G.R. No.
160088 July 13, 2011
Agustin P. Dela Torre, Petitioner,
vs.
The Honorable Court f Appeals, Crisostomo G. Concepcion, Ramon "Boy" Larrazabal,
Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation, and Roland G. Dela Torre, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 160565
Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation and Roland G. Dela Torre, Petitioners,
vs.
Crisostomo G. Concepcion, Agustin Dela Torre and Ramon "Boy" Larrazabal, respondents.
Mendoza, J.:
FACTS:
Crisostomo G. Concepcion owned LCT-Josephine, a vessel registered with the Philippine
Coast Guard. On February 1, 1984, Concepcion entered into a "Preliminary Agreement" with
Roland de la Torre for the dry-docking and repairs of the said vessel as well as for its charter
afterwards. On June 20, 1984, Concepcion and the Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation
(PTSC), represented by Roland, entered into a "Contract of Agreement," wherein the latter
would charter LCT-Josephine retroactive to May 1, 1984. On August 1, 1984, PTSC/Roland sub-
chartered LCT-Josephine to Trigon Shipping Lines (TSL), a single proprietorship owned by
Roland’s father, Agustin de la Torre. On November 22, 1984, TSL, this time represented by
Roland per Agustin’s Special Power of Attorney, sub-chartered LCT-Josephine to Ramon
Larrazabal for the transport of cargo consisting of sand and gravel to Leyte.
On November 23, 1984, the LCT-Josephine with its cargo of sand and gravel arrived at
Philpos, Isabel, Leyte. The vessel was beached near the NDC Wharf. With the vessel’s ramp
already lowered, the unloading of the vessel’s cargo began with the use of Larrazabal’s
payloader. While the payloader was on the deck of the LCT-Josephine scooping a load of the
cargo, the vessel’s ramp started to move downward, the vessel tilted and sea water rushed in.
Shortly thereafter, LCT-Josephine sank.
Concepcion was constrained to institute a complaint for "Sum of Money and Damages"
against PTSC and Roland before the RTC. PTSC and Roland filed their answer together with a
third-party complaint against Agustin. Agustin, in turn, filed his answer plus a fourth-party
complaint against Larrazabal. The latter filed his answer and counterclaim but was subsequently
declared in default by the RTC. Eventually, the fourth-party complaint against Larrazabal was
dismissed when the RTC rendered its decision in favor of Concepcion on July 10, 1991. The
RTC issued a judgment against the defendants and third-party defendant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the provisions of civil code is properly applied in the decision. (YES)
HELD:
Although certain statutory rights and obligations of charter parties are found in the Code
of Commerce, these provisions as correctly pointed out by the RTC, are not applicable in the
present case. Indeed, none of the provisions found in the Code of Commerce deals with the
specific rights and obligations between the real shipowner and the charterer obtaining in this
case. Necessarily, the Court looks to the New Civil Code to supply the deficiency. Thus, the
RTC and the CA were both correct in applying the statutory provisions of the New Civil Code in
order to define the respective rights and obligations of the opposing parties.
Thus, Roland, who, in his personal capacity, entered into the Preliminary Agreement with
Concepcion for the dry-docking and repair of LCT-Josephine, is liable under Article 1189 of the
New Civil Code. PTSC is liable to Concepcion under Articles 1665 and 1667 of the New Civil
Code. As the charterer or lessee under the Contract of Agreement dated June 20, 1984, PTSC
was contract-bound to return the thing leased and it was liable for the deterioration or loss of the
same. Agustin, on the other hand, who was the sub-charterer or sub-lessee of LCT-Josephine, is
liable under Article 1651 of the New Civil Code. In any case, all three petitioners are liable
under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code.
Clearly, the petitioners, to whom the possession of LCT Josephine had been entrusted as
early as the time when it was dry-docked for repairs, were obliged to insure the same.
Unfortunately, they failed to do so in clear contravention of their respective agreements.
Certainly, they should now all answer for the loss of the vessel.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED.
