8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.150751September20,2004
CENTRALSHIPPINGCOMPANY,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
INSURANCECOMPANYOFNORTHAMERICA,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Acommoncarrierispresumedtobeatfaultornegligent.Itshallbeliablefortheloss,destructionordeterioration
ofitscargo,unlessitcanprovethatthesoleandproximatecauseofsucheventisoneofthecausesenumerated
inArticle1734oftheCivilCode,orthatitexercisedextraordinarydiligencetopreventorminimizetheloss.Inthe
present case, the weather condition encountered by petitioners vessel was not a "storm" or a natural disaster
comprehended in the law. Given the known weather condition prevailing during the voyage, the manner of
stowageemployedbythecarrierwasinsufficienttosecurethecargofromtherollingactionofthesea.Thecarrier
tookacalculatedriskinimproperlysecuringthecargo.Havinglostthatrisk,itcannotnowdisclaimanyliabilityfor
theloss.
TheCase
BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforReview1underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,seekingtoreverseandsetaside
the March 23, 2001 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAGR CV No. 48915. The assailed Decision
disposedasfollows:
"WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,Branch148datedAugust4,1994is
herebyMODIFIEDinsofarastheawardofattorneysfeesisDELETED.ThedecisionisAFFIRMEDinall
otherrespects."3
TheCAdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationinitsNovember7,2001Resolution.4
TheFacts
Thefactualantecedents,summarizedbythetrialcourtandadoptedbytheappellatecourt,areasfollows:
"On July 25, 1990 at Puerto Princesa, Palawan, the [petitioner] received on board its vessel, the M/V
CentralBohol,376pieces[of]PhilippineApitongRoundLogsandundertooktotransportsaidshipmentto
ManilafordeliverytoAlaskaLumberCo.,Inc.
"ThecargowasinsuredforP3,000,000.00againsttotallossunder[respondents]MarineCargoPolicyNo.
MCPB00170.
"OnJuly25,1990,uponcompletionofloadingofthecargo,thevesselleftPalawanandcommencedthe
voyagetoManila.
"At about 0125 hours on July 26, 1990, while enroute to Manila, the vessel listed about 10 degrees
starboardside,duetotheshiftingoflogsinthehold.
"Atabout0128hours,afterthelistingofthevesselhadincreasedto15degrees,theshipcaptainordered
hismentoabandonshipandatabout0130hoursofthesamedaythevesselcompletelysank.Duetothe
sinkingofthevessel,thecargowastotallylost.
"[Respondent] alleged that the total loss of the shipment was caused by the fault and negligence of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

