Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc

Caltex [Philippines], Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
Facts:
On December 20, 1987, motor tanker MV Vector, carrying petroleum products of Caltex, collided in the open sea with
passenger ship MV Doña Paz, causing the death of all but 25 of the latter’s passengers. Among those who died were
Sebastian Canezal and his daughter Corazon Canezal. On March 22, 1988, the board of marine inquiry found that
Vector Shipping Corporation was at fault. On February 13, 1989, Teresita Cañezal and Sotera E. Cañezal, Sebastian
Cañezal’s wife and mother respectively, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a complaint for damages arising
from breach of contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio filed a third-party complaint against Vector and
Caltex. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Caltex, but the Court of Appeals included the same in the liability.
Hence, Caltex filed this petition.a
Issue:
Is the charterer of a sea vessel liable for damages resulting from a collision between the chartered vessel and a
passenger ship?
Held:
First: The charterer has no liability for damages under Philippine Maritime laws.
Petitioner and Vector entered into a contract of affreightment, also known as a voyage charter.
A charter party is a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another person
for a specified time or use; a contract of affreightment is one by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole
or part of her to a merchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of
the payment of freight. A contract of affreightment may be either time charter, wherein the leased vessel is leased to
the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage. In both cases,
the charter-party provides for the hire of the vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or
consecutive voyage, the ship owner to supply the ship’s store, pay for the wages of the master of the crew, and defray
the expenses for the maintenance of the ship. If the charter is a contract of affreightment, which leaves the general
owner in possession of the ship as owner for the voyage, the rights and the responsibilities of ownership rest on the
owner. The charterer is free from liability to third persons in respect of the ship.
Second: MT Vector is a common carrier
The charter party agreement did not convert the common carrier into a private carrier. The parties entered into a voyage
charter, which retains the character of the vessel as a common carrier. It is imperative that a public carrier shall remain
as such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter
is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter or voyage charter. It is only when the charter includes both
the vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the
particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. Indubitably, a ship-owner in a time or voyage charter retains
possession and control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment, be the property of the charterer. A common
carrier is a person or corporation whose regular business is to carry passengers or property for all persons who may
choose to employ and to remunerate him. 16 MT Vector fits the definition of a common carrier under Article 1732 of
the Civil Code.
The public must of necessity rely on the care and skill of common carriers in the vigilance over the goods and safety of
the passengers, especially because with the modern development of science and invention, transportation has become
more rapid, more complicated and somehow more hazardous. For these reasons, a passenger or a shipper of goods
is under no obligation to conduct an inspection of the ship and its crew, the carrier being obliged by law to impliedly
warrant its seaworthiness.
Third: Is Caltex liable for damages under the Civil Code?
The charterer of a vessel has no obligation before transporting its cargo to ensure that the vessel it chartered complied
with all legal requirements. The duty rests upon the common carrier simply for being engaged in "public service." The
relationship between the parties in this case is governed by special laws. Because of the implied warranty of
seaworthiness, 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 general is concerned. Such a practice would be an absurdity in a business where time is always of the essence.
Considering the nature of transportation business, passengers and shippers alike customarily presume that common
carriers possess all the legal requisites in its operation.
Philamgem vs. PKS Shipping Company
Facts:
Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) contracted the services of respondent PKS Shipping Company (PKS
Shipping) for the shipment to Tacloban City of seventy-five thousand (75,000) bags of cement worth Three Million
Three Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P3,375,000.00). DUMC insured the goods for its full value with
petitioner Philippine American General Insurance Company (Philamgen). During the transport, the barge where the
bags of cement were loaded, sank. Upon demand of payment by DUMC, Philamgen immediately paid them. Hence, it
sought reimbursement from PKS Shipping but the latter refused.
Issue:
Whether PKS Shipping is a common carrier or a private carrier; and
WON PKS Shipping exercised the required diligence over the goods they carry. Or, WON PKS Shipping is liable.
Held:
PKS Shipping is a common carrier.
PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for others, although for a limited clientele,
undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. The regularity of its activities in this area indicates more than just a casual
activity on its part. Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because individual contracts are
executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier.
PKS Shipping is not liable.
The vessel was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight (8) feet and buffeted by
strong winds of 1.5 knots resulting in the entry of water into the barge’s hatches. The official Certificate of Inspection of
the barge issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate would attest to the
seaworthiness of Limar I. As such, under Art. 1733, NCC, common carriers are exempt from liability for loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods due to any of the following causes, among others:
Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity x x x

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caltex [Philippines], Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

Second: MT Vector is a common carrier

Third: Is Caltex liable for damages under the Civil Code?

Philamgem vs. PKS Shipping Company

Whether PKS Shipping is a common carrier or a private carrier; and

PKS Shipping is a common carrier.

PKS Shipping is not liable.

Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity x x x

You might also like