Compilation of Case Digests - Admiralty - Secb
Compilation of Case Digests - Admiralty - Secb
Compilation of Case Digests - Admiralty - Secb
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
DECISION:
Facts:
Issues:
Art. 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for
the indemnities in favor of third persons which may
arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the
goods which he loaded on the vessel; but he may
exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel
with all her equipment and the freight it may have
earned during the voyage.
Facts:
Issues:
In the case at bar, the consignee had all the time to make a formal
claim from the day it discovered the shortage in the shipment,
which was June 4, 1990, as shown by the records. By the time the
claim for the loss was filed on October 2, 1990, four months had
already elapsed from the date of delivery. In any event, within 15
days from the time the loss was discovered, the consignee could
have filed a provisional claim, which would have constituted
substantial compliance with the rule. Its failure to do so relieved
the arrastre operator of any liability for the non-delivery of the
goods. The rationale between the time limit is that, without it, a
consignee could too easily concoct or fabricate claims and
deprive the arrastre operator of the best opportunity to prove
immediately their veracity.
ABOITIZ SHIPPING V. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. 531 SCRA 134
(2007)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
Both the trial and the appellate courts found that the sinking
was not due to the typhoon but to its unseaworthiness.
ISSUE:
RULING;
Facts:
At about 0125 hours on July 26, 1990, while enroute to Manila, the
vessel listed about 10 degrees starboardside, due to the shifting
of logs in the hold. At about 0128 hours, after the listing of the
vessel had increased to 15 degrees, the ship captain ordered his
men to abandon ship and at about 0130 hours of the same day the
vessel completely sank. Due to the sinking of the vessel, the cargo
was totally lost.
ISSUE(S):
(1) whether the carrier is liable for the loss of the cargo?
These issues involve a determination of factual questions of
whether the loss of the cargo was due to the occurrence of a
natural disaster; and if so, whether its sole and proximate cause
was such natural disaster or whether petitioner was partly to
blame for failing to exercise due diligence in the prevention of that
loss.
RULING:
GR NO. 110398
FACTS:
Petitioner’s ship M/V Don Juan sank on April 22, 1980 after it
collided with the M/V Tacloban City, an oil tanker owned by the
Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and the PNOC Shipping
and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC). Several of her passengers
perished and some of the victims’ bodies were brought to shore
but the four members of the private respondents’ families were
never found.
Both the trial court and the appellate court relied on the
finding of this Court in Mecenas v. Intermediate Appellate Court in
finding petitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise the
extraordinary diligence required of it in the carriage of
passengers, which case was brought for the death of the Mecenas
couple. Petitioner criticizes the lower court’s reliance in the
Mecenas case, arguing that although this case arose out of the
same incident as that involved in Mecenas, the parties are
different and trial was conducted separately. Petitioner contends
that the decision in this case should be based on the allegations
and defenses pleaded and evidence adduced in it or, in short, on
the record of this case.
ISSUES:
RULING:
First Issue:
Second Issue:
Facts:
Philamgen alleged that the sinking and loss were due to the
vessel's unseaworthiness, that the vessel was improperly manned
and its officers were grossly negligent. Felman filed a motion to
dismiss saying that there is no right of subrogation in favor of
Philamgen was transmitted by the shipper.
Issues:
Ruling:
FACTS:
ISSUE(S):
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
In its answer, Loadstar denied any liability for the loss of the
shipper’s goods and claimed that the sinking of its vessel was due
to force majeure. The court a quo rendered judgment in favor of
MIC., prompting loadstar to elevate the matter to the Court of
Appeals, which however, agreed with the trial court and affirmed
its decision in toto. On appeal, loadstar maintained that the vessel
was a private carrier because it was not issued a Certificate of
Public Convenience, it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor
a fixed route, and there was only “one shipper, one consignee for
a special cargo.
Issues:
Held:
Facts:
On March 22, 1988, the board of marine inquiry found that the
MT Vector, its registered operator Francisco Soriano, and its
owner and actual operator Vector Shipping Corporation, were at
fault and responsible for its collision with MV Doña Paz.
