Cebu Shipyard v.

William Lines

Facts: Private respondent William Lines, Inc. was the owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury
passenger-cargo vessel, which caught fire and sank while undergoing dry-docking and repairs
within the premises of petitioner Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (CSEW) on
February 16, 1991. The subject vessel was insured with private respondent Prudential
Guarantee and Assurance Company, Inc. for P45 million. William Lines, Inc. sued CSEW for
damages and impleaded Prudential as co-plaintiff, after the latter had paid William Lines, Inc.
the value of the hull and machinery insurance on the M/V Manila City. As a result of such
payment Prudential was subrogated to the claim of P45 million, representing the value of the
said insurance it paid. The trial court rendered a decision against CSEW. Petitioner appealed to
the Court of Appeals which armed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner led a motion for
reconsideration, but was denied by the appellate court. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Whether or not Court of Appeals erroneously ruled on the inadmissibility of the expert
testimonies it (petitioner) introduced on the probable cause and origin of the fire.

Held: No. Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses. Although they may
have probative value, reception in evidence of expert testimonies is within the discretion of the
court. Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received
in evidence.
The word "may" signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as evidence is a
prerogative of the courts. It is never mandatory for judges to give substantial weight to expert
testimonies. If from the facts and evidence on record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable,
there is no need for the judge to resort to expert opinion evidence. In the case under
consideration, the testimonies of the fire experts were not the only available evidence on the
probable cause and origin of the fire. There were witnesses who were actually on board the
vessel when the fire occurred. Between the testimonies of the fire experts who merely based
their findings and opinions on interviews and the testimonies of those present during the fire,
the latter are of more probative value. Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err
in giving more weight to said testimonies.