Case Digest: Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA, G.R. No. 130068

 

Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA, G.R. No. 130068, October 1, 1998

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

This case involves a dispute over liability for damages caused to a pier by a vessel during docking maneuvers. The vessel, M/V PAVLODAR, owned and operated by Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC), arrived at the Port of Manila and was assigned Berth 4. Capt. Senen Gavino, a member of the Manila Pilots' Association (MPA), was assigned to conduct the docking maneuvers. However, during the docking process, the anchor of the vessel did not take hold, causing the vessel to collide with the pier and resulting in damage to both the pier and the vessel.

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) filed a complaint for damages against FESC, Capt. Gavino, and MPA. The trial court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages and ordered them to pay the PPA. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising issues regarding the liability of the pilot and the owner of the vessel.

ISSUE

Whether or not MPA should be held solidarily liable with Capt. Gavino and FESC for the damages.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that Capt. Gavino was negligent in the performance of his duties as a pilot and should have ensured that his directions were promptly and strictly followed. The court also found that Capt. Kavankov, the master of the vessel, was also liable for the damages. The court ruled that MPA should be held solidarily liable with Capt. Gavino and FESC because of the concurrent negligence of Capt. Gavino and Capt. Kabankov.

The court's ratio is that MPA should be held solidarily liable with Capt. Gavino and FESC because of the concurrent negligence of Capt. Gavino and Capt. Kabankov. The court also found that the provisions of Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65 establish MPA's liability and are legally binding. The court emphasized the duty of pilots to have thorough knowledge of the waters and to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in the performance of their duties. The court also held that the provisions of the Civil Code on damages are not applicable in this case because there is no employer-employee relationship between MPA and Capt. Gavino.