Issues:
Ruling:
Facts:
10. The OWNER shall undertake to pay all compensation of all the
vessels crew, including the benefits, premia and protection in
accordance with the provisions of the New Labor Code and other
applicable laws and decrees and the rules and regulations
promulgated by competent authorities as well as all of the SSS
premium. Thus, it is understood that the crew of he vessel shall
and always remain the employees of the OWNER;
11. The OWNER shall be responsible to and shall indemnify the
CHARTERER for damages and losses arising from the
incompetence and/or negligence of, and/or the failure to observe
the required extra-ordinary diligence by the crew. It shall be
automatically liable to the CHARTERER for shortlanded shipment
and wrong levels, the value of which shall be withheld from the
OWNERs collectibles with the CHARTERER. However, in the case
of wrong levels, CHARTERER shall immediately reimburse OWNER
after the formers laboratory shall be able to determine that the
bottles were never opened after it left the Plant;
At 2:30 a.m. of November 13, 1990, the M/V Dona Roberta sank.
Out of the 25 officers and crew on board the vessel, only five
survived, namely, Fernando Bucod, Rafael Macairan, Chenito
Sugabo, Ramil Pabayo and Gilbert Gonzaga.
Ruling:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
RTC found that DBP and NDC are liable under LOI no. 1155
and NDC was liable based on the MOA executed where it agreed
that it will prioritize repayments of Galleon’s liabilities. CA,
however, rendered a modified judgment, absolving DBP of any
liability in view of POLIAND’s failure to clearly prove its action
against DBP. The appellate court also discharged NDC of any
liability arising from the credit advances/loan obligations obtained
by GALLEON on the ground that NDC did not acquire ownership of
GALLEON but merely assumed control over its management and
operations. However, NDC was held liable to POLIAND for the
payment of the preferred maritime lien based on LOI No. 1195
which directed NDC to “discharge such maritime liens as may be
necessary to allow the foreclosed vessels to engage on the
international shipping business,” as well as attorney’s fees and
costs of suit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not LOI no. 1155 has the force and effect of law,
thus making NDC and/or DBP liable to Polian on the loan
accommodations and credit advances incurred by Galleon.
RULING:
LOI No. 1155 does not have the force and effect of law and
cannot be a valid source of obligation. Letters of instructions are
simply directives of the President of the Philippines, issued in the
exercise of his administrative power of control, to heads of
departments and/or officers under the executive branch of the
government for observance by the officials and/or employees
thereof. Being administrative in nature, they do not have the force
and effect of a law and, thus, cannot be a valid source of
obligation. However, since Marcos, at the time of execution of said
LOI had both legislative and executive powers, it must be
determined if the LOI was executed in performance of his
legislative powers. To form part of the law of the land, the decree,
order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise of his
extraordinary power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of
the 1976 amendments to the Constitution, whenever in his
judgment, there exists a grave emergency or threat or imminence
thereof, or whenever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular
National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any
matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate
action.
The Facts
The Issues
FACTS:
Rafols had on board the M/V Don Julio Ouano his sobre cargo
(jefe de viaje) when it departed from Iligan City until the cargo of
cement was unloaded in General Santos City, the port of
destination.
ISSUE:
HELD:
vs.
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
(1) The case falls under the exception. While a Court Order
deferring action on a motion to dismiss until the trial is
interlocutory and cannot be challenged until final judgment, still,
where it clearly appears that the trial Judge or Court is proceeding
in excess or outside of its jurisdiction, the remedy of prohibition
would lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead
with the proceedings.
(2) Yes, the terms of the Charter Party, between the SHIPPER
and Parcel Tankers, Inc. is binding to the INSURER.
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
The charterer NFA could not be held liable for demurrage for
it appears that cause of delay was not imputable to either of the
parties. The cause of delay during the loading was the strike
staged by the crew of the arrastre operator, and the unavailability
of a berthing space for the vessel during the unloading. Here, the
Court holds that the delay sued upon was still within the
“reasonable time” embraced in the stipulation of “Customary
Quick Dispatch”.
FACTS:
Characters:
Procedural History :
ISSUES:
PETITIONER’S AGRUMENTS:
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
- Non really, just that Keng Hua should pay demurrage charges
since it delayed Sea-Land’s vessel by failing to unload the
shipment during the free time period.
RULING:
2) YES, it is proper
- Keng Hua argued that Sea_Land made no demand for the sum
if P67.340. also, Sea_Land’s loss and prevention manager
(P50,260) and its counsel (P37.800) asked for different
amounts.
- The amount for P67.340 was a factual conclusion of the trial
court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and is therefore
binding on the SC. Such finding is supported by extant
evidence
- Re: discrepancy in amounts demanded: result of the variance
if dates when the demands were made April 24. 1983
P37.800. it already ballooned to P67.340 by November 22.
