11. Far East Shipping vs CA

8/18/2019 11. Far East Shipping vs CA

1/26

#11. With digestedRepublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC G.R. No. 130068 October 1, 1998

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY, petitioner,s.COURT OF APPEAS !"# PHIIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.G.R. No. 1301$0 October, 1998

MANIA PIOTS ASSOCIATION, petitioner,s.PHIIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY !"# FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY, respondent REGAA%O, J.:

!hese consolidated petitions for reie" on certiorari see in unison to annul and set aside tdecision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals of Noe$ber 1%, 1&&' and its resolution & dated (ul) *1,1&&+ in CA-.R. C No. /0+/, entitled 2Philippine Ports Authorit), Plainti3Appellee s. 4ar Eastern5hipping Co$pan), 5enen C. -aino and Manila Pilots6 Association, 7efendantsAppellants,2 "hicha8r$ed "ith $odi9cation the :udg$ent of the trial court holding the defendantsappellants thereinsolidaril) liable for da$ages in faor of herein priate respondent.

!here is no dispute about the facts as found b) the appellate court,thus ;. . . PA?


2/26

Per contract and supple$ental contract of the Philippine Ports Authorit) and the contractorfor the rehabilitation of the da$aged pier, the sa$e cost the Philippine Ports Authorit) thea$ount of P1,1/',1*/./% Exhibits "D" and "E". 3


3/26

negligence of Capt. -aino, the harbor pilot, and Capt. itor Gabano, ) ship$aster of MPalodar, as the basis of their solidar) liabilit) for da$ages sustained b) PPA. t posits thatthe essel "as being piloted b) Capt. -aino "ith Capt. Gabano beside hi$ all the "hile the bridge of the essel, as the for$er too oer the hel$ of M Palodar "hen it ra$$edand da$aged the apron of the pier of Berth No. 0 of the Manila nternational Port. !heirconcurrent negligence "as the i$$ediate and proIi$ate cause of the collision bet"een theessel and the pier ; Capt. -aino, for his negligence in the conduct of docing $aneuerfor the safe berthing of the esselL and Capt. Gabano, for failing to counter$and the ordeof the harbor pilot and to tae oer and steer the essel hi$self in the face of i$$inentdanger, as "ell as for $erel) rel)ing on Capt. -aino during the berthing procedure. 11


4/26


5/26


6/26

*. Penalties. ;III III IIIc !he sub$ission of a false certi9cation under Par. / of the Circular shall lie"ise constitutconte$pt of court, "ithout pre:udice to the 9ling of cri$inal action against the guilt) part).

!he la")er $a) also be sub:ected to disciplinar) proceedings.t $ust be stressed that the certi9cation against foru$ shopping ordained under the Rules to be eIecuted b) the petitioner , and not b) counsel.


7/26

onl) one co$$ent. t could not hae been una"are of the pendenc) of one or the otherpetition because, being counsel for respondent in both cases, petitioner is reFuired to furniit "ith a cop) of the petition under pain of dis$issal of the petition for failure other"ise. '0

Besides, in -.R. 1*'=, it prefaces its discussions thus ;ncidentall), the Manila Pilots6 Association MPA, one of the defendantsappellants in thecase before the respondent Court of Appeals, has taen a separate appeal fro$ the saiddecision to this Honorable Court, "hich "as doceted as -.R. No. 1*1% and entitled2Manila Pilots6 Association, Petitioner, ersus Philippine Ports Authorit) and 4ar Eastern5hipping Co., Respondents.2 '1

5i$ilarl), in -.R. No. 1*1%, it states ;ncidentall), respondent 4ar Eastern 5hipping Co. 4E5C had also taen an appeal fro$ thesaid decision to this Honorable Court, doceted as -.R. No. 1*'=, entitled 24ar Eastern5hipping Co. s. Court of Appeals and Philippine Ports Authorit).2 '&

We 9nd here a lacadaisical attitude and co$placenc) on the part of the


8/26

or negligence of the Master shall be the responsibilit) and liabilit) of the registered o"ner othe essel concerned "ithout pre:udice to recourse against said Master.5uch liabilit) of the o"ner or Master of the essel or its pilots shall be deter$ined b)co$petent authorit) in appropriate proceedings in the light of the facts and circu$stances each particular case.5ec. */. 7uties and responsibilities of the Pilot or Pilots6 Association. ; !he duties andresponsibilities of the Harbor Pilot shall be as follo"sDIII III IIIf a pilot shall be held responsible for the direction of a essel fro$ the ti$e he assu$es his"or as a pilot thereof until he leaes it anchored or berthed safel)L Pro(ided, ho"eer, thahis responsibilit) shall cease at the $o$ent the Master neglects or refuses to carr) outhisorder.Custo$s Ad$inistratie