1/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

[petitioner]anditscaptainandasdirectconsequencethereoftheconsigneesuffereddamageinthesumof
P3,000,000.00.
"Theconsignee,AlaskaLumberCo.Inc.,presentedaclaimforthevalueoftheshipmenttothe[petitioner]
butthelatterfailedandrefusedtosettletheclaim,hence[respondent],beingtheinsurer,paidsaidclaim
andnowseekstobesubrogatedtoalltherightsandactionsoftheconsigneeasagainstthe[petitioner].
"[Petitioner], while admitting the sinking of the vessel, interposed the defense that the vessel was fully
manned,fullyequippedandinallrespectsseaworthythatallthelogswereproperlyloadedandsecured
thatthevesselsmasterexercisedduediligencetopreventorminimizethelossbefore,duringandafterthe
occurrenceofthestorm.
"Itraisedasitsmaindefensethattheproximateandonlycauseofthesinkingofitsvesselandthelossof
itscargowasanaturaldisaster,atropicalstormwhichneither[petitioner]northecaptainofitsvesselcould
haveforeseen."5
TheRTCwasunconvincedthatthesinkingofM/VCentralBoholhadbeencausedbytheweatheroranyother
casofortuito.Itnotedthatmonsoons,whichwerecommonoccurrencesduringthemonthsofJulytoDecember,
couldhavebeenforeseenandprovidedforbyanoceangoingvessel.Applyingtheruleofpresumptivefaultor
negligence against the carrier, the trial court held petitioner liable for the loss of the cargo. Thus, the RTC
deducted the salvage value of the logs in the amount of P200,000 from the principal claim of respondent and
found that the latter was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the insured. The court a quo disposed as
follows:
"WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofthe[respondent]andagainst
the[petitioner]orderingthelattertopaythefollowing:
1)theamountofP2,800,000.00withlegalinterestthereoffromthefilingofthiscomplaintuptoand
untilthesameisfullypaid
2)P80,000.00asandforattorneysfees
3)Pluscostsofsuit."6
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
The CA affirmed the trial courts finding that the southwestern monsoon encountered by the vessel was not
unforeseeable.Giventheseasonofrainsandmonsoons,theshipcaptainandhiscrewshouldhaveanticipated
theperilsofthesea.Theappellatecourtfurtherheldthattheweatherdisturbancewasnotthesoleandproximate
causeofthesinkingofthevessel,whichwasalsoduetotheconcurrentshiftingofthelogsintheholdthatcould
haveresultedonlyfromimproperstowage.Thus,thecarrierwasheldresponsiblefortheconsequentlossofor
damagetothecargo,becauseitsownnegligencehadcontributedthereto.
The CA found no merit in petitioners assertion of the vessels seaworthiness. It held that the Certificates of
Inspection and Drydocking were not conclusive proofs thereof. In order to consider a vessel to be seaworthy, it
mustbefittomeettheperilsofthesea.
Found untenable was petitioners insistence that the trial court should have given greater weight to the factual
findingsoftheBoardofMarineInquiry(BMI)intheinvestigationoftheMarineProtestfiledbytheshipcaptain,
Enriquito Cahatol. The CA further observed that what petitioner had presented to the court a quo were mere
excerptsofthetestimonyofCaptainCahatolgivenduringthecourseoftheproceedingsbeforetheBMI,notthe
actualfindingsandconclusionsoftheagency.CitingAradav.CA,7itsaidthatfindingsoftheBMIwerelimitedto
the administrative liability of the owner/operator, officers and crew of the vessel. However, the determination of
whetherthecarrierobservedextraordinarydiligenceinprotectingthecargoitwastransportingwasafunctionof
thecourts,notoftheBMI.
The CA concluded that the doctrine of limited liability was not applicable, in view of petitioners negligence
particularlyitsimproperstowageofthelogs.
Hence,thisPetition.8
Issues
InitsMemorandum,petitionersubmitsthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:
"(i)WhetherornottheweatherdisturbancewhichcausedthesinkingofthevesselM/VCentralBoholwasa
fortuitousevent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

