6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

TodayisWednesday,June22,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.131166September30,1999
CALTEX(PHILIPPINES),INC.,petitioner,
vs.
SULPICIOLINES,INC.,GOSIOCSO,ENRIQUES.GO,EUSEBIOS.GO,CARLOSS.GO,VICTORIANOS.GO,
DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S. GO, EDWARD S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUND S. GO,
FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAEZAL, AND SOTERA E.
CAEZAL,respondents.

PARDO,J.:
Isthechartererofaseavesselliablefordamagesresultingfromacollisionbetweenthecharteredvesselanda
passengership?
When MT Vector left the port of Limay, Bataan, on December 19, 1987 carrying petroleum products of Caltex
(Philippines), Inc. (hereinafter Caltex) no one could have guessed that it would collide with MV Doa Paz, killing
almost all the passengers and crew members of both ships, and thus resulting in one of the country's worst
maritimedisasters.
ThepetitionbeforeusseekstoreversetheCourtofAppealsdecision1holdingpetitionerjointlyliablewiththeoperator
ofMTVectorfordamageswhenthelattercollidedwithSulpicioLines,Inc.'spassengershipMVDoaPaz.

Thefactsareasfollows:
On December 19, 1987, motor tanker MT Vector left Limay, Bataan, at about 8:00 p.m., enroute to Masbate,
loadedwith8,800barrelsofpetroleumproductsshippedbypetitionerCaltex. 2MTVectorisatrampingmotortanker
ownedandoperatedbyVectorShippingCorporation,engagedinthebusinessoftransportingfuelproductssuchasgasoline,
kerosene,dieselandcrudeoil.Duringthatparticularvoyage,theMTVectorcarriedonboardgasolineandotheroilproducts
ownedbyCaltexbyvirtueofachartercontractbetween
them.3

OnDecember20,1987,atabout6:30a.m.,thepassengershipMVDoaPazlefttheportofTaclobanheadedfor
Manila with a complement of 59 crew members including the master and his officers, and passengers totaling
1,493 as indicated in the Coast Guard Clearance. 4 The MV Doa Paz is a passenger and cargo vessel owned and
operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. plying the route of Manila/ Tacloban/ Catbalogan/ Manila/ Catbalogan/ Tacloban/ Manila,
makingtripstwiceaweek.

Atabout10:30p.m.ofDecember20,1987,thetwovesselscollidedintheopenseawithinthevicinityofDumali
Point between Marinduque and Oriental Mindoro. All the crewmembers of MV Doa Paz died, while the two
survivorsfromMTVectorclaimedthattheyweresleepingatthetimeoftheincident.
1 w p h i1 .n t

TheMVDoaPazcarriedanestimated4,000passengersmanyindeed,werenotinthepassengermanifest.Only
24survivedthetragedyafterhavingbeenrescuedfromtheburningwatersbyvesselsthatrespondedtodistress
calls. 5 Among those who perished were public school teacher Sebastian Caezal (47 years old) and his daughter Corazon
Caezal(11yearsold),bothunmanifestedpassengersbutprovedtobeonboardthevessel.

On March 22, 1988, the board of marine inquiry in BMI Case No. 65987 after investigation found that the MT
Vector,itsregisteredoperatorFranciscoSoriano,anditsownerandactualoperatorVectorShippingCorporation,
wereatfaultandresponsibleforitscollisionwithMVDoaPaz.6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

1/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

OnFebruary13,1989,TeresitaCaezalandSoteraE.Caezal,SebastianCaezal'swifeandmotherrespectively,
filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch8,Manila,acomplaintfor"DamagesArisingfromBreachofContractof
Carriage" against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (hereafter Sulpicio). Sulpicio, in turn, filed a third party complaint against
FranciscoSoriano,VectorShippingCorporationandCaltex(Philippines),Inc.SulpicioallegedthatCaltexchartered
MTVectorwithgrossandevidentbadfaithknowingfullywellthatMTVectorwasimproperlymanned,illequipped,
unseaworthyandahazardtosafenavigationasaresult,itrammedagainstMVDoaPazintheopenseasetting
MTVector'shighlyflammablecargoablaze.
OnSeptember15,1992,thetrialcourtrendereddecisiondismissing,thethirdpartycomplaintagainstpetitioner.
Thedispositiveportionreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant3rd party
plaintiffSulpicioLines,Inc.,towit:
1.ForthedeathofSebastianE.Caezalandhis11yearolddaughterCorazonG.Caezal,including
lossoffutureearningsofsaidSebastian,moralandexemplarydamages,attorney'sfees,inthetotal
amountofP1,241,287.44andfinally
2.Thestatutorycostsoftheproceedings.
Likewise, the 3rd party complaint is hereby DISMISSED for want of substantiation and with costs
againstthe3rdpartyplaintiff.
ITISSOORDERED.
DONEINMANILA,this15thdayofSeptember1992.
ARSENIOM.GONONG
Judge
7

On appeal to the Court of Appeals interposed by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., on April 15, 1997, the Court of Appeal
modifiedthetrialcourt'srulingandincludedpetitionerCaltexasoneofthethoseliablefordamages.Thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court is
herebyMODIFIEDasfollows:
WHEREFORE,defendantSulpicioLines,Inc.,isorderedtopaytheheirsofSebastianE.Caezaland
CorazonCaezal:
1. Compensatory damages for the death of Sebastian E. Caezal and Corazon Caezal the total
amountofONEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P100,000)
2. Compensatory damages representing the unearned income of Sebastian E. Caezal, in the total
amountofTHREEHUNDREDSIXTHOUSANDFOURHUNDREDEIGHTY(P306,480.00)PESOS
3.MoraldamagesintheamountofTHREEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P300,000.00)
4. Attorney's fees in the concept of actual damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00)
5.Costsofthesuit.
ThirdpartydefendantsVectorShippingCo.andCaltex(Phils.),Inc.areheldequallyliableunderthe
third party complaint to reimburse/indemnify defendant Sulpicio Lines, Inc. of the abovementioned
damages, attorney's fees and costs which the latter is adjudged to pay plaintiffs, the same to be
shared half by Vector Shipping Co. (being the vessel at fault for the collision) and the other half by
Caltex (Phils.), Inc. (being the charterer that negligently caused the shipping of combustible cargo
aboardanunseaworthyvessel).
SOORDERED.
JORGES.IMPERIAL
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

