Mecenas v CA

Facts:
M/T Tacloban (barge-type oil tanker) collided with M/V Don Juan ( inter-island vessel carrying 750
passengers). When the collision occurred, the sea was calm, the weather fair and visibility good. As a
result, M/V Don Juan sank and the passengers perished.

Petitioner was the parent of the passenger who died. They file an action for damages alleging the
negligence of Capt. Santisteban (captain of Don Juan) and Negros Navigation (owner of Don Juan).

Issue:
1. Who was negligent?
2. Whether or not Capt. Santisteban and Negros Navigation was negligent.

Held:
1. M/V Tacloban was primarily and solely at fault. M/V Don Juan was also at fault.

Rule 18 of the International Rules of the Road which requires 2 power-driven vessels meeting end on or
nearly end on each to alter her course to starboard so that each vessel may pass on the port side of each
other.

In the case, M/V Tacloban, as held by the report of the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard, failed
to follow the Rules. Hence, she was deemed negligent.

However, route observance of the International Rules of the Road will not relieve a vessel from
responsibility if the collision could have been avoided by proper skill on her part or even a departure from
the rules.

M/V Don Juan having sighted M/V Tacloban when it was still a long way off was negligent in failing to
take early preventive action and in allowing the 2 vessels to come into close quarters as to render the
collision inevitable when there was no necessity for passing so near M/V Tacloban for Don Juan could
choose its own distance. It is noteworthy that M/V Tacloban upon turning hard to port shortly before the
moment of collision, signaled its intention to do so by giving 2 short blasts with its horn. Don Juan gave no
answering horn blast to signal it's own intention and proceeded to turn hard to starboard.

2. Yes. The behavior of the captain -playing mahjong "before and up to the time of collision" constituted
gross negligence. This behavior is unacceptable on the part of the master of a vessel to whose hands the
lives of at least 750 passengers were entrusted.

It does not matter that the Captain was off-duty or on-duty. Realistically speaking, there is no such thing
as off-duty hours for the master of the vessel at sea that is a common carrier who is required
extraordinary diligence. Hence, Negros Navigation in permitting or in failing to discover and correct such
behavior is also grossly negligent.