvinced that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the

weather or any other caso fortuito. It noted that monsoons, which were common occurrences

during the months of July to December, could have been foreseen and provided for by an ocean-

going vessel. Applying the rule of presumptive fault or negligence against the carrier, the trial

court held petitioner liable for the loss of the cargo.

6. The CA affirmed the trial courts finding that the southwestern monsoon encountered by the

vessel was not unforeseeable. Given the season of rains and monsoons, the ship captain and his

crew should have anticipated the perils of the sea. Citing Arada v. CA,7 it said that findings of

the BMI were limited to the administrative liability of the owner/operator, officers and crew of

the vessel. However, the determination of whether the carrier observed extraordinary diligence in

protecting the cargo it was transporting was a function of the courts, not of the BMI.


3/13

Issue:

Whether or not the Doctrine of Limited Liability applies.

Held:

No it does not.

Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods they transport,

according to all the circumstances of each case; In all other cases not specified under Article

1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted

negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. From the nature of

their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe

extraordinary diligence over the goods they transport, according to all the circumstances of each

case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers are

responsible; that is, unless they can prove that such loss, destruction or deterioration was brought

aboutamong othersby flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or

calamity. In all other cases not specified under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers

are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they

observed extraordinary diligence.

The doctrine of limited liability under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is not applicable to

the present case. This rule does not apply to situations in which the loss or the injury is due to the

concurrent negligence of the ship-owner and the captain. It has already been established that the

sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the fault or negligence of the ship captain and

the crew, as shown by the improper stowage of the cargo of logs. Closer supervision on the part

of the shipowner could have prevented this fatal miscalculation. As such, the shipowner was

equally negligent. It cannot escape liability by virtue of the limited liability rule.

ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD

G..R. No. 156978 May 2, 2006

FACTS:


4/13

Societe Francaise Des Colloides loaded a cargo of textiles and auxiliary chemicals from France

on board a vessel owned by Franco-Belgian Services, Inc. The cargo was consigned to General

Textile, Inc., in Manila and insured by respondent New India Assurance Company, Ltd. While in

Hong Kong, the cargo was transferred to M/V P. Aboitiz for transshipment to Manila.

Before departing, the vessel was advised by the Japanese Meteorological Center that it was safe

to travel to its destination. But while at sea, the vessel received a report of a typhoon moving

within its general path. To avoid the typhoon, the vessel changed its course. However, it was still

at the fringe of the typhoon when its hull leaked. On October 31, 1980, the vessel sank, but the

captain and his crew were saved.

Both the trial and the appellate courts found that the sinking was not due to the typhoon but to its

unseaworthiness.

ISSUE:

Whether the limited liability doctrine, which limits respondents award of damages to its pro-rata

share in the insurance proceeds, applies in this case.

HELD:

No. x x x An exception to the limited liability doctrine is when the damage is due to the fault of

the shipowner or to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and the captain. In which case,

the shipowner shall be liable to the full-extent of the damage.

x x x

In the present case, petitioner has the burden of showing that it exercised extraordinary diligence

in the transport of the goods it had on board in order to invoke the limited liability doctrine.

Differently put, to limit its liability to the amount of the insurance proceeds, petitioner has the

burden of proving that the unseaworthiness of its vessel was not due to its fault or negligence.

Considering the evidence presented and the circumstances obtaining in this case, we find that

petitioner failed to discharge this burden. It initially attributed the sinking to the typhoon and

relied on the BMI findings that it was not at fault. However, both the trial and the appellate


5/13

courts, in this case, found that the sinking was not due to the typhoon but to its unseaworthiness.

Evidence on record showed that the weather was moderate when the vessel sank. These factual

findings of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court are not to be disturbed on

appeal, but must be accorded great weight. These findings are conclusive not only on the parties

but on this Court as well.

NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON

MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO and VIRGINIA DE LAVICTORIA, respondents

Facts:

This case is instituted by the respondents to claim damages for the death of relatives as a result of

the sinking of the petitioners vessel, M/V Don Juan, when it collided with M/T Tacloban City,

and oil tanker in the evening of April 22, 1980. Several passengers perished in the said tragedy

and some of the victims were found and brought to shore, but the four members of private

respondents families were never found.

In answer, petitioner admitted that the relatives of the private respondents indeed bought tickets

and the ticket numbers were listed in the passenger manifest; however denied that the four

relatives of respondents actually boarded the vessel as that their bodies were never recovered.