9/26

generall) understood as a person taen on board at a particular place for the purpose of conductingship through a rier, road or channel, or fro$ a port. $'

nder English and A$erican authorities, generall) speaing, the pilot supersedes the $astfor the ti$e being in the co$$and and naigation of the ship, and his orders $ust beobe)ed in all $atters connected "ith her naigation. He beco$es the $aster pro hac(ice and should gie all directions as to speed, course, stopping and reersing anchoring,to"ing and the lie. And "hen a licensed pilot is e$plo)ed in a place "here pilotage is

co$pulsor), it is his dut) to insist on haing e3ectie control of the essel, or to decline toact as pilot. nder certain s)ste$s of foreign la", the pilot does not tae entire charge of thessel, but is dee$ed $erel) the adiser of the $aster, "ho retains co$$and and controlthe naigation een in localities "here pilotage is co$pulsor). $$

t is Fuite co$$on for states and localities to proide for co$pulsor) pilotage, and safet)la"s hae been enacted reFuiring essels approaching their ports, "ith certain eIceptions,tae on board pilots dul) licensed under local la". !he purpose of these la"s is to create abod) of sea$en thoroughl) acFuainted "ith the harbor, to pilot essels seeing to enter ordepart, and thus protect life and propert) fro$ the dangers of naigation. $6

n line "ith such established doctrines, Chapter of Custo$s Ad$inistratie


10/26

t $a) be said that this is eIacting a er) high order of abilit) in a pilot. But "hen "econsider the alue of the lies and propert) co$$itted to their control, for in this the) areabsolute $asters, the high co$pensation the) receie, the care "hich Congress has taen secure b) rigid and freFuent eIa$inations and rene"al of licenses, this er) class of sill, "do not thin "e 9I the standard too high.

!ested thereb), "e a8r$ respondent court6s 9nding that Capt. -aino failed to $easure upto such strict standard of care and diligence reFuired of pilots in the perfor$ance of theirduties. Witness this testi$on) of Capt. -ainoDCourtD ou hae testi9ed before that the reason "h) the essel bu$ped the pier "as becauthe anchor "as not released i$$ediatel) or as soon as )ou hae gien the order. 7o )oure$e$ber haing srated thatJA es, )our Honor.Q And )ou gae this order to the captain of the esselJA es, )our Honor.Q B) that testi$on), )ou are leading the Court to understand that if that anchor "asreleased i$$ediatel) at the ti$e )ou gae the order, the incident "ould not hae happenes that correctJA es, sir, but actuall) it "as onl) a presu$ption on $) part because there "as a co$$otiobet"een the o8cers "ho are in charge of the dropping of the anchor and the captain. counot understand their language, it "as in Russian, so presu$ed the anchor "as not droppeon ti$e.Q 5o, )ou are not sure "hether it "as reall) dropped on ti$e or notJA a$ not sure, )our Honor.III III IIIQ ou are not een sure "hat could hae caused the incident. What factor could hae causthe incidentJA Well, in this case no", because either the anchor "as not dropped on ti$e or the anchordid not hold, that "as the cause of the incident, )our Honor. 60

t is disconcertingl) riddled "ith too $uch incertitude and $anifests a see$ing indi3erencefor the possibl) in:urious conseFuences his co$$ands as pilot $a) hae. Prudence reFuirethat he, as pilot, should hae $ade sure that his directions "ere pro$ptl) and strictl)follo"ed. As correctl) noted b) the trial court ;Moreoer, assu$ing that he did indeed gie the co$$and to drop the anchor on ti$e, aspilot he should hae seen to it that the order "as carried out, and he could hae done this a nu$ber of "a)s, one of "hich "as to inspect the bo" of the essel "here the anchor$echanis$ "as installed.


11/26

that care constitutes negligence. 6$ -enerall), the degree of care reFuired is graduated accordingto the danger a person or propert) attendant upon the actiit) "hich the actor pursues or theinstru$entalit) "hich he uses. !he greater the danger the greater the degree of care reFuired. Whaordinar) under eItraordinar) of conditions is dictated b) those conditionsL eItraordinar) ris de$aneItraordinar) care. 5i$ilarl), the $ore i$$inent the danger, the higher the degree of care. 66

We gie our i$pri$atur to the bases for the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Capt.-aino "as indeed negligent in the perfor$ance of his dutiesD

III III III. . . As can be gleaned fro$ the logboo, -aino ordered the left anchor and t"o / shacledropped at =D* o6cloc in the $orning. He ordered the engines of the essel stopped at =Do6cloc. B) then,-aino $ust hae realied that the anchor did not hit a hard ob:ect and "anot cla"ed so as to reduce the $o$entu$ of the essel. n point of fact, the esselcontinued traelling to"ards the pier at the sa$e speed. -aino failed to react, At =D*/o6cloc, the t"o / tugboats began to push the stern part of the essel fro$ the port side bthe $o$entu$ of the essel "as not contained. 5till, -aino did not react. He did not eenorder the other anchor and t"o / $ore shacles dropped to arrest the $o$entu$ of theessel. Neither did he order fullastern. t "as onl) at =D*0 o6cloc, or our ,8. inutes, aftethe anchor "as dropped that -aino reacted. But his reaction "as een haphaard becauinstead of arresting full) the $o$entu$ of the essel "ith the help of the tugboats, -aino

ordered $erel) 2halfastern2. t too -aino another $inute to order a 2fullastern2. B) thenit "as too late. !he essel6s $o$entu$ could no longer be arrested and, barel) a $inutethereafter, the bo" of the essel hit the apron of the pier. Patentl), -aino $iscalculated. Hfailed to react and undertae adeFuate $easures to arrest full) the $o$entu$ of the essafter the anchor failed to cla" to the seabed. When he reacted, the sa$e "as eenhaphaard. -aino failed to recon the bul of the essel, its sie and its cargo. Heerroneousl) belieed that onl) one 1 anchor "ould su8ce and een "hen the anchor faileto cla" into the seabed or against a hard ob:ect in the seabed, -aino failed to order theother anchor dropped i$$ediatel). His clai$ that the anchor "as dropped "hen the essel"as onl) 1, feet fro$ the pier is but a belated atte$pt to eItricate hi$self fro$ theFuag$ire of his o"n insouciance and negligence. n su$, then, Appellants6 clai$ that theincident "as caused b) 2force $a:eure2 is barren of factual basis.

