Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 146426. June 27, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
158
159
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
_______________
160
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
_______________
161
7
(c)harterer or his representative, Acuario wrote Skyland
seeking reimbursement of its repair costs, failing which, it
filed a complaint for damages against Skyland before the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, where the case was
docketed as Civil Case No. C-16120 and raffled to8 Branch
121. Skyland, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against
petitioner alleging that it was responsible for the damage
sustained by the barge.
According to Acuario and its witnesses, the weather in
Bataan shifted drastically at dawn of April 7, 1993 while
the barge was docked at the Limay port eight meters away
from the stone wall. Due to strong winds and large waves,
the barge repeatedly hit its hull on the wall, thus
prompting the barge patron to alert the tugboat captain of
the M/T Count to tow the barge farther out to sea.
However, the tugboat failed to pull the barge to a safer
distance due to engine malfunction, thereby causing the
barge to sustain a hole in its hull. Fortunately, no part of
the cargo was 9
lost even if only half of it had been unloaded
at that time.
On the other hand, petitioner and Skyland denied that
the barge had been damaged. One of its witnesses,
Salvador D. Ocampo, claimed that he was involved in all
aspects of the operation and that no accident of any sort
was brought to his knowledge. He alleged that the barge
patron and tug master made no mention of any maritime
casualty during the clearing of the vessels at the Philippine
Ports Authority in Limay, Bataan. The barge was in good
condition and was not damaged10
when it was turned over to
Acuario on April 13, 1993.
In due course, the trial court promulgated its decision
dated June 10, 1996, the dispositive part of which reads:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
_______________
7 Id., at p. 38.
8 Id., at pp. 42-44.
9 Id., at p. 28.
10 Id., at p. 29.
162
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
_______________
11 Id., at p. 67.
12 Id., at pp. 64-66.
163
II
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
14 Id., at p. 11.
15 Central Shipping Company, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North
America, G.R. No. 150751, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 511, 518.
164
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 64.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
17 Id., at p. 66.
165
court found that the damage on the barge was not too
extensive as to render it incapable of staying afloat and
being used in operation. Neither was it impossible for the
barges cargo to remain intact and undamaged during the
weather disturbance. Apart from the fact that the cargo
which consisted of wooden electric poles
18
are, by nature, not
easily damaged by adverse weather, part of it had already
been unloaded when the unfortunate incident occurred.
Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the
lower courts finding that the barge sustained a hole in its
hull when petitioners tugboat failed to tow it to a safer
distance as the weather changed in the port of Limay. This
Court is bound by the factual determinations of the
appellate court especially when these are supported by
substantial
19
evidence and merely affirm those of the trial
court, as in this case. There is no showing here that the
inferences made by the Court of Appeals were manifestly
mistaken, or that the appealed judgment was based on a
misapprehension of facts, or that the appellate court
overlooked certain relevant, undisputed facts which, if 20
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
Thus, a reversal of the factual findings in this case is
unwarranted.
As for the second assigned error, petitioner asserts that
it could not be held liable for the damage sustained by
Acuarios barge because the latter sought to recover upon
its contract with Skyland, to which petitioner was not a
party. Since it had no contractual relation with Acuario,
only Skyland should be held liable under the contract.
Besides, Skyland contractually assumed the risk that the
tugboat might encounter engine trouble when it
acknowledged in its contract with petitioner that the
latters vessels were in good order and in sea-
_______________
18 Id., at p. 65.
19 Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation v. Borja, 432 Phil.
913, 922; 383 SCRA 341, 348 (2002).
20 Central Shipping Company, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North
America, supra note 15 at p. 518.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
166
_______________
167
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
_______________
168
24
operations were then still underway, the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False alleged 11/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
24
operations were then still underway, the alleged
negligence of the barge patron is a matter that is also being
raised for the first time before this Court.
Thus, the damage to the barge could have been avoided
had it not been for the tugboats inability to tow it away
from the stone wall. Considering that a barge has no power
of its own and is totally defenseless against the ravages of
the sea, it was incumbent upon petitioner to see to it that it
could secure the barge by providing a seaworthy tugboat.
Petitioners failure to do so did not only increase the risk
that might have been reasonably anticipated during the
shipside 25operation but was the proximate cause of the
damage. Hence, as correctly found by the courts below, it
should ultimately be held liable therefor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
55664 dated July 6, 2000 and the Resolution dated
November 28, 2000, finding petitioner Cargolift Shipping,
Inc. liable, as third-party defendant, for actual damages in
the sum of P97,021.20, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
24 Id., at p. 189.
25 Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture,
Inc., G.R. No. 150255, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 557, 572.
169
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
9/9/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493
o0o
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e658d145ff653e688003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13