Petitioner further averred that the Don Juan was seaworthy and manned by a full and competent

crew, and that the collision was entirely due to the fault of the crew of the M/T Tacloban City

.The trial court ruled in favour of the respondents and awarded damages. The appellate court

affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification, hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the crew members of petitioner were grossly negligent of their duties and

whether or not the total loss of the M/V Don Juan extinguished petitioners liability

Ruling:

It is decided that there was grossness in the negligence of the vessel because it was more than

twice as fast as the oil tanker, it was carrying full complement and passengers, it is equipped

with a working radar that picked up the tankers presence white it was still 2.7 miles away, had it


6/13

taken seriously its duty of extraordinary diligence, it could have easily avoided thec ollision. Don

Juan might as well have avoided the collision even if it had exercised ordinary diligence. It was

also reported that the captain was playing mah-jong at the time of collision and the officer on

watch failed to call the attention of the captain to the imminent danger facing them. Lastly, the

petitioner is liable to pay damages notwithstanding the total loss of its ship. The rule is that a

ship owner maybe held liable for injuries to passengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and

hypothecary nature of maritime law if fault be attributed to the ship owner.

Vasquez v. CA

Facts: Petitioners lost their children in a shipwreck involving the vessel of private respondent

when it sailed despite a typhoon.

Issue: 1) W/n it is a fortuitous event

2) W/n respondents are liable

HELD:

1) No. It is not a caso fortuito. The elements to consider in sustaining a case of caso fortuito are

the ff: 1) the event must be independent of the human will, 2) the occurrence must render it

impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, 3) the obligor must be free

of participation in, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor,

2) Petitioners are liable as it is not a caso fortutito. There is no caso fortuito when the ship

captain proceeded en route despite a typhoon advice close to the area where the vessel will pass.

Moreover, the Board of Marines inquiry conclusion that the ship captain was not negligent is

not binding on the Court when said finding is not complete. The liability of the ship owner also

extends to the value of vessel and the insurance proceeds thereon.

SULPICIO V. CA

FACTS:

Sulpicio Lines and ALC entered into a Contract of Carriage for the transport of latters

timber from Surigao del Sur.


7/13

On a late date, Sulpicio sent its tugboat MT Edmund and barge Solid VI to pick up

ALCs timber but no loading could be made because of the heavy downpour.

The next morning, several stevedores of CBL, who were hired by ALC, boarded Solid

VI and opened its storeroom despite being warned by the employees of Sulpicio of the gas and

heat generated by the copra stored in the holds of the ship.

Leonicio Pamalaran was one of those who entered the ship. He lost consciousness and

eventually died of gas poisoning.

Pamalarans heirs filed a Civil Case for damages against Sulpicio, CBL, ALC and its

manager, Ernie Santiago.

ISSUE:

Whether Sulpicio Lines, Inc. is liable as a common carrier despite the fact that Pamalaran

was never a passenger.

HELD:

YES. ALC had a contract of carriage with petitioner. The presence of the stevedores sent

by ALC on board the barge of Sulpicio was called for by the contract of carriage.

Petitioner knew of the presence and role of the stevedores, as those who place the

timbers on board the ship, and thus, consented to their presence. Hence, petitioner was

responsible for their safety while on board the barge.

Moreover, Sulpicios claim that its employees even warned the stevedores and

tried to prevent their entry into the storeroom does not have merit. It failed to prove that its

employees were actually trained or given specific instructions to see to it that the barge is fit and

safe not only in transporting goods but also for people who would be loading the cargo into the

bodega of the barge. Thus, it failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of

its employees.

Caltex (Phils.) Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines

FACTS


8/13

On December 20, 1987, motor tanker MV Vector, carrying petroleum products of Caltex,

collided in the open sea with passenger ship MV Doa Paz, causing thedeath of all but 25 of the

latters passengers.

Among those who died were Sebastian Canezal and his daughter CorazonCanezal. On

March 22, 1988, the board of marine inquiry found that Vector Shipping Corporation was at

fault.

On February 13, 1989, Teresita Caezal and Sotera E. Caezal, SebastianCaezals wife

and mother respectively, filed with the RTC of Manila a complaintfor damages arising from

breach of contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines.

Sulpicio filed a third-party complaint against Vector and Caltex. The trial courtdismissed

the complaint against Caltex, but the CA included the same in theliability. Hence, Caltex filed

this petition.

ISSUE: Is the charterer of a sea vessel liable for damages resulting from a

collisionbetween the chartered vessel and a passenger ship?