III III III !he harbor pilots are especiall) trained for this :ob. n the Philippines, one $a) not be aharbor pilot unless he passed the reFuired eIa$ination and training conducted then b) theBureau of Custo$, under Custo$s Ad$inistratie


12/26

While it is indubitable that in eIercising his functions a pilot is in sole co$$and of theship 69 and supersedes the $aster for the ti$e being in the co$$and and naigation of a ship andthat he beco$es $aster pro hac (ice of a essel piloted b) hi$, (0 there is oer"hel$ing authorit) tthe e3ect that the $aster does not surrender his essel to the pilot and the pilot is not the $aster. !$aster is still in co$$and of the essel not"ithstanding the presence of a pilot. !here are occasion"hen the $aster $a) and should interfere and een displace the pilot, as "hen the pilot is obiousl)inco$petent or intoIicated and the circu$stances $a) reFuire the $aster to displace a co$pulsor)

pilot because of inco$petenc) or ph)sical incapacit). f, ho"eer, the $aster does nor obsere that co$pulsor) pilot is inco$petent or ph)sicall) incapacitated, the $aster is :usti9ed in rel)ing on thepilot, but not blindl). (1

!he $aster is not "holl) absoled fro$ his duties "hile a pilot is on board his essel, and$a) adise "ith or o3er suggestions to hi$. He is still in co$$and of the essel, eIcept sofar as her naigation is concerned, and $ust cause the ordinar) "or of the essel to beproperl) carried on and the usual precaution taen. !hus, in particular, he is bound to seethat there is su8cient "atch on dec, and that the $en are attentie to their duties, alsothat engines are stopped, to"lines cast o3, and the anchors clear and read) to go at thepilot6s order. (&

A perusal of Capt. Gabano6s testi$on) $aes it apparent that he "as re$iss in thedischarge of his duties as $aster of the ship, leaing the entire docing procedure up to the

pilot, instead of $aintaining "atchful igilance oer this ris) $aneuerDQ Will )ou please tell us "hether )ou hae the right to interene in docing of )our ship inthe harborJA No sir, hae no right to interene in ti$e of docing, onl) in case there is i$$inentdanger to the essel and to the pier.Q 7id )ou eer interene during the ti$e that )our ship "as being doced b) Capt. -ainoA No sir, did not interene at the ti$e "hen the pilot "as docing $) ship.Q p to the ti$e it "as actuall) doced at the pier, is that correctJA No sir, did not interene up to the er) $o$ent "hen the essel "as doced.III III IIIAtt). 7el Rosario to the "itnessQ Mr. Witness, "hat happened, if an), or "as there an)thing unusual that happened during

the docingJA es sir, our ship touched ihe pier and the pier "as da$aged.Court to the "itnessQ When )ou said touched the pier, are )ou leading the court to understand that )our shipbu$ped the pierJA beliee that $) essel onl) touched the pier but the i$pact "as er) "ea.Q 7o )ou no" "hether the pier "as da$aged as a result of that slight or "ea i$pactJA es sir, after the pier "as da$aged.III III IIIQ Being $ost concerned "ith the safet) of )our essel, in the $aneuering of )our essel tthe port, did )ou obsere an)thing irregular in the $aneuering b) Capt. -aino at the ti$he "as tr)ing to cause the essel to be doced at the pierJ

A ou $ean the action of Capt. -aino or his conditionJCourtDQ Not the actuation that confor$ to the safet) $aneuer of the ship to the harborJA No sir, it "as a usual docing.Q B) that state$ent of )ours, )ou are leading the court to understand that there "as nothiirregular in the docing of the shipJA es sir, during the initial period of the docing, there "as nothing unusual that happenedQ What about in the last portion of the docing of the ship, "as there an)thing unusual orabnor$al that happenedJA None our Honor, beliee that Capt. -aino thought that the anchor could eep or holdthe essel.