3) NO.
4) NO.
DISPOSITIVE :
FACTS:
The vessel arrived with the cargo in Manila, but when the
vessel’s three (3) hatches containing the shipment were opened,
nearly all the skids of tin plates and hot rolled sheets were
allegedly found to be wet and rusty.NSC filed its complaint against
defendant before the RTC wherein it claimed that it sustained
losses as a result of the act, neglect and default of the master and
crew in the management of the vessel as well as the want of due
diligence on the part of the defendant to make the vessel
seaworthy all in violation of defendant’s undertaking under their
Contract of Voyage Charter Hire.
RULING:
Yes.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that VSI did not offer its
services to the general public. As found by the Regional Trial
Court, it carried passengers or goods only for those it chose under
a “special contract of charter party.” As correctly concluded by
the Court of Appeals, the MV Vlasons I “was not a common but a
private carrier.” Consequently, the rights and obligations of VSI
and NSC, including their respective liability for damage to the
cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations in their contract of
private carriage or charter party. Recently, in Valenzuela
Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals and
Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation, the Court ruled:
Facts:
Issues:
(2) Whether the ship owner was able to prove the exercise of the
diligence required under the circumstances
Ruling:
(1) A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire
ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another
person for a specified time or use; Charter parties are of two types:
(a) contract of affreightment which involves the use of shipping
space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to
carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by demise or bareboat
charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the
charterer with a transfer to him of its entire command and
possession and consequent control over its navigation, including
the master and the crew, who are his servants. Contract of
affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is
leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage
charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage.
Before the fertilizer was loaded, the four (4) hatches of the
vessel were cleaned, dried and fumigated. After completing the
loading of the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon
hatches were closed and sealed with iron lids, then covered with
three (3) layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were tied with
steel bonds. The hatches remained close and tightly sealed while
the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it
impossible for a person to open without the use of the ship's boom.
It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel was
in good condition, foreclosing the possibility of spillage of the
cargo into the sea or seepage of water inside the hull of the vessel.
When M/V "Sun Plum" docked at its berthing place,
representatives of the consignee boarded, and in the presence of
a representative of the shipowner, the foreman, the stevedores,
and a cargo surveyor representing CSCI, opened the hatches and
inspected the condition of the hull of the vessel. The stevedores
unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the shipmates who
were overseeing the whole operation on rotation basis.
vs.
FACTS:
HELD: Yes
Second, the alleged fortuitous event was not the sole and
proximate cause of the loss. There is a preponderance of evidence
that the barge was not seaworthy when it sailed for Manila.
Respondent was able to prove that, in the hull of the barge, there
were holes that might have caused or aggravated the sinking.
Because the presumption of negligence or fault applied to
petitioner, it was incumbent upon it to show that there were no
holes; or, if there were, that they did not aggravate the sinking.
Petitioner offered no evidence to rebut the existence of the holes.
Its witness, Domingo A. Luna, testified that the barge was in "tip-
top" or excellent condition, but that he had not personally
inspected it when it left Palawan. The submission of the Philippine
Coast Guard’s Certificate of Inspection of Judy VII, dated July 31,
1991, did not conclusively prove that the barge was seaworthy.
COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and the PHILIPPINE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, respondents
Facts:
Upon reaching Manila Bay, while approaching Pier 18, one of the
barges, "Coastwise 9", struck an unknown sunken object. The
forward buoyancy compartment was damaged, and water gushed
in through a hole "two inches wide and twenty-two inches
long"1 As a consequence, the molasses at the cargo tanks were
contaminated and rendered unfit for the use it was intended. This
prompted the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc. to reject the
shipment of molasses as a total loss. Thereafter, Pag-asa Sales,
Inc. filed a formal claim with the insurer of its lost cargo, herein
private respondent, Philippine General Insurance Company
(PhilGen, for short) and against the carrier, herein petitioner,
Coastwise Lighterage. Coastwise Lighterage denied the claim and
it was PhilGen which paid the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc., the
amount of P700,000.00, representing the value of the damaged
cargo of molasses
Issues:
Held:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Article 586. The shipowner and the ship agent shall be civilly
liable for the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted
by the latter to repair, equip, and provision the vessel, provided
the creditor proves that the amount claimed was invested for the
benefit of the same.
