Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Republic Vs Luzon Stevedoring Corp

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, holding Luzon Stevedoring Corp. (LSC) liable for damages caused when its barge collided with the supports of the Nagtahan Bridge during a period of heavy rain and strong river currents. [1] While LSC argued this was due to force majeure, the Court found LSC knew of the danger posed by the conditions yet proceeded anyway, assuming the risk. [2] The collision raises a presumption of negligence that LSC failed to rebut, as the bridge was a stationary structure that normally allows passage of watercraft. [3] LSC was ordered to pay 192,000 pesos in damages plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic Vs Luzon Stevedoring Corp

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    94 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, holding Luzon Stevedoring Corp. (LSC) liable for damages caused when its barge collided with the supports of the Nagtahan Bridge during a period of heavy rain and strong river currents. [1] While LSC argued this was due to force majeure, the Court found LSC knew of the danger posed by the conditions yet proceeded anyway, assuming the risk. [2] The collision raises a presumption of negligence that LSC failed to rebut, as the bridge was a stationary structure that normally allows passage of watercraft. [3] LSC was ordered to pay 192,000 pesos in damages plus legal interest.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring Corp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, holding Luzon Stevedoring Corp. (LSC) liable for damages caused when its barge collided with the supports of the Nagtahan Bridge during a period of heavy rain and strong river currents. [1] While LSC argued this was due to force majeure, the Court found LSC knew of the danger posed by the conditions yet proceeded anyway, assuming the risk. [2] The collision raises a presumption of negligence that LSC failed to rebut, as the bridge was a stationary structure that normally allows passage of watercraft. [3] LSC was ordered to pay 192,000 pesos in damages plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views1 page

    Republic Vs Luzon Stevedoring Corp

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, holding Luzon Stevedoring Corp. (LSC) liable for damages caused when its barge collided with the supports of the Nagtahan Bridge during a period of heavy rain and strong river currents. [1] While LSC argued this was due to force majeure, the Court found LSC knew of the danger posed by the conditions yet proceeded anyway, assuming the risk. [2] The collision raises a presumption of negligence that LSC failed to rebut, as the bridge was a stationary structure that normally allows passage of watercraft. [3] LSC was ordered to pay 192,000 pesos in damages plus legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    REPUBLIC vs LUZON STEVEDORING CORP.

    G.R. L-21749 | September 29, 1967


    Reyes, J.

    Facts:
     Aug 1960: A barge owned by Luzon Stevedoring Corp. (LSC) was being towed down the
    Pasig river when it rammed against the wooden piers supporting the Nagtahan Bridge,
    causing the bridge to list (lean to one side). The river was swollen and had a swift current
    due to heavy rains.
     Republic of the PH (RP) sued LSC for actual and consequential damage caused by its
    employees to the bridge, amounting to P200k.
     LSC’s defense:
    o Exercised due diligence in the selection/supervision of its employees;
    o The damage was due to force majeure/fortuitous event because it took all the
    necessary precautions that day like:
     Using its 2 most powerful tugboats to row the barge down the river
     Assigning its most competent and experienced employees
     Double checking and inspecting the engines and equipment
     Instructing employees to take EXTRA PRECAUTION
    o That RP has no capacity to sue;
    o And that the bridge is actually an obstruction to navigation.
     CFI Manila: LSC is liable for the damage caused by its employees and ordered payment of
    P192k as actual cost of repair of the bridge, with legal interest.

    Issue/Ratio:

    W/N the collision of the barge with the supports of the Nagtahan Bridge was caused by
    fortuitous event; therefore LSC cannot be held liable
    - NO, the collision was not due to fortuitous event. LSC was correctly held liable for
    damages.

    1. Considering that the Nagtahan Bridge was an immovable and stationary object and actually
    provided adequate openings for passage of watercraft, the collision immediately raises a
    presumption of negligence on the part of LSC and its employees manning the barge.
    o In the ordinary course of events, the collision wouldn’t have happened if only proper
    care is used.
    2. Furthermore, the very precautions that LSC allegedly took completely destroy their defense.
    o Force majeure, by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable;
    inevitable. The mere DIFFICULTY to foresee the happening is NOT THE SAME as
    IMPOSSIBILITY to foresee the same.
    o The 4 measures adopted by LSC proved that they foresaw the possibility of danger, due
    to the obvious swelling of the river.
    3. LSC knew the perils posed by the strong currents, but still entered into a situation involving
    obvious danger, therefore assuming the risk. It cannot shed responsibility just because the
    measures it employed were insufficient.
    4. LSC should have employed a higher degree of care if they really believed the bridge was
    “improperly located.” The bridge has been erected for years and the barge, travelling up and
    down that bridge every day, should already have been exercising caution.

    Decision of CFI Manila is AFFIRMED. P192k in damages, plus legal interest.

    You might also like