13/26

Q ou "ant us to understand, Mr. Witness, that the dropping of the anchor of the essel "anor ti$el)JA don6t no" the depth of this port but thin, if the anchor "as dropped earlier and "ith$ore shacles, there could not hae been an incident.Q 5o )ou could not precisel) tell the court that the dropping of the anchor "as ti$er)because )ou are not "ell a"are of the seabed, is that correctJA es sir, that is right.III III IIIQ Alright, Capt. Gaano, did )ou co$e to no" later "hether the anchor held its ground s$uch so that the essel could not traelJA t is di8cult for $e to sa) de9nitel). beliee that the anchor did not hold the ship.Q ou $ean )ou don6t no" "hether the anchor blades stuc to the ground to stop the shipfro$ further $oingJA es sir, it is possible.Q What is possibleJA thin, the / shacles "ere not enough to hold the essel.Q 7id )ou no" that the / shacles "ere droppedJA es sir, ne" that.Q f )ou ne" that the shacles "ere not enough to hold the ship, did )ou not $ae an)protest to the pilotJA No sir, after the incident, that "as $) assu$ption.Q 7id )ou co$e to no" later "hether that presu$ption is correctJA still don6t no" the ground in the harbor or the depths.Q 5o fro$ the beginning, )ou "ere not co$petent "hether the / shacles "ere also droppeto hold the shipJA No sir, at the beginning, did not doubt it because beliee Capt. -aino to be aneIperienced pilot and he should be $ore a"are as to the depths of the harbor and theground and "as con9dent in his actions.III III III5olicitor Abad to the "itnessQ No", )ou "ere standing "ith the pilot on the bridge of the essel before the inicidenthappened, "ere )ou notJA es sir, all the ti$e, "as standing "ith the pilot.Q And so "hateer the pilot sa", )ou could also see fro$ that point of ie"JA !hat is right.Q Whateer the piler can read fro$ the panel of the bridge, )ou also could read, is thatcorrectJA What is the $eaning of panelJQ All indications necessar) for $en on the bridge to be infor$ed of the $oe$ents of theshipJA !hat is right.Q And "hateer sound the captain . . . Capt. -aino "ould hear fro$ the bridge, )ou could

also hearJA !hat is right.Q No", )ou said that "hen the co$$and to lo"er the anchor "as gien, it "as obe)ed, isthat rightJA !his co$$and "as eIecuted b) the third $ate and boats"ain.Court to the "itnessQ Mr. Witness, earlier in toda)6s hearing, )ou said that )ou did not interene "ith the dutiesof the pilot and that, in )our opinion, )ou can onl) interene if the ship is placed in i$$inedanger, is that correctJA !hat is right, did sa) that.


14/26

Q n )our obseration before the incident actuall) happened, did )ou obsere "hether or nthe ship, before the actual incident, the ship "as placed in i$$inent dangerJA No sir, did not obsere.Q B) that ans"er, are )ou leading the court to understand that because )ou did notinterene and because )ou belieed that it "as )our dut) to interene "hen the essel isplaced in i$$inent danger to "hich )ou did not obsere an) i$$inent danger thereof, )ouhae not interened in an) $anner to the co$$and of the pilotJA !hat is right, sir.III III IIIQ Assu$inp that )ou disagreed "ith the pilot regarding the step being taen b) the pilot in$aneuering the essel, "hose co$$and "ill preail, in case of i$$inent danger to theesselJA did nor consider the situation as haing an i$$inent danger. belieed that the essel"ill doc alongside the pier.Q ou "ant us to understand that )ou did not see an i$$inent danger to )our ship, is that"hat )ou $eanJA es sir, up to the er) last $o$ent, belieed that there "as no i$$inent danger.Q Because of that, did )ou eer interene in the co$$and of the pilotJA es sir, did not interene because belieed that the co$$and of the pilot to be correct5olicitor Abad to the "itnessQ As a captain of M> Palodar, )ou consider docing $aneuers a serious $atter, is it notA es sir, that is right.Q 5ince it a3ects not onl) the safet) of the port or pier, but also the safet) of the essel anthe cargo, is it notJA !hat is right.Q 5o that, assu$e that )ou "ere "atching Capt. -aino er) closel) at the ti$e he "as$aing his co$$andsJA "as close to hi$, "as hearing his co$$and and being eIecuted.Q And that )ou "ere also alert for an) possible $istaes he $ight co$$it in the$aneuering of the esselJA es sir, that is right.Q But at no ti$e during the $aneuer did )ou issue order contrar) to the orders Capt.-aino $adeJA No sir.Q 5o that )ou "ere in full accord "ith all of Capt. -aino6s ordersJA es sir.Q Because, other"ise, )ou "ould hae issued order that "ould supersede his o"n orderJA n that case, should t,e hi$ a"a) fro$ his co$$and or re$oe the co$$and fro$ hi$Court to the "itnessQ ou "ere in full accord "ith the steps being taen b) Capt. -aino because )ou relied onhis no"ledge, on his fa$iliarit) of the seabed and shoals and other surroundings orconditions under the sea, is that correctJ

A es sir, that is right.III III III5olicitor Abad to the "itnessQ And so after the anchors "ere ordered dropped and the) did not tae hold of the seabed)ou "ere alerted that there "as danger alread) on handJA No sir, there "as no i$$inent danger to the essel.Q 7o )ou $ean to tell us that een if the anchor "as supposed to tae hold of the botto$and it did not, there "as no danger to the shipJA es sir, because the anchor dragged on the ground later.


15/26

Q And after a fe" $o$ents "hen the anchor should hae taen hold the seabed bur notdone sic, as )ou eIpected, )ou alread) "ere alerted that there "as danger to the ship, isthat correctJA es sir, "as alerted but there "as no danger.Q And )ou "ere alerted that so$ebod) "as "rongJA es sir, "as alerted.Q And this alert ou assu$ed "as the ordinar) alertness that )ou hae for nor$al docingJA es sir, $ean that it "as usual condition of an) $an in ti$e of docing to be alert.Q And that is the sa$e alertness "hen the anchor did not hold onto the ground, is thatcorrectJA es sir, $e and Capt. -aino thought that the anchor "ill hold the ground.Q 5ince, as )ou said that )ou agreed all the "hile "ith the orders of Capt. -aino, )ou alsotherefore agreed "ith hi$ in his failure to tae necessar) precaution against the eentualitthat the anchor "ill not hold as eIpectedJAtt). 7el RosarioDMa) as that the Fuestion . . .5olicitor AbadDNeer $ind, "ill refor$ the Fuestion.III III III5olicitor Abad to the "itnessQ s it not a fact that the essel bu$ped the pierJA !hat is right, it bu$ped the pier.Q 4or the $ain reason that the anchor of the essel did not hold the ground as eIpectedJA es sir, that is $) opinion. (3

