Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2
Foot of Nepigence es ose aqutur— “the Ing speaks fr Hse" Ono is presumed tobe napigent I head exctishe canto! of Uhaever caused he hy even hough there no specie evidence of an acto nepigence, and wfhout such nepigence,theacodent woul net have Pagoened CEBU SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS, INC. v. WILLIAM LINES, INC. GAR. 192607 | May 5, 1999 FACTS: Petitioner Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (CSEW) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of dry-docking and repairng of marine vessels while the Private Respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, nc. (Prudential) also a domestic corporation i inthe norife insurance business. On the other hand, William Lines, Inc. {William Lines) is in the shipping business. It was the owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury passenger-cargo vessel, which caught fire and sank on 16 Feb. 1991. At the time of the unfortunate occurrence sued upon, subject vessel was insured with Prudential for P45M for hull and machinery. The Hull Policy included an Adcitional Peris Clause covering loss of or damage to the vessel through the negligence ‘of among others. ship repairmen. The Policy specifically provided that the aforementioned insurance covers loss of or damage to the vessel DIRECTLY caused by the "Negligence of Charterers and/or Repairers, provided" (1) such Charterers and/or Repairers are not an Assured under such policy; and (2) such loss or damage has not resuited from wan! cof any of them. Petitioner CSEW was also insured by Prudential for third party lability under a Shiprepairers Legal Liabilty Insurance Policy. The policy was for P10M only, under the limited liability clause. On5 Feb. 1991, Wiliam Lines brought its vessel, M/V Manila City, to the Cebu Shipyard in Lapulapu City for ‘annual dry-docking and repair. The next day, an arrival conference was held between representatives of Wiliam, Lines and CSEW to discuss the work to be undertaken on the M/V Manila City. The contracts, denominated as Work Orders, were signed thereatter, with the following stipulations: 11, Saveas provided in Clause 10, the Contvactar shall note uncle any lilly to the Customer ether in contvact ‘oC for delict or quas-delict or otherwise excent for negligence and such labilty shal itself be subject to the folowing overicing tations and exceptions, namely {a) The total iabilty of the Contractor to the Customer (over andl above the liabilty to replace under Clause 10} or of any sub-contractor shall be limited in respect of any defect or event (and a series of accidents arising out of the same defect or event shall constitute one defect or event) to the sum of ‘Pesos Phiimine Gurrency One Mion only, {b) Inno circumstance whatsoever shal the liailty of the Contractor or any Sub-Contractor include any ‘SUM in respect of loss of profit or loss of use ofthe vessel or damages censequential on such loss of use Xxx 20. The insurance on the vessel should be maintained by the customer and/or owner of the vessel during the period the contract is in effect While the M/V Manila City was undergoing dry-docking and repairs within the premises of CSEW, the master, officers and crew of W/V Mania City stayed in the vessel, using their cabins as living quarters. Other employees. hired by Wiliam Lines to do repairs and maintenance work on the vessel were also present during the dry docking, On 16 Feb. 1991, after subject vessel was transferred to the docking quay, it caught freand senk, resulting to its eventual total loss. On 21 Feb. 1991, Wiliam Lines filed a complaint for damages against CSEW, alleging that the fire which broke out in MV Mania City was caused by CSEW’s negligence and lack of care, However, months later, Wiliam Lines fled an Amended Complaint impleading Prudential as CO- PLAINTIEF, after the latter had paid Willam Lines, Inc. the value of the hull and machinery insurance on the MWV Menila City. As a resuit of such payment Prudential was subrogeed to the claim of PASM, representing the value of the said insurance it paid Proof of Negligence | Res ja loquit ~ “the thing speaks for ise" One is presumed to be neglgent if he had exctisve conto of whatever caused the injury even though tere is no Speciic evidence of an act of negigance, and without such negigence, theaccident would not have happened. Eventually, the Cebu RTC came out with a judgment against CSEW, which was subsequently affirmed by the CA on appeal, finding CSEW negligent and liable for damages to Wiliam Lines (as the Private Respondent) and to Prudential (as the Insuret-Subroged). However, the CA ordered the partial dismissal of the case, insofar as CSEW and Wiliam Lines were concemed, on the basis of the amicable settlement between both parties only. Which leaves CSEW to pay Prudential the sum of P45Masits subrogee. Hence, CSEW's present petition, contending that the CA committed reversible error in applying the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR against CSEW. ISSUE: WIN the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in CSEW's case. HELD: YES. The petition is unmeritorious. Petitioner CSEW faults the CA for adjudaing it negligent and liable for damages to Wiliam Lines and Prudential for the loss of M/V Manila City. CSEW submits that the finding of negligence by the CA is not supported by the evidence on record, and contrary to what the CA found, it did not have man. ‘Manila City, Although it was brought to the premises of CSEW for annual repair, Willam Lines retained control xe the vessel a the ship capa remand in command an he sho’ crew wore sbi presen. While B impos jn Jations on Wiliam. it was in the exercise of due diligence and not an ton oC ec a tl ‘io GSE0 manos toa ae not baer neal on the other rend, according to Sona te fire bee ‘cut fomine Tank Top where the Chief Mate of MV Manila City observed someCSEW workers cropping outsteel plates with acetylene, oxygen ‘and welding torch, the day before the ship sunk while being completely engulfed with flames. Here, both the CAand the RTC are agreed that the fre which caused the total loss of subject MV Manila City f the emp 1nd worker: Both courts found that the M/V Manila was: the ns City was under the custody and control of CSEW, when the il-fated vessel caught fire The decisions of both the RTC and the CA set forth clearly the evidence sustaining their finding of actionable negligence on the part of CSEW. This factual finding is accorded great weight and is conclusive on the parties. ‘The finding by the RTC and the CA that M/V Manila City caught fire and sank by reason of the negligence of the workers of CSEW, when the said vessel was under the exclusive custody and control of CSEW is, accordingly upheld. Under the circumstances of the case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply to a given situation, the following conditions must concur: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; and (2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence. The facts and evidence on record reveal the concurrence of said conditions in the case under scrutiny. First, the fire that occurred and consumed M/V Manila Citywould not have happened in the ordinary course of thinas itteasonable care and diligence had been exercised In other words, some negligence must have occurred. ‘Second, the agency charged with negligence, as found by RTC and the CA and as shown by the records, is the herein petitioner CSEW. which had control over subject vessel when it was docked for annual repairs. So also, as found by the RTC, other responsible causes, includng the conduct of William Lines, and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. What is more, in the present case the RTC found direct evidence to prove that the workers and/or employees ‘of CSEW were remiss in their duty of exercising due dliigence in the care of subject vessel. The direct evidence ‘substantiates the conclusion that CSEW was really negligent. Thus, even without applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in light of the direct evidence on record, the inductable conclusion is that CSEW was negligent and consequently liable for damages to Wiliam Lines.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen