Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
G.R. No.
L-21749 September 29, 1967
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
barge owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation was being towed down the Pasig river by tugboats also belonging to the same corporation, when the barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge, smashing the posts and causing the bridge to list. The river, at the time, was swollen and the current swift, on account of the heavy downpour
Sued by the Republic of the Philippines for actual and consequential damage caused by its employees Luzon Stevedoring Corporation disclaimed liability therefor, on the grounds that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees; that the damages to the bridge were caused by force majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sue; and that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation.
trial court rendered judgment holding the defendant liable for the damage caused by its employees
ISSUE
Whether the appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation is negligent
RULING
considering that the Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft, including barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule
the appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, knowing and appreciating the perils posed by the swollen stream and its swift current, voluntarily entered into a situation involving obvious danger; it therefore assured the risk, and can not shed responsibility merely because the precautions it adopted turned out to be insufficient. Hence, the lower Court committed no error in holding it negligent in not suspending operations and in holding it liable for the damages caused.
WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of the lower Court appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. Costs against the defendant-appellant.