Article 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the
indemnities in favor of third persons which may arise from the
conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded
on the vessel; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning
the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have
earned during the voyage.
COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION vs COURT OF APPEALS
245 SCRA 796 (1995)
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
vs
Facts:
April 29, 1996, the consignee filed a claim with Wallem for
the value of the damaged shipment, to no avail. Since the shipment
was insured with Phil. First Insurance against all risks in the
amount of P2,470,213.50. The consignee filed a claim against the
First Insurance. First insurance after examining the turn-over
survey, the bad order certificate and other documents paid the
consignee but later on sent a demand letter to Wallem for the
recovery of the amount paid to the consignee (in exercise of its
right of subrogation). Wallem did not respond to the claim.
Issues:
2. Whether or not the carrier should be held liable for the cost of
the damaged shipment;
Ruling:
The records are replete with evidence which show that the
damage to the bags happened before and after their discharge and
it was caused by the stevedores of the arrastre operator who were
then under the supervision of Wallem.
It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while
being unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier.
In the instant case, the damage or losses were incurred during the
discharge of the shipment while under the supervision of the
carrier. Consequently, the carrier is liable for the damage or losses
caused to the shipment. As the cost of the actual damage to the
subject shipment has long been settled, the trial courts finding of
actual damages in the amount of P397,879.69 has to be sustained.
petitioners, vs.
FACTS:
The NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the PO25
and directed petitioners to pay the Captain (a) his salary for the
unexpired portion of the contract at: USS 1900.00 a month, plus
one (1) month leave benefit; and (b)attorney’s fees equivalent to
ten percent (10) of the total award due.
Issue:
Ruling:
Under all the circumstances of this case, we, along with the
NLRC, are unable to hold that captain Tayong’s decision (arrived
at after consultation with the vessel’s Chief Engineer) to wait
seven (7) hours in Singapore for the delivery on board the Oceanic
Mindoro of the requisitioned supplies needed for the welding-
repair, on board the ship, of the turbo-charger and the economizer
equipment of the vessel, constituted "merely arbitrary, capricious
or grossly insubordinate behaviour on his part.
CRISLYNDON T. SADAGNOT vs. REINIER PACIFIC
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. and
NEPTUNE SHIPMANAGEMENT
SERVICES, PTE., LTD. of SINGAPORE, G.R. No. 152636, August 8,
2007
FACTS:
ISSUE:
xxxx
Facts:
The trial court rendered its decision and ruled that the action
was only for breach of contract, with Articles 1170, 1172, and
1173 of the Civil Code as applicable law - not Article 2180 of the
same Code.
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
FACTS:
HELD:
Facts:
While the vessel was off Okinawa, Japan, a small flame was
detected on the acetylene cylinder located in the accommodation
area near the engine room on the main deck level. As the crew
was trying to extinguish the fire, the acetylene cylinder suddenly
exploded sending a flash of flame throughout the accommodation
area, thus causing death and severe injuries to the crew and
instantly setting fire to the whole superstructure of the
vessel. The incident forced the master and the crew to abandon
the ship.
Issues:
Ruling:
First, the acetylene cylinder which was fully loaded should not
have been stored in the accommodation area near the engine room
where the heat generated therefrom could cause the acetylene
cylinder to explode by reason of spontaneous
combustion.Respondent ESLI should have easily foreseen that the
acetylene cylinder, containing highly inflammable material, was in
a real danger of exploding because it was stored in close proximity
to the engine room.
Third, the fact that the acetylene cylinder was checked, tested
and examined and subsequently certified as having complied with
the safety measures and standards by qualified experts before it
was loaded in the vessel only shows to a great extent that
negligence was present in the handling of the acetylene cylinder
after it was loaded and while it was on board the ship. Indeed, had
the respondent and its agents not been negligent in storing the
acetylene cylinder near the engine room, then that same would
not have leaked and exploded during the voyage.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
(2) Would the owner of the vessel be liable likewise if the damage
is caused by the concurrent negligence of the master of the vessel
and the pilot under a compulsory pilotage?
RULING:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
From 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock in the evening of May 4, 1948, the M/L
"Consuelo V", laden with cargoes and passengers left the port of
Zamboanga City bound for Siokon. She was then towing a kumpit,
named "Sta. Maria Bay". The weather was good and fair. Among
her passengers were the plaintiff Insa Abdulhaman, his wife
Carimla Mora and their five children.On that same night the M/S
"Bowline Knot" was navigating from Maribojoc towards
Zamboanga.