2/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

RAMONU.MABUTAS,JR.PORTIAALIOHERMACHUELOS
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice.8
Hence,thispetition.
Wefindthepetitionmeritorious.
First:ThechartererhasnoliabilityfordamagesunderPhilippineMaritimelaws.
Therespectiverightsanddutiesofashipperandthecarrierdependsnotonwhetherthecarrierispublicorprivate,
butonwhetherthecontractofcarriageisabillofladingorequivalentshippingdocumentsontheonehand,ora
charterpartyorsimilarcontractontheother.9
PetitionerandVectorenteredintoacontractofaffreightment,alsoknownasavoyagecharter.10
Acharterpartyisacontractbywhichanentireship,orsomeprincipalpartthereof,isletbytheownertoanother
personforaspecifiedtimeoruseacontractofaffreightmentisonebywhichtheownerofashiporothervessel
letsthewholeorpartofhertoamerchantorotherpersonfortheconveyanceofgoods,onaparticularvoyage,in
considerationofthepaymentoffreight.11
Acontractofaffreightmentmaybeeithertimecharter,whereintheleasedvesselisleasedtothechartererfora
fixedperiodoftime,orvoyagecharter,whereintheshipisleasedforasinglevoyage.Inbothcases,thecharter
partyprovidesforthehireofthevesselonly,eitherforadeterminateperiodoftimeorforasingleorconsecutive
voyage, the ship owner to supply the ship's store, pay for the wages of the master of the crew, and defray the
expensesforthemaintenanceoftheship.12
Under a demise or bareboat charter on the other hand, the charterer mans the vessel with his own people and
becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or service stipulated, subject to liability for damages caused by
negligence.
Ifthecharterisacontractofaffreightment,whichleavesthegeneralownerinpossessionoftheshipasownerfor
thevoyage,therightsandtheresponsibilitiesofownershiprestontheowner.Thechartererisfreefromliabilityto
thirdpersonsinrespectoftheship.13
Second:MTVectorisacommoncarrier
Charterpartiesfallintothreemaincategories:(1)Demiseorbareboat,(2)timecharter,(3)voyagecharter.Doesa
charterpartyagreementturnthecommoncarrierintoaprivateone?Weneedtoanswerthisquestioninorderto
shedlightontheresponsibilitiesoftheparties.
In this case, the charter party agreement did not convert the common carrier into a private carrier. The parties
enteredintoavoyagecharter,whichretainsthecharacterofthevesselasacommoncarrier.
InPlantersProducts,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,14wesaid:
Itisthereforeimperativethatapubliccarriershallremainassuch,notwithstandingthecharterofthe
wholeportionofavesselofoneormorepersons,providedthecharterislimitedtotheshiponly,asin
thecaseofatimecharterorthevoyagecharter.Itisonlywhenthecharterincludesboththevessel
anditscrew,asinabareboatordemisethatacommoncarrierbecomesprivate,atleastinsofaras
the particular voyage covering the charterparty is concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or
voyagecharterretainspossessionandcontroloftheship,althoughherholdsmay,forthemoment,be
thepropertyofthecharterer.
Later,weruledinCoastwiseLighterageCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals:15
Althoughacharterpartymaytransformacommoncarrierintoaprivateone,thesamehoweverisnot
trueinacontractofaffreightment...
A common carrier is a person or corporation whose regular business is to carry passengers or property for all
personswhomaychoosetoemployandtoremuneratehim. 16MTVectorfitsthedefinitionofacommoncarrierunder
Article1732oftheCivilCode.InGuzmanvs.CourtofAppeals,17weruled:

TheCivilCodedefines"commoncarriers"inthefollowingterms:
Art.1732.Commoncarriersarepersons,corporations,firmsorassociationsengagedinthebusiness
of carrying or transporting passengers for passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

3/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

compensation,offeringtheirservicestothepublic.
Theabovearticlemakesnodistinctionbetweenonewhoseprincipalbusinessactivityisthecarryingof
personsorgoodsorboth,andonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyasanancillaryactivity(inlocalidiom,
as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
services on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or
population,andonewhooffersservicesorsolicitsbusinessonlyfromanarrowsegmentofthegeneral
population.WethinkthatArticle1733deliberatelyrefrainedfrommakingsuchdistinctions.
It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even
thoughhemerely"backhauled"goodsforothermerchantsfromManilatoPangasinan,althoughsuch
backhaulingwasdoneonaperiodic,occasionalratherthanregularorscheduledmanner,andeven
thoughrespondent'sprincipaloccupationwasnotthecarriageofgoodsforothers.Thereisnodispute
thatprivaterespondentchargedhiscustomersafeeforhaulingtheirgoodsthatthefeefrequentlyfell
belowcommercialfreightratesisnotrelevanthere.
UndertheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct:
Sec. 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due
diligenceto
(a)Maketheshipseaworthy
(b)Properlyman,equip,andsupplytheship
xxxxxxxxx
Thus,thecarriersaredeemedtowarrantimpliedlytheseaworthinessoftheship.Foravesseltobeseaworthy,it
mustbeadequatelyequippedforthevoyageandmannedwithasufficientnumberofcompetentofficersandcrew.
Thefailureofacommoncarriertomaintaininseaworthyconditionthevesselinvolvedinitscontractofcarriageisa
clearbreachofitsdutyprescribedinArticle1755oftheCivilCode.18
Theprovisionsowedtheirconceptiontothenatureofthebusinessofcommoncarriers.Thisbusinessisimpressed
withaspecialpublicduty.Thepublicmustofnecessityrelyonthecareandskillofcommoncarriersinthevigilance
over the goods and safety of the passengers, especially because with the modern development of science and
invention,transportationhasbecomemorerapid,morecomplicatedandsomehowmorehazardous. 19 For these
reasons,apassengerorashipperofgoodsisundernoobligationtoconductaninspectionoftheshipanditscrew,thecarrier
beingobligedbylawtoimpliedlywarrantitsseaworthiness.

