29. CARGOLIFT SHIPPING INC. v. L.

ACUARIO MARKETING CORP

G.R. No. 146426/ JUN 27, 2006 /YNARES-SANTIAGO, J./ DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMON -The M/T Count was exclusively controlled by petitioner Cargolift and the it had the duty to
CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS AND OTHER TYPES OF CONTRACTS see to it that the tugboat was in good running condition
PETITIONERS CARGOLIFT SHIPPING, INC
RESPONDENTS L. ACUARIO MARKETING CORP. and SKYLAND BROKERAGE, -That petitioner Cargolift’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to the barge
INC. cannot be doubted  had its tugboat been serviceable, the barge could have been moved away
from the stone wall with facility
FACTS.
 Respondent L. Acuario Marketing Corp., and respondent Skyland Brokerage, Inc., entered DECISION.
into a time charter agreement whereby Acuario leased to Skyland its L. Acuario II barge for WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED.
use by Skyland in transporting electrical posts from Manila to Bataan. Winner: respondent L. Acuario
 At the same time, Skyland also entered into a separate contract with petitioner Cargolift, for
the latter’s tugboats (M/T Beejay and M/T Count) to tow the aforesaid barge.
 After the whole operation was concluded, the L. Acuario II barge was brought to Acuario’s
shipyard where it was allegedly discovered by that it was listing due to a leak in its hull.
 It was informed by the skipper of the tugboat that the damage was sustained in Bataan  it
was learned later the due to strong winds and large waves, the barge repeatedly hit its hull
on the wall, thus prompting the barge patron to alert the tugboat captain of the M/T Count to
tow the barge farther out to sea
 However, the tugboat failed to pull the barge to a safer distance due to engine malfunction,
thereby causing the barge to sustain a hole in its hull.
 Acuario spent the total sum of P97,021.20 for the repairs, and, pursuant to the contract,
sought reimbursement from Skyland but failed which prompted Acuario to file a suit before
the RTC which was granted.
 Skyland filed an appeal with CA  AFFIRMED RTC’s ruling
 Skyland, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against petitioner alleging that it was
responsible for the damage sustained by the barge.

ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON petitioner Cargolift should be liable for the damages sustained by the L.
Acuario II barge. – YES.

-In the performance of its contractual obligation to respondent Skyland, petitioner Cargolift
was required to observe the due diligence of a good father of the family  The negligence of
the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the
resulting loss suffered by the obligee; fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure
to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the
obligation so demands

-In the present case, the exercise of ordinary prudence by petitioner Cargolift means ensuring
that its tugboat is free of mechanical problems  while adverse weather has always been a
real threat to maritime commerce, the least that petitioner Cargolift could have done was to
ensure that the M/T Count or any of its other tugboats would be able to secure the barge at all
times during the engagement

-This is especially true when considered with the fact that Acuario’s barge was wholly
dependent upon petitioner’s tugboat for propulsion; the barge was not equipped with any
engine and needed a tugboat for maneuvering

-If the petitioner only subjected the M/T Count to a more rigid check-up or inspection, the
engine malfunction could have been discovered or avoided