September 29, 1967 REPUBLIC v. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION (LUZON) PONENTE : REYES, J.B.L.

APPEAL from Decision of CFI Manila holding Luzon liable for damages. FACTS: Afternoon of August 17, 1960, the barge L-1892 owned by the Luzon, rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge, causing the bridge to list. Sued by the Republic for actual and consequential damage for P200,000. Luzon disclaimed liability, on the grounds that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees; that the damages were caused by force majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sue; and that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation. CFI MANILA: defendant is liable for the damage caused by its employees, which amounted to P192,561.72, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. APPEAL: I Luzon exercised the diligence required of it in the selection and supervision of its personnel II Ramming of the Nagtahan bailey bridge was caused by force majeure. III Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation in the Pasig river. IV Damage sustained due to the improper placement of the dolphins. V The lower court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to adduce further evidence in chief after it has rested its case. VI Exorbitant amount for damages Preliminary issues: The established rule for appeals directly to the Supreme Court, a party is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the trial

Court. The only questions that may be raised are those of law . Appeals to the Court of Appeals, is barred from contending the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court. The reason is that a contrary rule would encourage the undesirable practice of appellants' submitting their cases for decision to either court in expectation of favorable judgment, but with intent of attacking its jurisdiction should the decision be unfavorable. Consequently, we are limited in this appeal to the issues of law raised in the appellant's brief. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the collision of appellant's barge with the supports or piers of the Nagtahan bridge was in law caused by fortuitous event or force majeure, and 2) Whether or not it was error for the Court to have permitted the plaintiffappellee to introduce additional evidence of damages after said party had rested its case.D HELD / RATIO: 1. No, it was not caused by force majeure or caso fortuito. Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object, with adequate openings, in the ordinary course of events, no one would ram the bridge if proper care was used. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the employees of luzon. "res ipsa loquitur" rule In their defense, Luzon said that it took extra precautions with this barge and that it had done all it was called to do. The Court said that for force majeure is defined as extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. The very measures adopted by Luzon prove that the possibility of danger was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen, and was not caso fortuito. They took the risk of moving the barge with the foreseen danger. Therefore, they should be held liable. The appellant, whose barges and tugs travel up and down the river everyday, could not safely ignore the danger posed by these allegedly improper constructions that had been erected, and in place, for years. 2. No, whether or not further evidence will be allowed after a party offering the evidence has rested his case, lies within the sound discretion of the trial Judge, and this discretion will not be reviewed except in clear case of abuse. Judgement Affirmed.