TL;DR
In a maritime collision between two vessels, the Supreme Court ruled that liability is determined by fault and negligence under the Code of Commerce, not the Civil Code provisions for common carriers, as no contract of carriage existed between the colliding vessels. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision, finding Aleson Shipping Lines solely liable for damages because their vessel, M/V Aleson Carrier 5, was negligent. This negligence stemmed from the captain’s failure to exercise due diligence when entering Apo channel, leading to a collision with M/V Romeo. The ruling underscores the importance of ordinary diligence in maritime tort and clarifies the applicable legal framework for collision cases outside contractual carriage.
Collision Course: Navigating Fault and Liability in the Apo Channel
This case arose from a maritime collision in Apo Channel between M/V Aleson Carrier 5, owned by Aleson Shipping Lines, and M/V Romeo, chartered by Candano Shipping Lines. M/V Romeo, loaded with Apo Cement cargo insured by CGU International Insurance PLC, sank after being struck by M/V Aleson. CGU Insurance, as subrogee after paying Apo Cement’s claim, sued both shipping lines to recover damages. The central legal question is: Which vessel was at fault, and under what legal framework should liability be assessed in this maritime collision?
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) initially found Aleson Shipping solely liable, applying the principle of extraordinary diligence expected of common carriers under the Civil Code. However, the Supreme Court clarified that since there was no contract of carriage between Aleson Shipping and CGU Insurance or Apo Cement, the applicable law is maritime tort under the Code of Commerce, which requires ordinary diligence. Despite this correction in legal framework, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of Aleson Shipping’s sole liability.
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the testimony of Captain Cabeltes of M/V Aleson. His admissions proved critical. He confessed to not verifying a radio message before entering Apo Channel and proceeded despite knowing M/V Romeo was exiting. He acknowledged having space to maneuver and avoid collision but chose not to, fearing his vessel running aground. The Court highlighted Captain Cabeltes’s negligence in failing to adhere to navigational rules, including not sounding signals and not personally confirming clearance to enter the channel. This was deemed a breach of ordinary diligence—the care a prudent person would exercise over their property.
Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed Aleson Shipping’s challenge to the admissibility of testimonies from CGU Insurance’s witnesses, Lopez and Flores, arguing they were hearsay and improperly admitted as res gestae. The Court affirmed the admissibility, explaining that res gestae, an exception to the hearsay rule, applies to spontaneous statements made immediately after a startling event. The testimonies of Lopez and Flores, relaying accounts from witnesses at the scene shortly after the collision, met the criteria of res gestae. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that even without these testimonies, Captain Cabeltes’s own admissions sufficiently established Aleson Shipping’s negligence.
The Court differentiated between actions based on contract of carriage and maritime tort. In cases involving cargo loss under a contract of carriage (like Maritime Co. of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals), the Civil Code provisions on common carriers apply, imposing extraordinary diligence. However, in maritime collision cases between vessels without a contractual relationship (like this case and National Development Company v. Court of Appeals), the Code of Commerce governs, specifically Articles 826 and 827, which focus on fault and negligence in collisions. Article 826 dictates that the vessel at fault indemnifies damages, while Article 827 addresses situations of shared fault, mandating joint responsibility for cargo damages. In this instance, only M/V Aleson was found at fault.
The Supreme Court underscored that its role is not to re-evaluate factual findings of lower courts unless demonstrably erroneous. Both the RTC and CA findings converged on Aleson Shipping’s negligence, supported by Captain Cabeltes’s own testimony. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn these consistent factual conclusions. Candano Shipping, on the other hand, was cleared of liability as M/V Romeo was found seaworthy and to have acted with due diligence. This decision reinforces the principle that in maritime collisions outside contractual carriage, liability hinges on demonstrating fault and negligence under the Code of Commerce, requiring at least ordinary diligence from vessel captains and owners.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was determining which vessel was at fault and liable for damages resulting from a collision in Apo Channel, and under what legal framework should liability be assessed – Civil Code (common carrier) or Code of Commerce (maritime tort). |
| What is ‘ordinary diligence’ in this context? | Ordinary diligence is the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in managing their own affairs. In maritime law under the Code of Commerce, it is the standard of care expected to avoid liability in vessel collisions outside of contractual carriage. |
| Why wasn’t Aleson Shipping considered a common carrier in this case? | Aleson Shipping was not considered a common carrier in relation to CGU Insurance or Apo Cement because there was no contract of carriage between them. The lawsuit was based on tort (negligence causing damage), not breach of contract. |
| What is the significance of res gestae in this case? | Res gestae allowed the admission of testimonies from witnesses who relayed spontaneous statements made by individuals present at the collision scene shortly after the event, even though these witnesses did not personally witness the collision. |
| What was Captain Cabeltes’s critical mistake? | Captain Cabeltes’s critical errors included failing to personally verify radio instructions before entering the channel, proceeding despite knowing another vessel was exiting, not using sound signals, and prioritizing avoiding running aground over preventing a collision, demonstrating a lack of due diligence. |
| What is the practical implication of this ruling? | This ruling clarifies that in maritime collision cases without a contract of carriage, liability is assessed based on fault and negligence under the Code of Commerce, requiring proof of at least ordinary diligence, and emphasizes the importance of captains’ prudent navigation and adherence to maritime rules. |
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Aleson Shipping Lines vs. CGU International Ins. PLC. and Candano Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 217311, July 15, 2020
Leave a Reply