Case Digest: Sulpicio Lines vs. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 478 G.R. No. 93291

 

Sulpicio Lines vs. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 478 G.R. No. 93291, March 29, 1999

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The two (2) fishing boats, F/B Aquarius ‘C’ and F/B Aquarius ‘G’, had a speed of about 7.5 to 8 knots per hour while M/V Don Sulpicio was running about 15.5 knots per hour. The weather at that time the accident happened was clear and visibility was good. In other words, the men of Don Sulpicio could see the 2 fishing boats which were ahead about 4 miles and likewise, the men of the 2 fishing boats could see M/V Don Sulpicio following.

The plaintiff claims that they are on the same speed when they were rammed by M/V Don Sulpicio. Hence a complaint for damages of Aquarius Fishing Co., Inc. against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Cresencio G. Castaneda was filed before RTC in Bacolod City.

After the trial, RTC decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. The motion for reconsideration by the appellants was also denied. Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioners asserted that private respondent, through its patron, admitted that the vessel had no lookout during the collision despite the absolute rule provided in Rule 9 of the Rules of Road. To bolster its stance, it contended that it was a privileged vessel pursuant to Rules 19, 21, 22, 23 of the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea.

ISSUE

Whether or not the collision between M/V Don Sulpicio and F/B Aquarius ‘G’ was due to the negligence of the defendant (petitioner).

RULING

Yes, the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant (petitioner).

Art 827 states that if the collision is imputable to both vessels, each one shall suffer her own damage, and both shall be solidarily liable for the damages occasioned to their cargoes. Art 828 further states that provisions of the preceding article are applicable to case in which it cannot be determined which od the two vessels has caused the collision.

In this case, SC hold firm with the findings of the court a quo. Whether or not the collision sued upon occurred in a crossing situation is immaterial, CA relied on Rule 24-C of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at the Sea and ruled that the duty to keep out of the way remained even if the overtaking vessel cannot determine with certainty whether she is forward of or abaft more than 2 points from the vessel. M/V "Don Sulpicio" must assume responsibility as it was in a better position to avoid the collision. It should have blown its horn or given signs to warn the other vessel that it was to overtake it. Assuming argumenti ex gratia that F/B Aquarius "G" had no lookout during the collision, the omission does not suffice to exculpate Sulpicio Lines from liability.