4urther, on redirect eIa$ination, Capt. Gabano forti9ed his apathetic assess$ent of thesituationDQ No", after the anchor "as dropped, "as there an) point in ti$e that )ou felt that theessel "as in i$$inent danger.A No, at that ti$e, the essel "as not in i$$inent, danger, sir. ('

!his caalier appraisal of the eent b) Capt. Gabano is disturbingl) antipodal to Capt.-aino6s anIious assess$ent of the situationDQ When a pilot is on board a essel, it is the piler6s co$$and "hich should be follo"ed atthat $o$ent until the essel is, or goes to port or reaches portJA es, )our Honor, but it does not tae a"a) fro$ the Captain his prerogatie tocounter$and the pilot.Q n "hat "a)JA n an) case, "hich he thins the pilot is not $aneuering correctl), the Captain al"a)s hathe prerogatie to counter$and the pilot6s order.Q But insofar as co$petence, e8cienc) and functional no"ledee of the seabed "hich areital or decisie in the safet) sic bringing of a essel to the port, he is not co$petentJA es, )our Honor. !hat is "h) the) hire a pilot in an adisor) capacit), but still, the safet) othe essel rests upon the Captain, the Master of the essel.

Q n this case, there "as not a disagree$ent bet"een )ou and the Captain of the essel inthe bringing of the essel to portJA No, )our Honor.CourtDMa) proceed.Att). CatrisDn fact, the Master of the essel testi9ed here that he "as all along in confor$it) "ith theorders )ou, gae to hi$, and, as $atter of fact, as he said, he obe)ed all )our orders. Can)ou tell, if in the course of giing such nor$al orders for the safe docing of the MPalodar, do )ou re$e$ber of an) instance that the Master of the essel did not obe) )ourco$$and for the safet) docing of the M PalodarJ


16/26

Att). del RosarioDAlread) ans"ered, he alread) said )es sir.CourtD

es, he has :ust ans"ered )es sir to the Court that there "as no disagree$ent insofar as thbringing of the essel safel) to the port.Att). CatrisDBut in this instance of docing of the M Palodar, do )ou re$e$ber of a ti$e during thecourse of the docing that the M Palodar "as in i$$inent danger of bu$ping the pierJA When "e "ere about $ore than one thousand $eters fro$ the pier, thin, the anchor "not holding, so i$$ediatel) ordered to push the bo" at a fourth Fuart er, at the bac of the essel order to s"ing the bo" a"a) fro$ the pier and at the sa$e ti$e, ordered for a full astern of the engine. ($

!hese con@icting reactions can onl) i$pl), at the er) least, un$indful disregard or, "orseneglectful relinFuish$ent of dut) b) the ship$aster, tanta$ount to negligence.

!he 9ndings of the trial court on this aspect is note"orth)D4or, "hile the pilot -aino $a) indeed hae been charged "ith the tas of docing the esin the berthing space, it is undisputed that the $aster of the essel had the correspondingdut) to counter$and an) of the orders $ade b) the pilot, and een $aneuer the esselhi$self, in case of i$$inent danger to the essel and the port.n fact, in his testi$on), Capt. Gaano ad$itted that all throughour the $aneuering

procedures he did not notice an)thing "as going "rong, and een obsered that the ordergien to drop the anchor "as done at the proper ti$e. He een entured the opinion that thaccident occurred because the anchor failed to tae hold but that this did not alar$ hi$because.there "as still ti$e to drop a second anchor.nder nor$al circu$stances, the aboe$entioned facts "ould hae caused the $aster of essel to tae charge of the situation and see to the $aneuering of the essel hi$self.nstead, Capt. Gaano chose to rel) blindl) upon his pilot, "ho b) this ti$e "as proen illeFuipped to cope "ith the situation.III III IIIt is apparent that -aino "as negligent but 4ar Eastern6s e$plo)ee Capt. Gaano "as nolesss responsible for as $aster of the essel he stood b) the pilot during the $aneuerinprocedures and "as pri) to eer) $oe the latter $ade, as "ell as the essel6s response teach of the co$$ands. His choice to rel) blindl) upon the pilot6s sills, to the point thatdespite being appraised of a notice of alert he continued to relinFuish control of the essel -aino, sho"s indubitabl) that he "as not perfor$ing his duties "ith the diligence reFuiredof hi$ and therefore $a) be charged "ith negligence along "ith defendLint -aino. (6