Issues:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Facts:
The M/S San Diego II and the M/S Bartolome, while engaged
in fishing operations around Mindoro Island on Oct. 1, 1941 were
caught by a typhoon as a consequence of which they were sunk
and totally lost. Amado Nuñez, Victoriano Salvacion and Francisco
Oching while acting in their capacities perished in the shipwreck.
Issue:
Held:
FACTS
Litonjua’s defense:
ISSUE(S)
Whether or not Litonjua may be held liable to the private
respondent on the contract of employment?
RULING
YES.
No. L-49469
FACTS:
ISSUES:
RULING:
First Issue
Second Issue
Facts:
Issue:
Carrier's lien exists if freight was not paid. The fact that the
freight was already included in the purchase price of the goods
paid by the purchaser to the appellees (Seller), did not free the
cargo from the carrier's lien as provided for in Article 665 of the
Code of Commerce, if the freight has not yet been fully paid by the
Charter-Seller. The appellant shipping company is entitled to
collect from the appellees four running days on demurrage for
detention. Computed at the rate of exchange prevailing in January
1955, the appellant shipping company should be paid by the
appellees the sum of P6, 720, Philippine currency. The demurrage
for the remaining detention of four days and 17 hours and other
charges claimed by the appellant shipping company are subject to
arbitration in London pursuant to clause No. 20 of the charter
party.
FACTS:
The lower Court said that petitioners have already lost their
right to press their claim against respondent because of their
failure to serve notice thereof upon the carrier within 30 days after
receipt of the notice of loss or damage as required by clause 18 of
the bill of lading which was issued concerning the shipment of the
merchandise which had allegedly disappeared. In this respect, the
court said that, "appellant unwittingly admitted that they were
late in claiming the indemnity for the loss of the case of the
vanishing cream as their written claim was made on April 25, 1946,
or more than 30 days after they had been fully aware of said loss,"
and because of this failure, the Court said the action of petitioners
should, and must, fall. Petitioners now contend that this finding is
erroneous in the light of the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act of 1936, which apply to this case, the same having been
made an integral part of the covenants agreed upon in the bill of
lading.
ISSUE(S):
RULING :
Facts:
But while still in port, it ran aground at the mouth of the Cagayan
River, and, attempts to refloat it under its own power having failed,
plaintiff had it refloated by the Luzon Stevedoring Co. at an agreed
compensation.
Issue:
Ruling:
The final requisite has not been proved, for it does not appear
that the expenses here in question were incurred after following
the procedure laid down in articles 813 et seq.
In conclusion, we find that plaintiff has not made out a case for
general average, with the result that its claim for contribution
against the defendant cannot be granted.
C.B Williams vs Teodoro R.Yangco
G.R.No. L-8325, March 10, 1914
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
G.R. No. L-25047 & G.R. No. L-25050. March 18, 1967
FACTS:
The bills of lading were indorsed to the order of Yau Yue and
delivered to it by the respective shippers. Upon receipt thereof,
Yau Yue drew demand drafts together with the bills of lading
against Teves and Davao Merchandising Corp., through the
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank.
"In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all
liability in respect to loss or damage unless suit is brought within
one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered."
It argued that the cargoes should have been delivered to the
person entitled to the delivery thereof, i.e., plaintiff, on March 2,
1961 (Teves shipment) and June 10, 1961 (Davao Merchandising
Corp. shipment), the respective dates of the vessels' arrival in
Manila, and that even allowing a reasonable time (even one month)
after such arrivals within which to make delivery, still, the actions
commenced on October 30, 1963 and November 14, 1963,
respectively, were filed beyond the prescribed period of one year.
ISSUE:
RULING:
x x x x x
"It follows that for suits predicated not upon loss or damage
but on alleged misdelivery (or conversion) of the goods, the
applicable rule on prescription is that found in the Civil Code,
namely, either ten years for breach of a written contract or four
years for quasi-delict (Arts. 1144 [1], 1146, Civil Code). x x x"
FACTS:
ISSUES:
Whether or not the provision of the Carrier of Goods Sea Act
with regard to the prescriptive period applies in this case although
the shipment from Manila to Cebu was merely a through a
forwarding agent of the shipper.
RULING:
Submitted by:
Section B
Submitted on:
February 3, 2018
ELECTIVE ADMIRALTY ASSIGNED CASES