Thisaside,wenowruleonwhetherCaltexisliablefordamagesundertheCivilCode.
Third:IsCaltexliablefordamagesundertheCivilCode?
Werulethatitisnot.
Sulpicio argues that Caltex negligently shipped its highly combustible fuel cargo aboard an unseaworthy vessel
suchastheMTVectorwhenCaltex:
1.DidnottakestepstohaveM/TVector'scertificateofinspectionandcoastwiselicenserenewed
2.ProceededtoshipitscargodespitedefectsfoundbyMr.CarlosTanofBataanRefineryCorporation
3.WitnessedM/TVectorsubmittingfakedocumentsandcertificatestothePhilippineCoastGuard.
SulpiciofurtherarguesthatCaltexchoseMTVectortransportitscargodespitethesedeficiencies.
1.ThemasterofM/TVectordidnotpossestherequiredChiefMatelicensetocommandandnavigatethevessel
2. The second mate, Ronaldo Tarife, had the license of a Minor Patron, authorized to navigate only in bays and
riverswhenthesubjectcollisionoccurredintheopensea
3.TheChiefEngineer,FiloteoAguas,hadnolicensetooperatetheengineofthevessel
4.ThevesseldidnothaveaThirdMate,aradiooperatorandlookoutand
5.Thevesselhadadefectivemainengine.20
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

4/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

As basis for the liability of Caltex, the Court of Appeals relied on Articles 20 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which
provide:
Art.20.Everypersonwhocontrarytolaw,willfullyornegligentlycausesdamagetoanother,shall
indemnifythelatterforthesame.
Art.2176.Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,
isobligedtopayforthedamagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractual
relationbetweentheparties,iscalledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.
Andwhatisnegligence?
TheCivilCodeprovides:
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
requiredbythenatureoftheobligationandcorrespondswiththecircumstancesofthepersons,ofthe
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Article 1171 and 2201
paragraph2,shallapply.
If the law does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is
expectedofagoodfatherofafamilyshallberequired.
InSoutheasternCollege,Inc.vs.Court of Appeals, 21 we said that negligence, as commonly understood, is conduct
which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be the failure to observe that degree of care,
precaution,andvigilance,whichthecircumstancesjustlydemand,ortheomissiontodosomethingwhichordinarilyregulate
theconductofhumanaffairs,woulddo.

The charterer of a vessel has no obligation before transporting its cargo to ensure that the vessel it chartered
compliedwithalllegalrequirements.Thedutyrestsuponthecommoncarriersimplyforbeingengagedin"public
service."22TheCivilCodedemandsdiligencewhichisrequiredbythenatureoftheobligationandthatwhichcorresponds
withthecircumstancesofthepersons,thetimeandtheplace.Hence,consideringthenatureoftheobligationbetweenCaltex
andMTVector,liabilityasfoundbytheCourtofAppealsiswithoutbasis.
1 w p h i1 .n t

Therelationshipbetweenthepartiesinthiscaseisgovernedbyspeciallaws.Becauseoftheimpliedwarrantyof
seaworthiness,23 shippers of goods, when transacting with common carriers, are not expected to inquire into the vessel's
seaworthiness, genuineness of its licenses and compliance with all maritime laws. To demand more from shippers and hold
them liable in case of failure exhibits nothing but the futility of our maritime laws insofar as the protection of the public in
generalisconcerned.Bythesametoken,wecannotexpectpassengerstoinquireeverytimetheyboardacommoncarrier,
whetherthecarrierpossessesthenecessarypapersorthatallthecarrier'semployeesarequalified.Suchapracticewouldbe
an absurdity in a business where time is always of the essence. Considering the nature of transportation business,
passengersandshippersalikecustomarilypresumethatcommoncarrierspossessallthelegalrequisitesinitsoperation.

