Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    fed solis
    210 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the ship captain was negligent when his ship destroyed a coal conveyor facility during a storm. However, the Court of Appeals modified the damages from actual to nominal, finding that the actual damages were not proved. The Supreme Court ruled that temperate damages, not nominal damages, should be awarded. It found that some loss was suffered but the exact amount could not be proven. Considering the conveyor facility only had 5 years of life remaining, 50% of the replacement cost of P3,523,175.92 was a fair amount for temperate damages.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    63.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the ship captain was negligent when his ship destroyed a coal conveyor facility during a storm. However, the Court of Appeals modified the damages from actual to nominal, finding that the actual damages were not proved. The Supreme Court ruled that temperate damages, not nominal damages, should be awarded. It found that some loss was suffered but the exact amount could not be proven. Considering the conveyor facility only had 5 years of life remaining, 50% of the replacement cost of P3,523,175.92 was a fair amount for temperate damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    210 views2 pages

    Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    fed solis
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the ship captain was negligent when his ship destroyed a coal conveyor facility during a storm. However, the Court of Appeals modified the damages from actual to nominal, finding that the actual damages were not proved. The Supreme Court ruled that temperate damages, not nominal damages, should be awarded. It found that some loss was suffered but the exact amount could not be proven. Considering the conveyor facility only had 5 years of life remaining, 50% of the replacement cost of P3,523,175.92 was a fair amount for temperate damages.

    Copyright:

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

    63. SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation is the owner of the cargo ship
    M/V "Diamond Rabbit," (vessel), while respondent DMC-Construction Resource, Inc. is
    the owner of coal-conveyor facility, which was destroyed when the vessel became
    uncontrollable and unmanueverable during a storm.

    On 5 March 1996, respondent sent a formal demand letter to petitioner, claiming


    an amount for the damages sustained by their vessel. When petitioner failed to pay,
    respondent filed with the RTC a Complaint for damages against respondent on 23
    March 1998. Based on the pieces of evidence presented by both parties, the RTC ruled
    that as a result of the incident, the loading conveyor and related structures of
    respondent were indeed damaged. In the course of the destruction, the RTC found that
    no force majeure existed, considering that petitioner's captain was well aware of the bad
    weather, and yet proceeded against the strong wind and rough seas. It further
    concluded that "there was negligence on the part of the captain; hence, defendant
    [petitioner] as his employer and owner of the vessel shall be liable for damages caused
    thereby.

    RTC awarded respondent actual damages in the amount of P3,523,175.92 plus


    legal interest of 6%, based on the testimony of respondent's engineer, Loreto Dalangin
    (Engr. Dalangin). On 18 January, 2001, judgment by the RTC was rendered ordering
    defendant to pay plaintiff. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed via a Notice of Appeal on 5
    February 2001. The appeal was dismissed by the CA in a Decision dated 30 April 2010.

    The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with respect to the finding of negligence on
    the part of the vessel's captain. However, the appellate court modified the nature of
    damages awarded (from actual to nominal), on the premise that actual damages had
    not been proved. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Respondent filed
    a Comment on the Motion on 22 June 2010, and the former, a Reply on 29 June 2010.
    In a Resolution promulgated on 24 September 2010, the CA denied petitioner's Motion.
    Hence, the instant Petition.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the CA erred in awarding nominal damages to respondent after
    having ruled that the actual damages awarded by the RTC was unfounded.

    RULLING:
    We rule that temperate, and not nominal, damages should be awarded to
    respondent in the amount of P3,523,175.92. Factual findings of appellate and trial
    courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, especially when established
    by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence.

    Court has repeatedly held that petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
    Court may be brought only on questions of law, not on questions of fact. Moreover, the
    factual findings of trial courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal,
    especially when established by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence. And
    the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme
    Court except when they conflict with the findings of the trial court.

    In this case, two facts have been established by the appellate and trial courts:
    that respondent suffered a loss caused by petitioner; and that respondent failed to
    sufficiently establish the amount due to him, as no actual receipt was presented.
    Temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some
    pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be
    provided with certainty.

    We are convinced that respondent sustained damages to its conveyor facility due
    to petitioner's negligence. Nonetheless, for failure of respondent to establish by
    competent evidence the exact amount of damages it suffered, we are constrained to
    award temperate damages. Considering that the lower courts have factually established
    that the conveyor facility had a remaining life of only five of its estimated total life often
    years during the time of the collision, then the replacement cost of P7,046,351.84
    should rightly be reduced to 50% or P3,523,175.92. This is a fair and reasonable
    valuation, having taking into account the remaining useful life of the facility. Wherefore,
    the petition for review on certiorari is hereby dismissed.

    You might also like