G.R. No. 125483 . February 1, 2001.
LUDO AND LUYM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GABISAN SHIPPING LINES, INC. and/or ANSELMO OLASIMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ludo and Luym Corporation owns a private wharf. On May 21, 1990, respondent Gabisan Shipping Lines’ vessel, MV Miguela, captained by Anselmo Olasiman, docked at said wharf. Petitioner’s employee, Ireneo Naval, guided the docking. According to petitioner, MV Miguela failed to slow down adequately, did not release its anchor, and rammed a fender pile cluster, causing damage. A marine surveyor estimated repair costs at P95,000. Petitioner demanded payment, but respondents refused, prompting a complaint for damages.
Respondents denied causing the damage. They claimed the vessel maneuvered properly, slowing down and stopping its engine at a safe distance. Their witness, a diver, initially reported no damage but later testified under oath to seeing a crack and a detached post, with seashells and seaweed underneath, suggesting prior damage. The Regional Trial Court ruled for petitioner, awarding actual, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint, finding petitioner’s eyewitness incompetent on nautical matters and noting the possibility the damage was pre-existing.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court’s finding that respondents were negligent and liable for the damage to the wharf?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centered on the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the evaluation of evidence. The incident—a vessel under respondents’ exclusive control ramming a stationary dock—falls under res ipsa loquitur, creating a presumption of negligence. Respondents failed to rebut this presumption persuasively. The Court found the appellate court’s reliance on speculation about prior damage from other vessels unconvincing, as respondents’ own diver’s testimony confirmed fresh damage consistent with a collision.
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the crew’s competence and actions. Testimony revealed that Captain Olasiman ordered “stop engine” only 50 meters from the pier, despite knowing the vessel needed 100 meters to halt, and that restarting the engine for a reverse maneuver caused fatal delay. Evidence also showed the captain and chief mate lacked formal maritime training. This tangible proof of operational error and inadequate crew qualification substantiated the finding of negligence. Therefore, the appellate court misapprehended the facts, and the trial court’s judgment based on a preponderance of evidence was correct.