View full case

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. C & A CONSTRUCTION

FACTS:

Respondent C & A Construction, Inc. was contracted to construct a deflector wall at the Vitas Reclamation Area in Manila. The project was completed but not formally turned over to NHA. Petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc.'s ship, M/V Delsan Express, anchored at Navotas Fish Port on October 9, 1994. The ship's captain received a report of an impending typhoon and attempted to seek shelter at North Harbor but was unable to enter due to congestion. The ship dropped anchor near Vitas mouth to avoid collision. In the midst of high waves, the ship hit the deflector wall causing damage. Respondent demanded payment, but petitioner refused and the former filed a complaint with the RTC. In its answer, petitioner claimed the damage was due to a fortuitous event. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that petitioner was not negligent and that the damage was caused by the typhoon. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding the ship's captain negligent for delaying the vessel's transfer to North Harbor. Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that even if the captain was negligent, it cannot be held liable. The issues to be resolved are the captain's negligence and whether petitioner is solidarily liable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Capt. Jusep was negligent.

  2. If yes, whether or not petitioner is solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the quasi-delict committed by Capt. Jusep.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals was correct in finding Capt. Jusep negligent in deciding to transfer the vessel only at 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994. Capt. Jusep received a report about a typhoon that was going to hit Manila after 8 hours, but he did nothing until the said time to seek shelter at the North Harbor. The finding of negligence cannot be rebutted by the argument that the ship could not have sought refuge at the North Harbor even if the transfer was done earlier. The Court emphasized that it is the failure to take immediate and appropriate action under the circumstances that determines the existence of negligence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care and caution that an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation.

  • Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever causes damage to another through fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done.

  • The test for determining negligence is whether the defendant used reasonable care and caution in the given situation.

  • The speculative success or failure of a decision does not determine the existence of negligence. What matters is the failure to take immediate and appropriate action under the circumstances.

  • Knowledge of impending danger and failure to take immediate action can be considered as negligence.