Doruelo vs. Ministry of National Defense

Administrative findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are conclusive on review, but an administrative penalty may not be increased on the basis of extrinsic information outside the hearing record. The tanker officers' suspension was thus affirmed on the Board's supported findings, while the additional one-year suspension grounded on another alleged collision was vacated.

Captain Edgardo Doruelo mastered LSCO Petroparcel, a steel tanker owned and operated by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, with Anthony Estenzo as chief mate, while Patron Delfin Villarosa mastered MB Maria Efigenia XV, a fishing boat owned and operated by Maria Efigenia Shipping Corporation. Maritime collisions were investigated by the Philippine Coast Guard through the Board of Marine Inquiry, with appeal to the then Ministry of National Defense. Navigation between overtaking and overtaken vessels was governed by Rule 24 of the International Rules of the Road.

On September 21, 1977, LSCO Petroparcel and two fishing boats, MB Maria Efigenia XV towing MB Maria Efigenia XI, were headed in the same direction, with Petroparcel as the faster overtaking vessel. Petroparcel, operating at eight knots, overtook the fishing boats in 45 minutes and came abeam the towing boat, MB Maria Efigenia XV, which was travelling at six knots while towing another vessel. A collision ensued resulting in the sinking of MB Maria Efigenia XV, prompting twin marine protests by Doruelo as master of Petroparcel and by Villarosa as patron of the fishing boat.

According to Doruelo, when abeam the fishing boat with 300 meters separating them, he altered course to left easy to give leeway to the fishing boat and to an unidentified dry cargo vessel allegedly approaching from the opposite direction. The fishing boat allegedly followed by altering to hard port, prompting his hard-port order, until the fishing boat struck Petroparcel at her starboard side. In effect, the defense was that the overtaking vessel had kept out of the way but was pursued and hit by the overtaken vessel.

The Board of Marine Inquiry did not believe such claim. It held that MB Maria Efigenia XV, slower at six knots and further slowed by towing another boat, could not have overtaken the eight-knot Petroparcel with a 300-meter head start and struck her starboard side. The Board accordingly found Petroparcel at fault as the overtaking vessel that failed to keep clear, suspended Doruelo and Estenzo, and exonerated Villarosa while admonishing him not to lose composure in similar situations.

• Misconstruance of Facts: Petitioner argued that the public respondents misconstrued the facts, challenging the Board's rejection of their version that the fishing boat pursued and struck the tanker after the tanker altered course to give leeway.

• Liability for Collision: Whether the tanker officers were liable for the collision as the overtaking vessel that failed to keep out of the way of the overtaken fishing boats.
• Increase of Penalty on Appeal: Whether the Ministry of National Defense could increase Doruelo's suspension from two to three years based on verified information of another sea collision not in the hearing record.

• Liability for Collision: Yes. Liability was sustained, the Board's findings being supported by substantial, even preponderant, evidence that the overtaking tanker failed to keep clear under Rule 24.
• Increase of Penalty on Appeal: No. The increase was set aside, a decision having to rest on evidence presented at the hearing or contained in the record and disclosed to the parties.

• Liability for Collision: The rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, control on review was applied. Substantial evidence, more than a mere scintilla, means relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The evidence showed Petroparcel as the 8-knot overtaking vessel abeam the 6-knot towing fishing boat with 300 meters separation; under Rule 24 the overtaking vessel was required to keep out of the way. Doruelo's claim that the slower towing boat overtook and hit Petroparcel's starboard side after successive port maneuvers was found physically improbable and properly disbelieved, the Board being in a better position to appraise the evidence and its rejection of petitioners' version not constituting misconstruance.
• Increase of Penalty on Appeal: The cardinal administrative due process requirement that the decision be rendered on evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected was applied. The Ministry increased Doruelo's suspension based on verified information of involvement in another collision indicating propensity to reckless operation, which was not duly presented or disclosed. If liability for another mishap existed, it had to be determined in proper proceedings, not by augmenting the penalty in the present case.

• Substantial Evidence Rule in Administrative Review — Findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on reviewing authorities. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not qualify. Applied to sustain the Board of Marine Inquiry's conclusion that the faster overtaking tanker failed to keep clear, its evaluation being thorough, judicious, and even preponderant.
• Overtaking Vessel Duty — Under Rule 24(a) of the International Rules of the Road, every vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel. Applied to hold LSCO Petroparcel, as the 8-knot overtaking vessel abeam the slower towing fishing boats, bound to keep clear and liable for the resulting collision and sinking.
• Administrative Due Process; Decision on Record Evidence — An administrative decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. Applied to annul the Ministry's increase of Doruelo's suspension from two to three years based on extrinsic information of another collision, reinstating the original two-year penalty.

• "(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, every vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel." — States the controlling navigation rule imposing the duty to keep clear on LSCO Petroparcel as the overtaking vessel.
• "It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" — Defines substantial evidence, the standard sustaining the Board's factual findings against the claim of misconstruance.
• "[t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties effected." — States the due process ground for vacating the increased penalty based on extrinsic information of another collision.
• "If Captain Doruelo is liable for another sea mishap, let his liability be determined in the proper proceedings." — Explains why propensity information could not justify augmentation of the penalty in the present case.

• Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) — Cited as authority for the definition of substantial evidence and for the cardinal requirement that an administrative decision rest on evidence presented at the hearing or contained in the record and disclosed to the parties.

• Rule 24(a), International Rules of the Road — Provides that every overtaking vessel shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel; applied to impose fault on LSCO Petroparcel as the faster overtaking tanker that came abeam the fishing boats before the collision.
• Administrative Due Process Requirement — Requires that decisions be based on hearing evidence or record evidence disclosed to the parties; applied to invalidate consideration of unverified extrinsic information of another collision to increase the penalty.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.