Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    Caltex Vs Sulpicio Lines (Transpo Laws)

    Uploaded by

    Angeli
    This case summary discusses a legal dispute arising from the sinking of the passenger vessel MV Dona Paz after it collided with the oil tanker MT Vector. The families of victims filed lawsuits against the owner of the passenger vessel, Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio Lines then filed a third-party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation and Caltex Philippines, seeking indemnification. The Court of Appeals ruled that Vector Shipping was liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines as the operator of a common carrier, but that Caltex did not bear liability as they had chartered the tanker from Vector Shipping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Caltex Vs Sulpicio Lines (Transpo Laws)

    Uploaded by

    Angeli
    194 views2 pages
    This case summary discusses a legal dispute arising from the sinking of the passenger vessel MV Dona Paz after it collided with the oil tanker MT Vector. The families of victims filed lawsuits against the owner of the passenger vessel, Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio Lines then filed a third-party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation and Caltex Philippines, seeking indemnification. The Court of Appeals ruled that Vector Shipping was liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines as the operator of a common carrier, but that Caltex did not bear liability as they had chartered the tanker from Vector Shipping.

    Original Title

    Caltex vs Sulpicio Lines (Transpo Laws)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case summary discusses a legal dispute arising from the sinking of the passenger vessel MV Dona Paz after it collided with the oil tanker MT Vector. The families of victims filed lawsuits against the owner of the passenger vessel, Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio Lines then filed a third-party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation and Caltex Philippines, seeking indemnification. The Court of Appeals ruled that Vector Shipping was liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines as the operator of a common carrier, but that Caltex did not bear liability as they had chartered the tanker from Vector Shipping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    194 views2 pages

    Caltex Vs Sulpicio Lines (Transpo Laws)

    Uploaded by

    Angeli
    This case summary discusses a legal dispute arising from the sinking of the passenger vessel MV Dona Paz after it collided with the oil tanker MT Vector. The families of victims filed lawsuits against the owner of the passenger vessel, Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio Lines then filed a third-party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation and Caltex Philippines, seeking indemnification. The Court of Appeals ruled that Vector Shipping was liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines as the operator of a common carrier, but that Caltex did not bear liability as they had chartered the tanker from Vector Shipping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Caltex vs. Sulpicio Lines, GR No.

    131166
    Campaner, Faith Angeli M.

    FACTS:
    MT Vector, carrying petroleum products of Caltex Philippines, collided with MV Dona
    Paz, a passenger and cargo vessel owned and operated by Sulpicio lines. Only 24
    survived the tragedy after having been rescued from the burning waters by vessels that
    responded to distress calls.

    On 1989, the relatives of Sebastian Cañezal (one of the deceased) filed a complaint
    for Damages Arising from Breach of Contract of Carriage against Sulpicio. Sulpicio,
    in turn, filed a third party complaint against Vector Shipping Corporation and Caltex
    (Philippines), Inc.

    When the case reached the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals ruled that Vector
    Shipping Co. and Caltex are equally liable under the third party complaint to
    reimburse/indemnify Sulpicio Lines for the following damages, attorney’s fees and costs
    which Sulpicio was adjudged to pay the plaintiffs:

    1. Compensatory damages for the death of Sebastian E. Cañezal and Corazon


    Cañezal the total amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000);
    2. Compensatory damages representing the unearned income of Sebastian E.
    Cañezal, in the total amount of THREE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND FOUR
    HUNDRED EIGHTY (P306,480.00) PESOS;
    3. Moral damages in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
    (P300,000.00);
    4. Attorney's fees in the concept of actual damages in the amount of FIFTY
    THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00);
    5. Costs of the suit.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not Caltex should reimburse/indemnify Sulpicio Lines for the
    damages, attorney’s fees and costs paid to the plaintiffs.
    2. Whether or not Vector Shipping Co. should reimburse/indemnify Sulpicio Lines
    for the damages, attorney’s fees and costs paid to the plaintiffs.

    RULING:
    1. NO, Caltex has no liability for damages under Philippine maritime laws.

    Caltex and Vector entered into a contract of affreightment, also known as a


    voyage charter.

    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, in this case, Caltex, is free from
    liability to third persons in respect of the ship.

    2. YES, because MT VECTOR is a common carrier.

    The parties entered into a voyage charter, which retains the character of the
    vessel as a common carrier.

    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. MT Vector fits the definition of a common carrier under Article
    1732 of the Civil Code.

    The Civil Code defines "common carriers" in the following terms:

    Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or


    associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
    passengers for passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
    compensation, offering their services to the public.

    Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act :

    Sec. 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the
    voyage to exercise due diligence to —

    (a) Make the ship seaworthy;


    (b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship;

    Thus, the carriers are deemed to warrant impliedly the seaworthiness of the
    ship. For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the
    voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew.

    The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition the


    vessel involved in its contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty
    prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.

    Thus, Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano (its registered


    operator) are held liable to reimburse/indemnify Sulpicio Lines, Inc. whatever
    damages, attorneys' fees and costs the latter is adjudged to pay plaintiffs in the
    case.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy