CASE DIGEST - Far Eastern Shipping Company V. CA; G.R. No. 130068 J. Regalado; 01 October 1998

COMPULSORY PILOTAGE

Far Eastern Shipping Company V. CA; G.R. No. 130068

J. Regalado; 01 October 1998

DOCTRINE: The pilot does not take entire charge of the vessel, but is deemed merely the adviser of the master, who retains command and control of the navigation even in localities where pilotage is compulsory. 

 

FACTS:

The M/V PAVLODAR, flying under the flagship of the USSR, owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC), arrived at the Port of Manila from Vancouver, British Columbia at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning. The vessel was assigned Berth 4 of the Manila International Port, as its berthing space. Captain Roberto Abellana was tasked by the Philippine Port Authority to supervise the berthing of the vessel.

Appellant Senen Gavino was assigned by the Appellant Manila Pilots' Association (MPA) to conduct docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the vessel to Berth No. 4. Gavino boarded the vessel at the quarantine anchorage and stationed himself in the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov, beside him. After a briefing of Gavino by Kavankov of the particulars of the vessel and its cargo, the vessel lifted anchor from the quarantine anchorage and proceeded to the Manila International Port. The sea was calm and the wind was ideal for docking maneuvers.

When the vessel reached the landmark one-half mile from the pier, Gavino ordered the engine stopped. When the vessel was already about 2,000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel on the bow. The left anchor, with two (2) shackles, were dropped. However, the anchor did not take hold as expected. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. A commotion ensued between the crew members.

A brief conference ensued between Kavankov and the crew members. When Gavino inquired what was all the commotion about, Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it. After Gavino noticed that the anchor did not take hold, he ordered the engines half-astern. Abellana, who was then on the pier apron, noticed that the vessel was approaching the pier fast.

Kavankov likewise noticed that the anchor did not take hold. Gavino thereafter gave the "full-astern" code. Before the right anchor and additional shackles could be dropped, the bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. The vessel sustained damage too.Thus, Kavankov filed his sea protest. Then, Gavino submitted his report to the Chief Pilot who referred the report to the Philippine Ports Authority. Likewise, Abellana submitted his report of the incident.

Per contract and supplemental contract of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and the contractor for the rehabilitation of the damaged pier, the same cost the Philippine Ports Authority the amount of P1,126,132.25. Thus, PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against Far Eastern Shipping Co., Capt. Senen C. Gavino and the Manila Pilots' Association before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

The trial court ordered the defendants therein jointly and severally to pay the PPA the amount of P1,053,300.00 representing actual damages and the costs of suit. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the CA affirmed the findings of the lower court except that it found no employer-employee relationship existing between herein private respondents Manila Pilots' Association (MPA, for short) and Capt. Gavino.

Thus, CA, ruled instead that the liability of MPA is anchored on the provisions of Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65, and accordingly modified the trial court’s decision by holding MPA, along with its co-defendants therein, still solidarily liable to PPA but entitled MPA to reimbursement from Capt. Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the amount equivalent to seventy-five percent (75%) of its prescribed reserve fund. Hence, the present consolidated cases.

ISSUES:

1.     Whether the Pilot of a commercial vessel, under the compulsory pilotage, solely liable for the damage caused by the vessel to the pier, at the port of destination, for his negligence.

2.     Is the owner of the vessel liable if the damage is caused by the concurrent negligence of the master of the vessel and the pilot under a compulsory pilotage?

RULING:

1.     Generally, the pilot supersedes the master for the time being in the command and navigation of the ship, and his orders must be obeyed in all matters connected with her navigation.

He becomes the master pro hac vice and should give all directions as to speed, course, stopping and reversing anchoring, towing and the like. And when a licensed pilot is employed in a place where pilotage is compulsory, it is his duty to insist on having effective control of the vessel, or to decline to act as pilot.

Under certain systems of foreign law, the pilot does not take entire charge of the vessel, but is deemed merely the adviser of the master, who retains command and control of the navigation even in localities where pilotage is compulsory. 

It is quite common for states and localities to provide for compulsory pilotage, and safety laws have been enacted requiring vessels approaching their ports, with certain exceptions, to take on board pilots duly licensed under local law. The purpose of these laws is to create a body of seamen thoroughly acquainted with the harbor, to pilot vessels seeking to enter or depart, and thus protect life and property from the dangers of navigation. 

Upon assuming such office as compulsory pilot, Capt. Gavino is held to the universally accepted high standards of care and diligence required of a pilot, whereby he assumes to have skill and knowledge in respect to navigation in the particular waters over which his license extends superior to and more to be trusted than that of the master.

He is not held to the highest possible degree of skill and care, but must have and exercise the ordinary skill and care demanded by the circumstances, and usually shown by an expert in his profession. Under extraordinary circumstances, a pilot must exercise extraordinary care. 