2/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

"(ii) Whether or not the investigation report prepared by Claimsmen Adjustment Corporation is hearsay
evidenceunderSection36,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt.
"(iii)WhetherornotthefindingoftheCourtofAppealsthatthelogsintheholdshiftedandsuchshifting
couldonlybeduetoimproperstowagehasavalidandfactualbasis.
"(iv)WhetherornotM/VCentralBoholisseaworthy.
"(v)WhetherornottheCourtofAppealserredinnotgivingcredencetothefactualfindingoftheBoardof
Marine Inquiry (BMI), an independent government agency tasked to conduct inquiries on maritime
accidents.
"(vi)WhetherornottheDoctrineofLimitedLiabilityisapplicabletothecaseatbar."9
Theissuesboildowntotwo:(1)whetherthecarrierisliableforthelossofthecargoand(2)whetherthedoctrine
oflimitedliabilityisapplicable.Theseissuesinvolveadeterminationoffactualquestionsofwhetherthelossofthe
cargowasduetotheoccurrenceofanaturaldisasterandifso,whetheritssoleandproximatecausewassuch
naturaldisasterorwhetherpetitionerwaspartlytoblameforfailingtoexerciseduediligenceinthepreventionof
thatloss.
TheCourtsRuling
ThePetitionisdevoidofmerit.
FirstIssue:
LiabilityforLostCargo
From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe
extraordinarydiligenceoverthegoodstheytransport,accordingtoallthecircumstancesofeachcase.10 In the
eventofloss,destructionordeteriorationoftheinsuredgoods,commoncarriersareresponsiblethatis,unless
theycanprovethatsuchloss,destructionordeteriorationwasbroughtaboutamongothersby"flood,storm,
earthquake,lightningorothernaturaldisasterorcalamity."11InallothercasesnotspecifiedunderArticle1734of
the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
provethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligence.12
In the present case, petitioner disclaims responsibility for the loss of the cargo by claiming the occurrence of a
"storm"underArticle1734(1).Itattributesthesinkingofitsvesselsolelytotheweatherconditionbetween10:00
p.m.onJuly25,1990and1:25a.m.onJuly26,1990.
Attheoutset,itmustbestressedthatonlyquestionsoflaw13mayberaisedinapetitionforreviewoncertiorari
underRule45oftheRulesofCourt.Questionsoffactarenotpropersubjectsinthismodeofappeal,14for"[t]he
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts."15 Factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal16 only under
exceptionalcircumstancessuchas,amongothers,whentheinferenceismanifestlymistaken,17thejudgmentis
based on a misapprehension of facts,18 or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts
that,ifproperlyconsidered,wouldjustifyadifferentconclusion.19
Inthepresentcase,petitionerhasnotgiventheCourtsufficientcogentreasonstodisturbtheconclusionofthe
CAthattheweatherencounteredbythevesselwasnota"storm"ascontemplatedbyArticle1734(1).Established
is the fact that between 10:00 p.m. on July 25, 1990 and 1:25 a.m. on July 26, 1990, M/V Central Bohol
encounteredasouthwesternmonsooninthecourseofitsvoyage.
The Note of Marine Protest,20 which the captain of the vessel issued under oath, stated that he and his crew
encountered a southwestern monsoon about 2200 hours on July 25, 1990, and another monsoon about 2400
hours on July 26, 1990. Even petitioner admitted in its Answer that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been
causedbythestrongsouthwestmonsoon.21Havingmadesuchfactualrepresentation,itcannotnowbeallowed
toretreatandclaimthatthesouthwesternmonsoonwasa"storm."
Thepiecesofevidencewithrespecttotheweatherconditionsencounteredbythevesselshowedthattherewasa
southwesternmonsoonatthetime.Normallyexpectedonseavoyages,however,weresuchmonsoons,during
which strong winds were not unusual. Rosa S. Barba, weather specialist of the Philippine Atmospheric
GeophysicalandAstronomicalServicesAdministration(PAGASA),testifiedthatathunderstormmightoccurinthe
midstofasouthwestmonsoon.Accordingtoher,onedidoccurbetween8:00p.m.onJuly25,1990,and2a.m.
onJuly26,1990,asrecordedbythePAGASAWeatherBureau.22
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

