G.R. No. 188144 & 188301. August 30, 2017.
F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP., Respondents. [Consolidated with G.R. No. 188301].

FACTS

F.F. Cruz was constructing a pier in Brooke’s Point, Palawan, with its vessels stationed at the site. During Typhoon Welpring on November 4, 1988, the vessels of Anchor Metals Corporation (AMC)—the tugboat Jasaan and barge Florida—encountered trouble. Florida’s anchor line was cut, and Jasaan attempted to tow it to safety, but its rudder cable snapped, causing both to drift. F.F. Cruz’s barges were damaged: Barge 609 and the Pilipino sank, and Barge 1001 collided with driven piles. F.F. Cruz filed a complaint for damages, alleging that AMC’s vessels allided with its own due to negligent handling during the typhoon.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of F.F. Cruz, holding AMC and Philippine Iron Construction & Marine Works, Inc. (PICMW) solidarily liable. The Court of Appeals modified this decision. It affirmed AMC’s liability, finding that the drift and movement of Jasaan and Florida caused the allision, as supported by consistent witness testimonies and the marine protest. However, the CA also found F.F. Cruz contributorily negligent for failing to properly secure its barges and for positioning them too close to the driven piles, thereby mitigating AMC’s liability. It absolved PICMW, ruling that its bareboat charter agreement with AMC made AMC the effective owner responsible for the voyage.

ISSUE

The principal issues, distilled from the consolidated petitions, are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding F.F. Cruz guilty of contributory negligence; and (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding AMC liable for actual damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both petitions, upholding the CA’s decision. The petitions essentially challenged the factual findings of the appellate court. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law; it is not the Court’s function to re-examine or weigh evidence already considered below. The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their cases fell under any recognized exception to this rule, such as a gross misapprehension of facts or findings grounded entirely on speculation.
On the substantive merits as determined by the CA, the legal logic is clear. For AMC’s liability, the CA’s finding of allision was based on a preponderance of evidence, including the credible and consistent testimonies of F.F. Cruz’s witnesses and the logical inference from Jasaan’s admitted movement during the typhoon. This established AMC’s fault and liability under quasi-delict principles. Conversely, on contributory negligence, the CA correctly applied Article 2179 of the Civil Code. The evidence, including the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry which the CA credited in part, showed that F.F. Cruz failed to exercise due diligence in securing its barges, which contributed to the damage. This fault on the part of the plaintiff obliges the court to mitigate the defendant’s damages. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in these factual assessments and the subsequent legal conclusions drawn from them.