As correctl) a8r$ed b) the Court of Appeals ;We are in full accord "ith the 9ndings and disFuisitions of the Court a quo.n the present recourse, Captain itor Gaano had been a $ariner for thirt)t"o )earsbefore the incident. When -aino "as in the co$$and of the essel, Gaano "as besid-aino, rela)ing the co$$ands or orders of -aino to the cre"$e$berso8cers of theessel concerned. He "as thus full) a"are of the docing $aneuers and procedure -ainoundertoo to doc the essel. rrefragabl), Gaano "as full) a"are of the bul and sie othe essel and its cargo as "ell as the "eight of the essel. Gaano categoricall) ad$ittethat, "hen the anchor and t"o / shacles "ere dropped to the sea @oor, the cla"s of theanchor did not hitch on to an) hard ob:ect in the seabed. !he $o$entu$ of the essel "asnot arrested. !he use of the t"o / tugboats "as insu8cient. !he $o$entu$ of the essealthough a little bit arrested, continued sic the essel going straightfor"ard "ith its bo"to"ards the port EIhibit 2A1 . !here "as thus a need for the essel to $oe 2fullastern2and to drop the other anchor "ith another shacle or t"o /, for the essel to aoid hittingthe pier. Gaano refused to act een as -aino failed to act. Een as -aino gae $ere2halfastern2 order, Gaano supinel) stood b). !he essel "as alread) about t"ent) /$eters a"a) fro$ the pier "hen -aino gae the 2fullastern2 order. Een then, Gaanodid nothing to preent the essel fro$ hitting the pier si$pl) because he relied on theco$petence and plan of -aino. While the 2fullastern66 $aneuer $o$entaril) arrested th


17/26

$o$entu$ of the essel, it "as, b) then, too late. All along, Gaano stood supinel) besid-aino, doing nothing but rela) the co$$ands of -aino. nscrutabl), then, Gaano "asnegligent.III III III

!he star inco$petence of Gaano is co$petent eidence to proe the unsea"orthiness the essel. t has been held that the inco$petence of the naigator, the $aster of the essor its cre" $aes the essel unsea"orth) !ug


18/26

"hether such danger is to the essel upon "hich the pilot is, or to another essel, or persoor propert) thereon or on shore. E$phasis ours.5till in another case inoling a nearl) identical setting, the captain of a essel alongside thco$pulsor) pilot "as dee$ed to be negligent, since, in the "ords of the court, 2he "as in aposition to eIercise his superior authorit) if he had dee$ed the speed eIcessie on theoccasion in Fuestion. thin it "as clearl) negligent o hi not to ha(e recogni@ed thedanger to an) craft $oored at -raell 7oc and that he should hae directed the pilot toreduce his speed as reFuired b) the local goern$ental regulations. is ailure aounted tnegligence and renders the respondent liable.2 81 E$phasis supplied. !hough a co$pulsor) pi$ight be regarded as an independent contractor, he is at all ti$es sub:ect to the ulti$ate control ofthe ship6s $aster. 8&

n su$, "here a co$pulsor) pilot is in charge of a ship, the $aster being reFuired to per$ithi$ to naigate it, if the $aster obseres that the pilot is inco$petent or ph)sicall)incapable, then it is the dur) of the $aster to refuse to per$it the pilot to act. But if no sucreasons are present, then the aster is


19/26


20/26

b) the$ to the in:ured person "as not the sa$e. No actor6s negligence ceases to be a proIi$atecause $erel) because it does not eIceed the negligence of other actors. Each "rongdoer isresponsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts "ere the sole cause of the in:ur). 100

!here is no contribution bet"een :oint tortfeasors "hose liabilit) is solidar) since both ofthe$ are liable for the total da$age. Where the concurrent or successie negligent acts oro$issions of t"o or $ore persons, although acting independentl), are in co$bination thedirect and proIi$ate cause of a single in:ur) to a third person, it is i$possible to deter$ine

"hat proportion each contributed to the in:ur) and either of the$ is responsible for the "hoin:ur). Where their concurring negligence resulted in in:ur) or da$age to a third part), the)beco$e :oint tortfeasors and are solidaril) liable for the resulting da$age under Article/1&0 101 of the Ciil Code. 10&

As for the a$ount of da$ages a"arded b) the trial court, "e 9nd the sa$e to be reasonab !he testi$on) of Mr. Pascual Barral, "itness for PPA, on cross and redirect eIa$ination,appears to be grounded on practical considerationsDQ 5o that the cost of the t"o additional piles as "ell as the t"o sFuare $eters is alread)included in this P1,*,&&&.++.A es sir, eer)thing. t is the 9nal cost alread).Q 4or the eight piles.A ncluding the reduced areas and other reductions.

Q And the t"o sFuare $eters.A es sir.Q n other "ords, this P1,*,&&&.++ does not represent onl) for the siI piles that "asda$aged as "ell as the corresponding t"o piles.A !he area "as corresponding, "as increased b) al$ost t"o in the actual pa)$ent. !hat ""h) the contract "as decreased, the real a$ount "as P1,1/0,'/+.0 and the 9nal one isP1,*,&&&.++.Q es, but that P1,*,&&&.++ included the additional t"o ne" posts.A t "as increased.Q Wh) "as it increasedJA !he original "as 0= and the actual "as 0'.Q No", the da$age "as so$e"here in 1&=. t too place in 1&= and )ou started the rep

and reconstruction in 1&=/, that too al$ost t"o )earsJA es sir.Q Ma) it not happen that b) natural factors, the eIisting da$age in 1&= "as aggraated fthe / )ear period that the da$age portion "as not repairedJA don6t thin so because that area "as at once $ared and no ehicles can par, it "asclosed.Q Een if or een natural ele$ents cannot a3ect the da$ageJA Cannot, sir.III III IIIQ ou said in the crosseIa$ination that there "ere siI piles da$aged b) the accident, butthat in the reconstruction of the pier, PPA droe and constructed = piles. Will )ou eIplain tous "h) there "as change in the nu$ber of piles fro$ the original nu$berJ

