CARGOLIFT SHIPPING, INC. vs. L. ACUARIO MARKETING CORP. and SKYLAND BROKERAGE, INC
G.R. No. 146426. June 27, 2006
FACTS:
Respondent L. Acuario Marketing Corp., ("Acuario") and respondent Skyland Brokerage, Inc., ("Skyland") entered into a time charter agreement whereby Acuario leased to Skyland its L. Acuario II barge for use by the latter in transporting electrical posts from Manila to Limay, Bataan. At the same time, Skyland also entered into a separate contract with petitioner Cargolift, for the latter’s tugboats to tow the aforesaid barge.
After the whole operation was concluded, the barge was brought to Acuario’s shipyard where it was allegedly discovered by that the barge was listing due to a leak in its hull. It was informed by the skipper of the tugboat that the damage was sustained in Bataan. It was learned later the due to strong winds and large waves, the barge repeatedly hit its hull on the wall, thus prompting the barge patron to alert the tugboat captain of the M/T Count to tow the barge farther out to sea. However, the tugboat failed to pull the barge to a safer distance due to engine malfunction, thereby causing the barge to sustain a hole in its hull.
Acuario spent the total sum of P97,021.20 for the repairs, and, pursuant to the contract, sought reimbursement from Skyland, failing which, it filed a suit before the RTC which was granted. On appeal, it was affirmed by the CA. Skyland, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against petitioner alleging that it was responsible for the damage sustained by the barge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner should be held liable.
HELD:
Yes.
Thus, in the performance of its contractual obligation to Skyland, petitioner was required to observe the due diligence of a good father of the family. This much was held in the old but still relevant case of Baer Senior & Co.’s Successors v. La Compania Maritima where the Court explained that a tug and its owners must observe ordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation under a contract of towage. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands.
In the case at bar, the exercise of ordinary prudence by petitioner means ensuring that its tugboat is free of mechanical problems. While adverse weather has always been a real threat to maritime commerce, the least that petitioner could have done was to ensure that the M/T Count or any of its other tugboats would be able to secure the barge at all times during the engagement. This is especially true when considered with the fact that Acuario’s barge was wholly dependent upon petitioner’s tugboat for propulsion. The barge was not equipped with any engine and needed a tugboat for maneuvering.
Needless to say, if petitioner only subjected the M/T Count to a more rigid check-up or inspection, the engine malfunction could have been discovered or avoided. The M/T Count was exclusively controlled by petitioner and the latter had the duty to see to it that the tugboat was in good running condition. There is simply no basis for petitioner’s assertion that Skyland contractually assumed the risk of any engine trouble that the tugboat may encounter. Skyland merely procured petitioner’s towing service but in no way assumed any such risk.
G.R. No. 146426. June 27, 2006
FACTS:
Respondent L. Acuario Marketing Corp., ("Acuario") and respondent Skyland Brokerage, Inc., ("Skyland") entered into a time charter agreement whereby Acuario leased to Skyland its L. Acuario II barge for use by the latter in transporting electrical posts from Manila to Limay, Bataan. At the same time, Skyland also entered into a separate contract with petitioner Cargolift, for the latter’s tugboats to tow the aforesaid barge.
After the whole operation was concluded, the barge was brought to Acuario’s shipyard where it was allegedly discovered by that the barge was listing due to a leak in its hull. It was informed by the skipper of the tugboat that the damage was sustained in Bataan. It was learned later the due to strong winds and large waves, the barge repeatedly hit its hull on the wall, thus prompting the barge patron to alert the tugboat captain of the M/T Count to tow the barge farther out to sea. However, the tugboat failed to pull the barge to a safer distance due to engine malfunction, thereby causing the barge to sustain a hole in its hull.
Acuario spent the total sum of P97,021.20 for the repairs, and, pursuant to the contract, sought reimbursement from Skyland, failing which, it filed a suit before the RTC which was granted. On appeal, it was affirmed by the CA. Skyland, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against petitioner alleging that it was responsible for the damage sustained by the barge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner should be held liable.
HELD:
Yes.
Thus, in the performance of its contractual obligation to Skyland, petitioner was required to observe the due diligence of a good father of the family. This much was held in the old but still relevant case of Baer Senior & Co.’s Successors v. La Compania Maritima where the Court explained that a tug and its owners must observe ordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation under a contract of towage. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands.
In the case at bar, the exercise of ordinary prudence by petitioner means ensuring that its tugboat is free of mechanical problems. While adverse weather has always been a real threat to maritime commerce, the least that petitioner could have done was to ensure that the M/T Count or any of its other tugboats would be able to secure the barge at all times during the engagement. This is especially true when considered with the fact that Acuario’s barge was wholly dependent upon petitioner’s tugboat for propulsion. The barge was not equipped with any engine and needed a tugboat for maneuvering.
Needless to say, if petitioner only subjected the M/T Count to a more rigid check-up or inspection, the engine malfunction could have been discovered or avoided. The M/T Count was exclusively controlled by petitioner and the latter had the duty to see to it that the tugboat was in good running condition. There is simply no basis for petitioner’s assertion that Skyland contractually assumed the risk of any engine trouble that the tugboat may encounter. Skyland merely procured petitioner’s towing service but in no way assumed any such risk.
1 comment:
Thanks for sharing, it was interesting to read!
Post a Comment