Thus, the nature of the obligation of Caltex demands ordinary diligence like any other shipper in shipping his
cargoes.
A cursory reading of the records convinces us that Caltex had reasons to believe that MT Vector could legally
transportcargothattimeoftheyear.
Atty. Poblador: Mr. Witness, I direct your attention to this portion here containing the entries here
under"VESSEL'SDOCUMENTS
1. Certificate of Inspection No. 129085, issued December 21, 1986, and Expires
December7,1987",Mr.Witness,whatstepsdidyoutakeregardingtheimpendingexpiry
oftheC.I.ortheCertificateofInspectionNo.129085duringthehiringofMTVector?
ApolinarioNg:AtthetimewhenIextendedtheContract,Ididnothingbecausethetanker
hasavalidC.I.whichwillexpireonDecember7,1987butonthelastweekofNovember,
IcalledtheattentionofMr.AbalostoensurethattheC.I.berenewedandMr.Abalos,in
turn,assuredmetheywillrenewthesame.
Q:Whathappenedafterthat?
A: On the first week of December, I again made a followup from Mr. Abalos, and said
theyweregoingtosendmeacopyassoonaspossible,sir.24
xxxxxxxxx

Q:WhatdidyoudowiththeC.I.?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

5/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

A: We did not insist on getting a copy of the C.I. from Mr. Abalos on the first place,
because of our long business relation, we trust Mr. Abalos and the fact that the vessel
wasabletosailindicatesthatthedocumentsareinorder....25
Oncrossexamination
Atty.Sarenas:Thisbeingthecase,andthisbeinganadmissionbyyou,thisCertificateof
InspectionhasexpiredonDecember7.Diditoccurtoyounottoletthevesselsailonthat
daybecauseoftheveryapproachingdateofexpiration?
ApolinarNg:Nosir,becauseasIsaidbefore,theoperationManagerassuredusthatthey
were able to secure a renewal of the Certificate of Inspection and that they will in time
submitusa
copy.26
Finally,onMr.Ng'sredirectexamination:
Atty. Poblador: Mr. Witness, were you aware of the pending expiry of the Certificate of
InspectioninthecoastwiselicenseonDecember7,1987.Whatwasyourassurancefor
therecordthatthisdocumentwasrenewedbytheMTVector?
Atty.Sarenas:...
Atty.Poblador:ThecertificateofInspection?
A:AsIsaid,firstly,wetrustedMr.Abalosasheisalongtimebusinesspartnersecondly,
those three years they were allowed to sail by the Coast Guard. That are some that
makemebelievethattheyinfactwereabletosecurethenecessaryrenewal.
Q:IftheCoastGuardclearsavesseltosail,whatwouldthatmean?
Atty.Sarenas:Objection.
Court: He already answered that in the cross examination to the effect that if it was
allowed,referringtoMVVector,tosail,whereitisloadedandthatitwasscheduledfora
destinationbytheCoastGuard,itmeansthatithasCertificateofInspectionextendedas
assuredtothiswitnessbyRestitutoAbalos.ThatinnocaseMVVectorwillbeallowedto
sail if the Certificate of inspection is, indeed, not to be extended. That was his repeated
explanationtothecrossexamination.So,thereisnoneedtoclarifythesameinthere
directexamination.27
Caltex and Vector Shipping Corporation had been doing business since 1985, or for about two years before the
tragicincidentoccurredin1987.PastservicesrenderedshowednoreasonforCaltextoobserveahigherdegree
ofdiligence.
Clearly, as a mere voyage charterer, Caltex had the right to presume that the ship was seaworthy as even the
Philippine Coast Guard itself was convinced of its seaworthiness. All things considered, we find no legal basis to
holdpetitionerliablefordamages.
AsVectorShippingCorporationdidnotappealfromtheCourtofAppeals'decision,welimitourrulingtotheliability
ofCaltexalone.However,wemaintaintheCourtofAppeals'rulinginsofarasVectorisconcerned.
WHEREFORE,theCourtherebyGRANTSthepetitionandSETSASIDEthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.CVNo.39626,promulgatedonApril15,1997,insofarasitheldCaltexliableunderthethirdpartycomplaintto
reimburse/indemnify defendant Sulpicio Lines, Inc. the damages the latter is adjudged to pay plaintiffsappellees.
TheCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinsofarasitordersSulpicioLines,Inc.topaytheheirsof
SebastianE.CaezalandCorazonCaezaldamagesassetforththerein.ThirdpartydefendantappelleeVector
ShippingCorporationandFranciscoSorianoareheldliabletoreimburse/indemnifydefendantSulpicioLines,Inc.
whateverdamages,attorneys'feesandcoststhelatterisadjudgedtopayplaintiffsappelleesinthecase.
1 w p h i1 .n t