A n piers "here the piles are "ithdra"n or pulled out, )ou cannot redrie or drie piles atthe sa$e point. ou hae to redesign the driing of the piles. We cannot drie the piles at tsa$e point "here the piles are broen or da$aged or pulled out. We hae to redesign, and)ou "ill note that in the reconstruction, "e redesigned such that it necessitated = plies.Q Wh) not, "h) could )ou not drie the sa$e nu$ber of piles and on the sa$e spotJA !he original location "as alread) disturbed. We cannot get reFuired bearing capacit). !hearea is alread) disturbed.Q Nonetheless, if )ou droe the original nu$ber of piles, siI, on di3erent places, "ould notthat hae sustained the sa$e loadJA t "ill not su8ce, sir. 103

We Fuote the 9ndings of the lo"er court "ith approal.


21/26

With regards to the a$ount of da$ages that is to be a"arded to plainti3, the Court 9nds ththe a$ount of P1,%*,*. is :usti9ed. 4irstl), the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur besteIpounded upon in the land$ar case of /epublic (s9 Cu@on Ste(edoring %orp. /1 5CRA/+& establishes the presu$ption that in the ordinar) course of eents the ra$$ing of thedoc "ould not hae occurred if proper care "as used.5econdl), the arious esti$ates and plans :ustif) the cost of the port construction price. !hne" structure constructed not onl) replaced the da$aged one but "as built of stronger$aterials to forestall the possibilit) of an) si$ilar accidents in the future.

!he Court ineitabl) 9nds that the plainti3 is entitled to an a"ard of P1,%*,*. "hichrepresents actual da$ages caused b) the da$age to Berth 0 of the Manila nternational PoCodefendants 4ar Eastern 5hipping, Capt. 5enen -aino and Manila Pilots Association aresolidarii) liable to pa) this a$ount to plainti3. 10'

!he 5olicitor -eneral rightl) co$$ented that the ad:udicated a$ount of da$ages representhe proportional cost of repair and rehabilitation of the da$aged section of the pier. 10$

EIcept insofar as their liabilit) is li$ited or eIe$pted b) statute, the essel or her o"ners aliable for all da$ages caused b) the negligence or other "rongs of the o"ners or those incharge of the essel. As a general rule, the o"ners or those in possession and control of aessel and the essel are liable for all natural and proIi$ate da$ages caused to persons opropert) b) reason of her negligent $anage$ent or naigation. 106

4E5C6s i$putation of PPA6s failure to proide a safe and reliable berthing place is obtuse, noonl) because it appears to be a $ere afterthought, being tardil) raised onl) in this petitionbut also because there is no allegation or eidence on record about Berth No. 0 being unsaand unreliable, although perhaps it is a $odest pier b) international standards. !here "as,therefore, no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in dis$issing 4E5C6s counterclai$.9 49/9 3o9 1=>1>

!his consolidated case treats on "hether the Court of Appeals erred in holding MPA :ointl)and solidaril) liable "ith its $e$ber pilot. Capt. -aino, in the absence of e$plo)ere$plo)ee relationship and in appl)ing Custo$s Ad$inistratie


22/26

5ec. 1+. Pilots &ssociation ; !he Pilots in a Pilotage 7istrict shall organie the$seles intoPilots6 Association or 9r$, the $e$bers of "hich shall pro$ulgate their o"n B)?a"s not incon@ict "ith the rules and regulations pro$ulgated b) the Authorit). !hese B)?a"s shall bsub$itted not later than one 1 $onth after the organiation of the Pilots6 Association forapproal b) the -eneral Manager of the Authorit). 5ubseFuent a$end$ents thereto shalllie"ise be sub$itted for approal.5ec. /%. nde$nit) nsurance and Resere 4und ;a Each Pilots6 Association shall collectiel) insure its $e$bership at the rate of P%,.each $e$ber to coer in "hole or in part an) liabilit) arising fro$ an) accident resulting inda$age to essels, port facilities and other properties and>or in:ur) to persons or death"hich an) $e$ber $a) hae caused in the course of his perfor$ance of pilotageduties. . . . .b !he Pilotage Association shall lie"ise set up and $aintain a resere fund "hich shallans"er for an) part of the liabilit) referred to in the i$$ediatel) preceding paragraph "hicis left unsatis9ed b) the insurance proceeds, in the follo"ing $annerD1 Each pilot in the Association shall contribute fro$ his o"n account an a$ount of P0,.P',. in the Manila Pilotage 7istrict to the resere fund. !his fund shall not beconsidered part of the capital of the Association nor charged as an eIpense thereof./ 5eent)9e percent +% K of the resere fund shall be set aside for use in the pa)$enof da$ages referred to aboe incurred in the actual perfor$ance of pilots6 duties and theeIcess shall be paid fro$ the personal funds of the $e$ber concerned.III III III% f pa)$ent is $ade fro$ the resere fund of an Association on account of da$age causeb) a $e$ber thereof "ho is found at fault, he shall rei$burse the Association in the a$ounso paid as soon as practicableL and for this purpose, not less than t"ent)9e percentu$ /K of his diidend shall be retained each $onth until the full a$ount has been returned tothe resere fund. !hereafter, the pilot inoled shall be entitled to his full diidend.' When the rei$burse$ent has been co$pleted as prescribed in the preceding paragraphthe ten percentu$ 1K and the interest "ithheld fro$ the shares of the other pilots inaccordance "ith paragraph 0 hereof shall be returned to the$.c Ciabilit) o Pilots &ssociation ; Nothing in these regulations shall reliee an) Pilots6Association or $e$bers thereof, indiiduall) or collectiel), fro$ an) ciil, ad$inistratieand>or cri$inal responsibilit) for da$ages to life or propert) resulting fro$ the indiidualacts of its $e$bers as "ell as those of the Association6s e$plo)ees and cre" in theperfor$ance of their duties.

!he Court of Appeals, "hile a8r$ing the trial court6s 9nding of solidar) liabilit) on the part4E5C, MPA and Capt. -aino, correctl) based MPA6 s liabilit) not on the concept of e$plo)ee$plo)ee relationship bet"een Capt. -aino and itself, but on the proisions of Custo$sAd$inistratie


23/26

!here being no e$plo)ere$plo)ee relationship, clearl) Article /1= 108 of the Ciil Code isinapplicable since there is no icarious liabilit) of an e$plo)er to spea of. t is so stated in A$ericala", as follo"sD

!he "ell established rule is that pilot associations are i$$une to icarious liabilit) for thetort of their $e$bers. !he) are not the e$plo)er of their $e$bers and eIercise no controoer the$ once the) tae the hel$ of the essel. !he) are also not partnerships because t$e$bers do not function as agents for the association or for each other. Pilots6 association

are also not liable for negligentl) assuring the co$petence of their $e$bers because asprofessional associations the) $ade no guarantee of the professional conduct of their$e$bers to the general public. 109

Where under local statutes and regulations, pilot associations lac the necessar) legalincidents of responsibilit), the) hae been held not liable for da$ages caused b) the defauof a $e$ber pilot. 110 Whether or not the $e$bers of a pilots6 association are in legal e3ect acopartnership depends "holl) on the po"ers and duties of the $e$bers in relation to one anotherunder the proisions of the goerning statutes and regulations. !he relation of a pilot to his associatis not that of a serant to the $aster, but of an associate assisting and participating in a co$$onpurpose. lti$atel), the rights and liabilities bet"een a pilots6 association and an indiidual $e$bedepend largel) upon the constitution, articles or b)la"s of the association, sub:ect to appropriategoern$ent regulations. 111

No reliance can be placed b) MPA on the cited A$erican rulings as to i$$unit) fro$ liabilitof a pilots6 association in l:ght of eIisting positie regulation under Philippine la". !he Courof Appeals properl) applied the clear and uneFuiocal proisions of Custo$s Ad$inistratie


24/26

up to seent)9e per centu$ +% K of the resere fund because in such instance it has thright to be rei$bursed b) the o3ending $e$ber pilot for the eIcess. 113

WHERE4


25/26

stopped. When the essel "as alread) about /, feet fro$ the pier, -aino ordered theanchor dropped. Gaano rela)ed the orders to the cre" of the essel on the bo". !he leftanchor, "ith / shacles, "ere dropped. Ho"eer, the anchor did not tae hold as eIpected

!he speed of the essel did not slacen. A co$$otion ensued bet"een the cre" $e$bers.brief conference ensued bet"een Gaano and the cre" $e$bers. When -aino inFuired"hat "as all the co$$otion about, Gaano assured -aino that there "as nothing to it. After -aino noticed that the anchor did not tae hold, he ordered the engines halfastern.Abellana, "ho "as then on the pier apron noticed that the essel "as approaching the pierfast. Gaano lie"ise noticed that the anchor did not tae hold. -aino thereafter gae th2fullastern2 code. Before the right anchor and additional shacles could be dropped, the boof the essel ra$$ed into the apron of the pier causing considerable da$age to the pier. !essel sustained da$age too. Gaano 9led his sea protest. -aino sub$itted his report tthe Chief Pilot "ho referred the report to the Philippine Ports Authorit). Abellana lie"isesub$itted his report of the incident. !he rehabilitation of the da$aged pier cost thePhilippine Ports Authorit) the a$ount of P1,1/',1*/./%.PER!NEN! R?E5 on P?

pursuant to 5ection =, Article of Philippine Ports Authorit) Ad$inistratie "harf, or shifting fro$ oneberth or another, eer) essel engaged in coast"ise and foreign trade shall be underco$pulsor) pilotage.n case of co$pulsor) pilotage, the respectie duties and responsibilities of the co$pulsorpilot and the $aster hae been speci9ed b) the sa$e regulationD 5EC. 11.Control of essels and liabilit) for da$age. ;


26/26

55ED W !he $aster, ho"eer $a) interene or counter$and the pilot if he dee$s there is danger tthe essel because of the inco$petence of the pilot or if the pilot is drun. Based onCapt. GaanoSs testi$on), he neer sensed the an) danger een "hen the anchor didnSthold and the) "ere approaching the doc too fast.He blindl) trusted the pilot. !his is negligence on his part. He "as right beside the pilotduring the docing, so he could see and hear eer)thing that the pilot "as seeing andhearing.!he $asterSs negligence translates to unsea"orthiness of the essel, and in turn $eansnegligence on the part of 4E5C.C

11. Far East Shipping vs CA

Documents

Transcript of 11. Far East Shipping vs CA