Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals
Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals
Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
715
715
716
717
718
719
_______________
5 Roland de la Torre is a petitioner in G.R. No. 160565 and one of the
respondents in G.R. No. 160088.
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 160088), p. 39.
7 PTSC is also a petitioner in G.R. No. 160565 and the respondent
corporation in G.R. No. 160088.
8 Exhibit C, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. 1, p. 194.
720
720
j.The owner (Concepcion) shall pay 50% downpayment for the drydocking and repair of the vessel and the balance shall be paid
every month in the amount of P10,000.00, to be deducted from the
rental amount of the vessel;
k.In the event that a THIRD PARTY is interested to purchase the
said vessel, the SECOND PARTY (PTSC/ Roland) has the option
for first priority to purchase the vessel. If the SECOND PARTY
(PTSC/Roland)
refuses
the
offer
of
the
FIRST
PARTY
by
the
SECOND
PARTY
(PTSC/Roland);
(Underscoring Supplied]
On August 1, 1984, PTSC/Roland sub-chartered LCTJosephine to Trigon Shipping Lines (TSL), a single
proprietorship owned by Rolands father, Agustin de la
_______________
9 Agustin de la Torre is the Petitioner in G.R. No. 160088 and one of
the respondents in G.R. No. 160565; Rollo (G.R. No. 160088), p. 41.
10 Exhibits 2/102, Folder of Exhibits, vol. 3, p. 1.
721
721
_______________
11 Exhibit 4/101, Folder of Exhibits, vol. 3, p. 3.
12 Exhibit 3/103; Folder of Exhibits, vol. 3, p. 2.
722
722
Concepcion demanded that PTSC/ Roland refloat LCTJosephine. The latter assured Concepcion that negotiations
were underway for the refloating of his vessel.14
Unfortunately, this did not materialize.
For this reason, Concepcion was constrained to institute
a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against
PTSC
_______________
13 CA Rollo, p. 153.
14 Exhibit D, Folder of Exhibits, vol. 1, p. 196.
723
723
724
HUNDRED
FORTY-ONE
THOUSAND
THREE
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 94-95.
725
725
726
III
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LCT JOSEPHINE AND
PAYLOADER WITHOUT INFORMING THE PARTIES OF
THEIR INTENTION.
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
PETITIONER DIRECTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH
THE RESPONDENTS TRIGON AND DE LA TORRE
DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH KIND OF LIABILITY IS
NOT DULY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OF
RESPONDENT CONCEPCION AND NOT ONE OF THE
ISSUES TRIED BY THE PARTIES.
V
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER
IS
LIABLE
BASED
ON
CULPA
CONTRACTUAL.
VI
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT EXCULPATING
PETITIONER FROM LIABILITY BASED ON THE LIMITED
LIABILITY RULE.
VII
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF COMMERCE ON THE
LIABILITY OF THE SHIP CAPTAIN.20
_______________
20 Rollo (G.R. No. 160088), pp. 146-147.
727
727
_______________
21 Rollo (G.R. No. 160565), pp. 200-201.
728
728
_______________
22 Bormaheco, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 156599, July 26,
2010, 625 SCRA 309, 318-319.
729
729
730
731
732
vessel, nor could they, in their own name and in such capacity, take
judicial or extrajudicial steps in all that relates to commerce; thus if
the Cebu were attached, they would have no legal capacity to
proceed to secure its release; speaking generally, not even the fines
could or ought to be paid by them, unless such fines were occasioned
by their orders. x x x.
The contract executed by Smith, Bell & Co., as agents for the
Cebu, and G. Urrutia & Co., as charterers of the vessel, did not put
the latter in the place of the former, nor make them agents of the
owner or owners of the vessel. With relation to those agents, they
retained opposing rights derived from the charter party of the
vessel, and at no time could they be regarded by the third parties,
or by the authorities, or by the courts, as being in the place of the
owners or the agents in matters relating to the responsibilities
pertaining to the ownership and possession of the vessel. x x x.31
733
_______________
33 Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 102316, June 30, 1997, 274 SCRA 642, 654.
34 National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 345, 362;
283 SCRA 45, 62 (1997); Lea Mer Industries, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance
Co., Inc., 508 Phil. 656, 663; 471 SCRA 698, 705-706 (2005).
35 Article 18 of the New Civil Code:
Art.18. In matters which are governed by the Code of
Commerce and Special Laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by
the provisions of this Code.
734
734
x x x.
37 Article 1665 of the New Civil Code:
Art.1665. The lessee shall return the thing leased, upon the
termination of the lease, just as he received it, save what has been lost or
impaired by the lapse of time, or by ordinary wear and tear, or from an
inevitable cause.
38 Article 1667 of the New Civil Code:
Art.1667. The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of
the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place with his fault. This
burden of proof on the lessee does not
735
735
736
(sgd)ROGELIO L. MARTINEZ
Owners representative43
_______________
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
43 Exhibit G, Folder of Exhibits, vol.1, p. 203.
737
737
Jr.
(Chairperson),
Abad
and
Petitions denied.
Notes.The COGSA, which is suppletory to the
provisions of the Civil Code, supplements the latter by
establishing a statutory provision limiting the carriers
liability in the absence of a shippers declaration of a higher
value in the bill of ladingthe provisions on limited
liability are as much a part of the bill of lading as though
physically in it and as though placed there by agreement of
the parties. (Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping
N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., 383 SCRA 23
[2002])
Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption
of negligence, the doctrine of limited liability cannot be
applied. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. New India
Assurance Company, Inc., 531 SCRA 134 [2007])
o0o
_______________
**
Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 1029 dated June 30, 2011.
***