HELD: The charterer has no liability for damages under Philippine Maritime laws.Grants

Petition. CA set aside.RATIO:

The respective rights and duties of a shipper and the carrier depends not onwhether the

carrier is public or private, but on whether the contract of carriage isa bill of lading or equivalent

shipping documents on the one hand, or a charter party or similar contract on the other.


9/13

Petitioner and Vector entered into a contract of affreightment, also known as avoyage

charter.Charter Party A charter party is a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part

thereof, is letby the owner to another person for a specified time or use; a contract of

affreightment isone by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole or part of her to

amerchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage, inconsideration

of the payment of freight.Contract of affreightment A contract of affreightment may be either

time charter, wherein the leased vessel isleased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or

voyage charter, wherein the ship isleased for a single voyage. In both cases, the charter-party

provides for the hire of thevessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or

consecutivevoyage, the ship owner to supply the ships store, pay for the wages of the master of

thecrew, and defray the expenses for the maintenance of the ship.

Under a demise or bareboat charter on the other hand, the charterer mans thevessel with

his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or service stipulated, subject to

liability for damages caused by negligence.

If the charter is a contract of affreightment, which leaves the general owner inpossession

of the ship as owner for the voyage, the rights and the responsibilitiesof ownership rest on the

owner. The charterer is free from liability to third personsin respect of the ship.

Clearly, as a mere voyage charterer, Caltex had the right to presume that theship was

seaworthy as even the Philippine Coast Guard itself was convinced of its seaworthiness. All

things considered, we find no legal basis to hold petitioner liable for damages.

Lorenzo Shipping v. Chubb and Sons Inc. (2004)Puno, J.

Lorenzo Shipping Corporation is a corporation engaged in shipping. It was the carrier of

581 bundles of black steelpipes from Manila to Davao City. From Davao City, Gearbulk, Ltd. a


10/13

corporation licensed as a common carrierunder the laws of Norway, through its agent, Philippine

Transmarine Carriers, Inc., carried the goods on board M/VSan Mateo to the US, for the account

of Sumitomo Corporation.

Sumitomo insured the shipment with Chubb and Sons, Inc., a foreign corporation

licensed to engage in insurancebusiness under the laws of the US.

M/V Lorcon received the shipping of steel pipes in good order and condition as

evidenced by the clean bill oflading. When the cargo was unloaded from Lorenzo Shipping

s vessel at Davao City, the steel pipes were rustedall over.

M/V San Mateo of Gearbulk Ltd which received the cargo issued bills of lading covering

the entire shipmentmarked

all units heavily rusted

. Surveyors found that the cargo hold of M/V Lorcon was flooded with seawater,the tank

was rusty, thinning and perforated thereby exposing the cargo to sea water. The cargo was

damagedwhile in the ship.


11/13

o

Negligence was sufficiently established. The contact with the steel pipes caused the

development of rust.

While the ship was on transit from Davao to US, the consignee sent a letter of intent to

Lorenzo shipping informingthem that it would file a claim based on the damaged cargo once the

damage had been ascertained.

Once Sumitomo inspected the pipes, it declared them unfit and filed a marine insurance

claim against Chubb andSons for $104k.

Chubb and Sons filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Lorenzo

Shipping, Gearbulk, andTransmarine.

RTC found Chubb and Sons had the right to institute the action and Lorenzo shipping

was negligent.


12/13

CA affirmed

Lorenzo claimed the packaging was defective and that the action was prescribed (SC

ruled against both defenses.There was evidence that the shipment was packed in superior

condition.)

Issue:

1.Did Chubb and Sons have capacity to sue?

2.Had the action prescribed?

Held:

1.Yes

2.No

Ratio:Re: Capacity to sue

Capacity to sue is a right personal to its holder , its is conferred by law. The foreign

corporation doing an isolatedbusiness transaction in the Philippines does not need a license. The

insurer Chubb and Sons is the real party ininterest and damages. Where an insurance company as

subrogee pays the insured of the entire loss it suffered,the insurer subrogee is the only real party

in interest and must sue in its own name to enforce its right ofsubrogation against a third partywhich caused the loss. The subrogated unsurer becomes owner of the claims andthe entire fruits

of the action.

Re:


13/13

Art 366 Code of Commerce: 24 hour period that does not begin until the consignee has

received possession of themerchandise or by delivery of the cargo by the carrier to the consignee

at the place of destination.

In this case, consignee Sumitomo only took possession of the entire shipment when it

reached the US. Only thenwas the delivery made and completed and only then did the 24 hour

prescriptive period run.Decision affirmed.

Documents

Transpo Assign 2