SEALOADER SHIPPING CORP. VS. GRAND CEMENT MFG. CORP.,

SEALOADER SHIPPING CORP. VS. GRAND CEMENT MFG. CORP.,

G.R. NO. G.R. No. 167363

DATE Dec. 15, 2010

PONENTE Leonardo-De Castro, J.

FACTS:  

Sealoader Shipping Corporation (Sealoader) is corporation engaged in the business of shipping and hauling cargo. Grand Cement Manufacturing Corporation (Grand Cement) is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cement. It maintains its own private wharf in San Fernando, Cebu, Philippines.

Sealoader executed a Time Charter Party Agreement Joyce Launch, which owned and operated the motor tugboat M/T Viper. Sealoader chartered the M/T Viper in order to tow the former’s unpropelled barges for a minimum period of fifteen days from the date of acceptance.

Subsequently, Sealoader entered into a contract with Grand Cement for the loading of cement clinkers and the delivery thereof to Manila. On March 31, 1994, Sealoaders barge, the D/B Toploader, arrived at the wharf of Grand Cement tugged by the M/T Viper. The D/B Toploader, however, was not immediately loaded with its intended cargo as the employees of Grand Cement were still loading another vessel, the Cargo Lift Tres.

On April 4, 1994, Typhoon Bising struck the Visayas area, with maximum recorded winds of 120 kilometers per hour. Public storm signal number 3 was raised over the province of Cebu. The D/B Toploader was, at that time, still docked at the wharf of Grand Cement. In the afternoon of said date, as the winds blew stronger and the waves grew higher, the M/T Viper tried to tow the D/B Toploader away from the wharf. The efforts of the tugboat were foiled, however, as the towing line connecting the two vessels snapped. This occurred as the mooring lines securing the D/B Toploader to the wharf were not cast off. The following day, the employees of Grand Cement discovered the D/B Toploader situated on top of the wharf, apparently having rammed the same and causing significant damage thereto.

Grand Cement filed a Complaint for Damages against Sealoader.However, Sealoader insisted that Joyce Launch should have been sued in its stead, as the latter was the owner and operator of the M/T Viper. Having complete physical control of the M/T Viper, as well as the towing, docking, mooring and berthing of the D/B Toploader.

Sealoader directly blame on Grand Cement and Joyce Launch. It argues that the negligent acts allegedly committed by Grand Cement should bar its recovery of damages in view of the doctrine of last clear chance. Sealoader reiterates that the damage to the wharf was ultimately caused by the failure of Grand Cement to cast off the mooring lines attached to the D/B Toploader at the height of the typhoon. The second sentence of Article 2179 of the Civil Code on contributory negligence was supposedly inapplicable in the instant case, considering that Sealoader was not negligent at all. Sealoader again insists that the D/B Toploader was entirely dependent on the M/T Viper for movement. Thus, the failure of the M/T Viper to tow the D/B Toploader to safety should not be charged to the latter. 

ISSUE: Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable in the present case?

RULING:

No. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, or as Judge Cooley defines it, (T)he failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

Sealoader was negligent for the lack of a radio or any navigational communication facility aboard the D/B Toploader. There is also a manifest laxity of the crew of the D/B Toploader in monitoring the weather. Despite the apparent difficulty in receiving weather bulletins from the head office of Sealoader, the evidence on record suggests that the crew of the D/B Toploader failed to keep a watchful eye on the prevailing weather conditions. 

The crew of the D/B Toploader and the M/T Viper were caught unawares and unprepared when Typhoon Bising struck their vicinity. According to the Sworn Statement of Acosta, which was taken barely three months after the typhoon, he was already informed of the approaching typhoon. 

Grand Cement was not guilty of negligent acts, which contributed to the damage that was incurred on its wharf. Sealoader had the responsibility to inform itself of the prevailing weather conditions in the areas where its vessel was set to sail. Sealoader cannot merely rely on other vessels for weather updates and warnings on approaching storms, as what apparently happened in this case. Common sense and reason dictates this.To do so would be to gamble with the safety of its own vessel, putting the lives of its crew under the mercy of the sea, as well as running the risk of causing damage to the property of third parties for which it would necessarily be liable.

The Court finds that the evidence presented by Sealoader to prove the negligence of Grand Cement was marred by contradictions and are, thus, weak at best. Accordingly, the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to the instant case.