In this case, Capt. Gavino failed to measure up to such strict standard of care and diligence required of pilots in the performance of their duties. As the pilot, he should have made sure that his directions were promptly and strictly followed.

2.     The negligence on the part of Capt. Gavino is evident; but Capt. Kabancov is no less responsible for the allision. His unconcerned lethargy as master of the ship in the face of troublous exigence constitutes negligence.

While it is indubitable that in exercising his functions a pilot is in sole command of the ship and supersedes the master for the time being in the command and navigation of a ship and that he becomes master pro hac vice of a vessel piloted by him, there is overwhelming authority to the effect that the master does not surrender his vessel to the pilot and the pilot is not the master.

The master is still in command of the vessel notwithstanding the presence of a pilot. There are occasions when the master may and should interfere and even displace the pilot, as when the pilot is obviously incompetent or intoxicated and the circumstances may require the master to displace a compulsory pilot because of incompetency or physical incapacity. If, however, the master does nor observe that a compulsory pilot is incompetent or physically incapacitated, the master is justified in relying on the pilot, but not blindly. 

The master is not wholly absolved from his duties while a pilot is on board his vessel, and may advise with or offer suggestions to him. He is still in command of the vessel, except so far as her navigation is concerned, and must cause the ordinary work of the vessel to be properly carried on and the usual precaution taken. Thus, in particular, he is bound to see that there is sufficient watch on deck, and that the men are attentive to their duties, also that engines are stopped, towlines cast off, and the anchors clear and ready to go at the pilot's order.

In sum, where a compulsory pilot is in charge of a ship, the master being required to permit him to navigate it, if the master observes that the pilot is incompetent or physically incapable, then it is the dury of the master to refuse to permit the pilot to act. But if no such reasons are present, then the master is justified in relying upon the pilot, but not blindly.

Under the circumstances of this case, if a situation arose where the master, exercising that reasonable vigilance which the master of a ship should exercise, observed, or should have observed, that the pilot was so navigating the vessel that she was going, or was likely to go, into danger, and there was in the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance an opportunity for the master to intervene so as to save the ship from danger, the master should have acted accordingly. ⁸³ The master of a vessel must exercise a degree of vigilance commensurate with the circumstances. 

Inasmuch as the matter of negligence is a question of fact, we defer to the findings of the trial court, especially as this is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  But even beyond that, our own evaluation is that Capt. Kabankov's shared liability is due mainly to the fact that he failed to act when the perilous situation should have spurred him into quick and decisive action as master of the ship. In the face of imminent or actual danger, he did not have to wait for the happenstance to occur before countermanding or overruling the pilot. By his own admission, Capt. Kabankov concurred with Capt. Gavino's decisions, and this is precisely the reason why he decided not to countermand any of the latter's orders. Inasmuch as both lower courts found Capt. Gavino negligent, by expressing full agreement therewith Capt. Kabankov was just as negligent as Capt. Gavino.

In general, a pilot is personally liable for damages caused by his own negligence or default to the owners of the vessel, and to third parties for damages sustained in a collision. Such negligence of the pilot in the performance of duty constitutes a maritime tort.

 At common law, a shipowner is not liable for injuries inflicted exclusively by the negligence of a pilot accepted by a vessel compulsorily. The exemption from liability for such negligence shall apply if the pilot is actually in charge and solely in fault. Since, a pilot is responsible only for his own personal negligence, he cannot be held accountable for damages proximately caused by the default of others, or, if there be anything which concurred with the fault of the pilot in producing the accident, the vessel master and owners are liable.

The owners of a vessel are not personally liable for the negligent acts of a compulsory pilot, but by admiralty law, the fault or negligence of a compulsory pilot is imputable to the vessel and it may be held liable therefor in rem. Where, however, by the provisions of the statute the pilot is compulsory only in the sense that his fee must be paid, and is not in compulsory charge of the vessel, there is no exemption from liability. Even though the pilot is compulsory, if his negligence was not the sole cause of the injury, but the negligence of the master or crew contributed thereto, the owners are liable. But the liability of the ship in rem does not release the pilot from the consequences of his own negligence. The rationale for this rule is that the master is not entirely absolved of responsibility with respect to navigation when a compulsory pilot is in charge.

The master is not entirely absolved of the responsibility with respect to navigation when a compulsory pilot is in charge.

Except insofar as their liability is limited or exempted by statute, the vessel or her owners are liable for all damaged caused by the negligence or other wrongs of the owners or those in charge of the vessel.

As a general rule, the owners or those in possession and control of a vessel and the vessel are liable for all natural and proximate damages caused to persons or property by reason of her negligent management or navigation.