Nocostsinthisinstance.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,KapunanandYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.
Puno,J.,nopartduetocloserelationwithaparty.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

6/7

6/22/2016

G.R.No.131166

Footnotes
1 In CAG.R. CV No. 29526 promulgated on April 15, 1997, Justice Jorge S. Imperial, ponente, Justices
MabutasandHormachuelos,concurring.
2FindingsandRecommendationoftheBoardofMarineInquirydatedMarch22,1988,Rollo,p.358.
3Ibid.,Rollo,p.350.
4Ibid.,Rollo,p.357.Actually,thereweremorethan4,000passengers.
5Decision,CourtofAppeals,datedApril15,1997,Rollo,pp.5475.
6FindingandRecommendationsoftheBoardofMarineInquirydatedMarch22,1988,Rollo,pp.347402.
7Rollo,pp.156225.
8CourtofAppealsdecisioninCAG.R.CVNo.39526,datedApril15,1997,Rollo,pp.5475.
9PhilippineAdmiraltyandMaritimeLaw,byAttys.EduardoHernandezandAnteroPeasales,1987,p.237,
citingSchoenbaum&Yiannopoulos,AdmiraltyandMaritimeLaw,atp.364.
10Ibid.,p.495,citingHealy&Sharp,Admiralty,p.405.
11 Tabacalera Insurance Co. vs. North Front Shipping Services, 272 SCRA 527 (1997), citing Planters
Products,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,226SCRA476(1993).
12Ibid.,citingPlantersProducts,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,226SCRA476(1993).
13Purominesvs.CourtofAppeals,220SCRA281(1993).
14226SCRA476(1993).
15245SCRA797(1995).
16Unitedstatesvs.Quinajon,31Phil.189,(1915)UnitedStates.vs.TanPiaoco,40Phil.853(1920).
17168SCRA612,617619(1988).
18TransAsiaShippingLinesvs.CourtofAppeals,254SCRA260(1996),citingChanKeepvs.ChanGioco,
14Phil.5(1909).
19 Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume V,
1992,p.298,citingCommissionReport,pp.6667.
20MemorandumofSulpicioLines,Inc.,Rollo,pp.493520.
21 292 SCRA 422 (1998), citing Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303 (1996) Cf. Quibal vs.
Sandiganbayan,244SCRA224(1995)Citibank,NAvs.Gatchalian,240SCRA212(1995).
22DeGuzmanvs.CourtofAppeals,168SCRA612(1988).
23UnderSection3(1)oftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct.
24TSN,May7,1991,pp.1819.
25TSN,DirectExaminationofApolinarioNg,datedMay7,1991,pp.2122.
26TSN,CrossExaminationofApolinarioNg,datedMay13,1991,p.7.
27TSN,RedirectExaminationofApolinarioNg,datedMay13,1991,p.51.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/sep1999/gr_131166_1999.html

7/7