3/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

Nonetheless, to our mind it would not be sufficient to categorize the weather condition at the time as a "storm"
withintheabsolutorycausesenumeratedinthelaw.Significantly,notyphoonwasobservedwithinthePhilippine
areaofresponsibilityduringthatperiod.23
AccordingtoPAGASA,astormhasawindforceof48to55knots,24equivalentto55to63milesperhouror10to
11intheBeaufortScale.Thesecondmateofthevesselstatedthatthewindwasblowingaroundforce7to8on
the Beaufort Scale.25 Consequently, the strong winds accompanying the southwestern monsoon could not be
classifiedasa"storm."Suchwindsaretheordinaryvicissitudesofaseavoyage.26
Even if the weather encountered by the ship is to be deemed a natural disaster under Article 1739 of the Civil
Code, petitioner failed to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the proximate and only cause of the
loss. Human agency must be entirely excluded from the cause of injury or loss. In other words, the damaging
effects blamed on the event or phenomenon must not have been caused, contributed to, or worsened by the
presence of human participation.27 The defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully
madewhentheinjurycouldhavebeenavoidedbyhumanprecaution.28
Hence,ifacommoncarrierfailstoexerciseduediligenceorthatordinarycarethatthecircumstancesofthe
particularcasedemandtopreventorminimizethelossbefore,duringandaftertheoccurrenceofthenatural
disaster,thecarriershallbedeemedtohavebeennegligent.Thelossorinjuryisnot,inalegalsense,duetoa
naturaldisasterunderArticle1734(1).29
We also find no reason to disturb the CAs finding that the loss of the vessel was caused not only by the
southwestern monsoon, but also by the shifting of the logs in the hold. Such shifting could been due only to
improperstowage.TheassailedDecisionstated:
"Notably, in Master Cahatols account, the vessel encountered the first southwestern monsoon at about
1[0]:00intheevening.Themonsoonwascoupledwithheavyrainsandroughseasyetthevesselwithstood
the onslaught. The second monsoon attack occurred at about 12:00 midnight. During this occasion, the
masterfeltthatthelogsintheholdshifted,promptinghimtoordersecondmatePercivalDayanantolook
at the bodega. Complying with the captains order, 2nd mate Percival Dayanan found that there was
seawaterinthebodega.2ndmateDayanansaccountwas:
14.TKunginyopongnatatandaanangmgapangyayari,maarimobangisalaysayangnaganapna
paglubogsabarkongM/VCentralBohol?
SOpo,noongika26ngJulio1990humigitkumulangalas1:20ngumaga(dst)habangkamiay
nagnanabegar patungong Maynila sa tapat ng Cadlao Island at Cauayan Island sakop ng El Nido,
Palawan, inutusan ako ni Captain Enriquito Cahatol na tingnan ko ang bodega nang ako ay nasa
bodega,nakitakoangloobnangbodeganamaramingtubigatnaririnigkoangmalakasnaagosng
tubigdagat na pumapasok sa loob ng bodega ng barko agad bumalik ako kay Captain Enriquito
Cahatolatsinabikoangmalakasnapagpasokngtubigdagatsaloobnangbodegangbarkonaito
aynakatagilidhumigitkumulangsa020degrees,nagordersiCaptainCahatolnastandbyengineat
tinawaganglahatngmgaofficialsatmgacrewnangmaiponkaminglahatangbarkoaynakatagilid
atitoaytuloytuloyangpagtatagilidnaangilansamgaofficialsaynakahawaknasabarandillang
barkoatdinagtagalsumigawnangABANDO[N]SHIPsiCaptainCahatolatkamiaynagkanyakanya
nangtalunanatlanguyansadagatnamalakasangalonatnangakoaylumingonsabarkoitoaydi
konanakita.
"Additionally,[petitioners]ownwitnesses,boatswainEduardoViasCastroandoilerFrederickPerena,are
oneinsayingthatthevesselencounteredtwoweatherdisturbances,oneataround10oclockto11oclock
intheeveningandtheotherataround12oclockmidnight.Bothdisturbanceswerecoupledwithwavesand
heavyrains,yet,thevesselenduredthefirstandnotthesecond.Why?Thereasonisplain.Thevesselfelt
the strain during the second onslaught because the logs in the bodega shifted and there were already
seawaterthatseepedinside."30
Theaboveconclusionissupportedbythefactthatthevesselproceededthroughthefirstsouthwesternmonsoon
without any mishap, and that it began to list only during the second monsoon immediately after the logs had
shiftedandseawaterhadenteredthehold.Inthehold,thesloshingoftonsofwaterbackandforthhadcreated
pressures that eventually caused the ship to sink. Had the logs not shifted, the ship could have survived and
reachedatleasttheportofElNido.Infact,therewasanothermotorlaunchthathadbeenbuffetedbythesame
weatherconditionwithinthesamearea,yetitwasabletoarrivesafelyatElNido.31
In its Answer, petitioner categorically admitted the allegation of respondent in paragraph 5 of the latters
Complaint "[t]hat at about 0125 hours on 26 July 1990, while enroute to Manila, the M/V Central Bohol listed
about 10 degrees starboardside, due to the shifting of logs in the hold." Further, petitioner averred that "[t]he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

