Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano vs. Macasa, et al.

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised; questions of fact, such as which vessel was at fault in a maritime collision, are outside the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Furthermore, a common carrier is deemed to impliedly warrant the seaworthiness of its vessel, and its failure to do so constitutes a clear breach of its duty under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, rendering it liable to reimburse the passenger carrier for damages paid to victims.

On December 20, 1987, the passenger vessel MV Doña Paz, owned by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., collided with the oil tanker MT Vector, owned by Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano, in the Tablas Strait. The collision resulted in the death of thousands of passengers, including Cornelio, Anacleta, and Ritchie Macasa. The Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) found MT Vector solely at fault due to its expired licenses and incompetent crew, though this finding remained pending review before the Department of National Defense. Sulpicio Lines initially denied the incident and offered a P250,000.00 settlement, which the Macasa family rejected.

• The Collision: On December 20, 1987, MV Doña Paz collided with MT Vector, an oil tanker carrying 860,000 gallons of petroleum products, in the vicinity of Dumali Point, Tablas Strait. Only 26 out of thousands survived; both vessels sank. Victims Cornelio, Anacleta, and Ritchie Macasa were never recovered.
• Aftermath and Sulpicio's Response: Macasa family members went to Sulpicio Lines to inquire about the victims, but Sulpicio Lines initially denied the incident occurred and was uncooperative. Sulpicio Lines later offered P250,000.00 to settle, which the Macasas rejected.
• Filing of the Case: On October 2, 1991, the Macasas filed a Complaint for Damages against Sulpicio Lines for breach of contract of carriage, seeking civil indemnity, unearned income, actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
• Third-Party Complaint: Sulpicio Lines filed a Third-Party Complaint against Vector Shipping, Soriano, and Caltex Philippines, Inc. (charterer of MT Vector), alleging the collision was MT Vector's fault based on BMI findings that MT Vector sailed with an expired license, an expired certificate of inspection, and an incompetent crew.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found Sulpicio liable to the Macasas and ordered Vector Shipping and Soriano to reimburse Sulpicio Lines. The CA affirmed this liability but exonerated Caltex, deleted the actual damages, and reduced the death indemnity to P150,000.00 per victim.

• Non-Finality of BMI Findings: Petitioners argued that the BMI decision, still pending review with the Department of National Defense, is not final and executory and thus not binding on the courts.
• Fault of MV Doña Paz: Petitioners contended that MV Doña Paz was solely at fault for the collision, asserting navigational negligence given the absence of an official on the bridge and its higher speed (16.5 knots) compared to MT Vector (4.5 knots).
• Nature of Sulpicio's Liability: Petitioners maintained that because Sulpicio Lines' liability arises from culpa contractual, where the carrier is presumed negligent, Sulpicio cannot shift the safety of its passengers to third parties.
• Mutual Fault: Petitioners argued that in the absence of clear and convincing proof of sole fault, both vessels should be declared mutually at fault, with each bearing its own loss.

• Res Judicata/Law of the Case: Sulpicio Lines argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. constitutes res judicata or the law of the case, having established Vector Shipping's and Soriano's liability.
• Binding BMI Findings: Sulpicio Lines asserted that BMI findings, based on substantial evidence and technical expertise, are generally accorded respect by courts and establish MT Vector's sole fault.
• Macasas' Position on Damages: The Macasas maintained that Sulpicio Lines' liability for breach of contract is undisputed but contested the CA's deletion of actual damages and reduction of the death indemnity, arguing that the victims' possession of cash and jewelry was sufficiently proven.

• Binding Effect of BMI Findings: Whether the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry, which remain pending review by the Department of National Defense, are binding on the courts.
• Factual Determination of Fault: Whether MT Vector can be held solely at fault for the collision based on the principles of physics and navigation, absent eyewitness testimony.
• Third-Party Liability for Breach of Contract: Whether Vector Shipping and Soriano can be held liable to indemnify Sulpicio Lines, given that Sulpicio's liability to the victims arises from culpa contractual.
• Mutual Fault: Whether both vessels should be declared mutually at fault in the absence of clear and convincing proof of sole fault.

• Binding Effect of BMI Findings: The pendency of the BMI findings before the Department of National Defense does not limit the courts' jurisdiction to expeditiously try and decide cases; awaiting administrative review would unduly prolong the victims' quest for justice.
• Factual Determination of Fault: The determination of which vessel was at fault is a question of fact, outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition. The Court is not a trier of facts and will not re-evaluate the evidence already passed upon by the RTC and CA.
• Third-Party Liability for Breach of Contract: Vector Shipping and Soriano are liable to reimburse and indemnify Sulpicio Lines. MT Vector is a common carrier that breached its implied warranty of seaworthiness by sailing with expired licenses, a defective ignition system, and an incompetent crew, as established in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
• Mutual Fault: Declaring the vessels mutually at fault was rejected, the factual findings of the lower courts and the CA establishing MT Vector's unseaworthiness and sole fault being binding and conclusive.

• Question of Law vs. Question of Fact in Rule 45 Petitions — A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is on a certain state of facts, whereas a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised; issues requiring the review and evaluation of evidence are factual and beyond the Court's purview.
• Implied Warranty of Seaworthiness — Common carriers are deemed to impliedly warrant the seaworthiness of their vessels. A vessel is seaworthy if it is adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. Failure to maintain seaworthiness constitutes a clear breach of the duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
• Conclusiveness of CA Findings of Fact — The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court, subject only to recognized exceptions, none of which applied in this case.

• "For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact." — Defining the distinction between questions of law and fact for purposes of Rule 45 jurisdiction.
• "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." — Reiterating the standard of liability for common carriers in maritime incidents.

• Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 374 Phil. 325 (1999) — Controlling precedent. The Court sustained the ruling that Vector Shipping and Soriano are liable to reimburse and indemnify Sulpicio Lines, establishing that MT Vector was a common carrier that breached its implied warranty of seaworthiness and was solely at fault for the collision.
• Francisco Soriano v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 160839 — Denied due course in a Resolution dated February 13, 2006, sustaining the CA decision holding Vector Shipping and Soriano liable for reimbursement and indemnification.

• Article 1732, Civil Code — Defines common carriers as persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering their services to the public. Applied to classify MT Vector as a common carrier.
• Article 1755, Civil Code — Prescribes the duty of common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence. Applied to establish that the failure to maintain a seaworthy vessel constitutes a breach of this duty.
• Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure — Limits appeals to the Supreme Court to questions of law. Applied to dismiss the petitioners' factual arguments regarding navigational fault.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ruben T. Reyes.