4/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

vessel, while navigating through this second southwestern monsoon, was under extreme stress. At about 0125
hours,26July1990,athudwasheardinthecargoholdandthelogsthereinwerefelttohaveshifted.Thevessel
thereafterimmediatelylistedbyten(10)degreesstarboardside."32
Yet, petitioner now claims that the CAs conclusion was grounded on mere speculations and conjectures. It
allegesthatitwasimpossibleforthelogstohaveshifted,becausetheyhadfittedexactlyintheholdfromtheport
tothestarboardside.
After carefully studying the records, we are inclined to believe that the logs did indeed shift, and that they had
beenimproperlyloaded.
Accordingtotheboatswainstestimony,thelogswerepiledproperly,andtheentireshipmentwaslashedtothe
vesselbycablewire.33Theshipcaptaintestifiedthatoutofthe376piecesofroundlogs,around360hadbeen
loaded in the lower hold of the vessel and 16 on deck. The logs stored in the lower hold were not secured by
cablewire,becausetheyfittedexactlyfromfloortoceiling.However,whiletheywereplacedsidebyside,there
were unavoidable clearances between them owing to their round shape. Those loaded on deck were lashed
together several times across by cable wire, which had a diameter of 60 millimeters, and were secured from
starboardtoport.34
It is obvious, as a matter of common sense, that the manner of stowage in the lower hold was not sufficient to
securethelogsintheeventtheshipshouldrollinheavyweather.Notably,theywereofdifferentlengthsranging
from 3.7 to 12.7 meters.35 Being clearly prone to shifting, the round logs should not have been stowed with
nothingtoholdthemsecurelyinplace.Eachpileoflogsshouldhavebeenlashedtogetherbycablewire,andthe
wirefastenedtothesideofthehold.Consideringthestrongforceofthewindandtherollofthewaves,theloose
arrangementofthelogsdidnotruleoutthepossibilityoftheirshifting.Byforceofgravity,thoseontopofthepile
wouldnaturallyrolltowardsthebottomoftheship.
The adjusters Report, which was heavily relied upon by petitioner to strengthen its claim that the logs had not
shifted, stated that "the logs were still properly lashed by steel chains on deck." Parenthetically, this statement
referred only to those loaded on deck and did not mention anything about the condition of those placed in the
lowerhold.Thus,thefindingofthesurveyorthatthelogswerestillintactclearlypertainedonlytothoselashedon
deck.
The evidence indicated that strong southwest monsoons were common occurrences during the month of July.
Thus,theofficersandcrewofM/VCentralBoholshouldhavereasonablyanticipatedheavyrains,strongwinds
androughseas.Theyshouldthenhavetakenextraprecautioninstowingthelogsinthehold,inconsonancewith
theirdutyofobservingextraordinarydiligenceinsafeguardingthegoods.Butthecarriertookacalculatedriskin
improperlysecuringthecargo.Havinglostthatrisk,itcannotnowescaperesponsibilityfortheloss.
SecondIssue:
DoctrineofLimitedLiability
ThedoctrineoflimitedliabilityunderArticle587oftheCodeofCommerce36isnotapplicabletothepresentcase.
This rule does not apply to situations in which the loss or the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the
shipowner and the captain.37 It has already been established that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been
caused by the fault or negligence of the ship captain and the crew, as shown by the improper stowage of the
cargooflogs."Closersupervisiononthepartoftheshipownercouldhavepreventedthisfatalmiscalculation."38
Assuch,theshipownerwasequallynegligent.Itcannotescapeliabilitybyvirtueofthelimitedliabilityrule.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SOORDERED.
SandovalGutirrez,CoronaandCarpioMorales*,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
*Onofficialleave.
1Rollo,pp.1049.
2Id.,pp.5164.TwelfthDivision.PennedbyJusticePresbiteroJ.VelascoJr.andconcurredinbyJustices

RubenT.Reyes(Divisionchairman)andJuanQ.EnriquezJr.(member).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

5/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

3CADecision,p.13rollo,p.63.
4Rollo,p.65.
5CADecision,pp.12rollo,pp.5152.
6RTCDecision,p.7records,p.270.
7210SCRA624,July1,1992.
8 This case was deemed submitted for decision on September 25, 2002, upon this Courts receipt of

petitioners Memorandum, signed by Attys. Victor Y. Eleazar and Gerardo J. de Leon. Respondents
Memorandum,signedbyAtty.BienvenidoV.Zapa,wasreceivedbythisCourtonSeptember11,2002.
9PetitionersMemorandum,p.5rollo,p.110.
10Article1733oftheCivilCode.
11Article1734oftheCivilCodestates:

"Art.1734.Commoncarriersareresponsiblefortheloss,destruction,ordeteriorationofthegoods,
unlessthesameisduetoanyofthefollowingcausesonly:
(1)Flood,storm,earthquake,lightning,orothernaturaldisasterorcalamity
(2)Actofthepublicenemyinwar,whetherinternationalorcivil
(3)Actoromissionoftheshipperorownerofthegoods
(4)Thecharacterofthegoodsordefectsinthepackingorinthecontainers
(5)Orderoractofcompetentpublicauthority."
12Article1735oftheCivilCodeAsiaLighterageandShipping,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals, 409 SCRA 340,

August19,2003DelsanTransportLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,369SCRA24,November15,2001.
13MetropolitanBankandTrustCo.v.Wong,412Phil.207,216,June26,2001.
14Perezv.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.388,409410,October1,1999.
15FarEastBank&TrustCo.v.CA,326Phil.15,18,April1,1996,perHermosisimaJr.,J.
16AlsuaBettsv.CA,92SCRA332,366,July30,1979.
17Lunav.Linatoc,74Phil.15,October28,1942.
18DelaCruzv.Sosing,94Phil.26,28,November27,1953.
19Larenav.Mapili,408SCRA484,489,August7,2003TheHeirsofFelicidadCanquev.CA,341Phil.

738,750,July21,1997.
20Exhibit4records,pp.203204.
21AnswerdatedAugust29,1991,p.5records,p.16
22TSN,December13,1991,pp.1819.
23SeeExhibitKrecords,p.109.
24Records,p.111.
25SeePetitionersMemorandumquotingexcerptsfromtheDecember13,1990testimonyofMr.Percival

DayananbeforetheBoardofMarineInquiry,p.10rollo,p.115.
26PhilippineAmericanGeneralInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,273SCRA262,June11,1997.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

6/7

8/8/2015

G.R.No.150751

27 Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 340, August 19, 2003 Philippine

AmericanGeneralInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,273SCRA262,June11,1997Aradav.Court
ofAppeals,210SCRA624,July1,1992LimpangcoSonsv.YangcoSteamshipCo.,34Phil.597,July25,
1916.1AmJur2d(citingCachickv.UnitedStates(DCIII)161FSupp15Fairbrotherv.Wileys,Inc.,183
Kan579,331P2d330,81ALR2d888Jacobyv.Gillette,62Wyo514,177P2d204,169ALR514).
28Ibid.
29PhilippineAmericanGeneralInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.MGGMarineServices,Inc.,378SCRA650,March8,

2002.
30CADecision,pp.67rollo,pp.5657.
31SeeFinalReportofClaimsmenAdjustmentCorporation,ExhibitJ1,p.2records,p.105.
32Answer,pp.2&4records,pp.13&15.
33TSN,October16,1992,pp.1619.
34SeePetitionersMemorandumquotingCaptainCahatolsDecember12,1990testimonybeforethe

BoardofMarineInquiry,pp.2023rollo,pp.125128.
35SeeTallySheet/LogList,ExhibitHrecords,pp.97100.
36Article587.Theshipagentshallalsobecivillyliablefortheindemnitiesinfavorofthirdpersonsthose

thatmayarisefromtheconductofthecaptaininthecareofgoodsloadedonthevesselbutthecaptain
maybeexemptedtherefrombyabandonmentofthevessel,withalltheequipmentandthefreightitmight
haveearnedduringthevoyage.
37Otherexceptionsareasfollows:1)whenthevesselisinsuredand2)whenworkmenscompensationis

claimed.MonarchInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,333SCRA71,June8,2000ChuaYekHongv.
IntermediateAppellateCourt,166SCRA183,September30,1988.
38PhilippineAmericanGeneralInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,273SCRA262,272,June11,

1997,perBellosillo,J.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_150751_2004.html

7/7