ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
Third Year D Mr. J. Claro Tesoro
ASSIGNMENTS IN TORTS DAMAGES First Semester (2014-2015)
June 03, 2014 – Orientation
June 05, 2014
Articles 1157-1158, 1162, 1170-1174, 2176, 2178 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 1-17.
June 07, 2014
Articles 1157-1158, 1162, 1170-1174, 2176, 2178 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 14-31 and Case 92 (read 321 SCRA 584 only).
June 10, 2014
Articles 1170-1174, 2176, 2178 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 25-27, 31-46
June 14 &; 17, 2014
Article 2176, 2178 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 9, 47-65
c
June 19 & 21, 2014
Articles 2176, 2178-2179, 2183 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 14, 15, 29, 31, 47, 61, 66-86,172.
June 24, 2014
Articles 1146, 1148-1150, 1154-1155, 2176, 2179-Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 17, 87-103. With respect to Case 92, read 321 SCRA 584 only.
June 26, 2014
Articles 1207, 1217, 1222, 2180-paragraphs 1,2,3,7 & 8; 2181-2182 – Civil Code
of the Philippines
Presidential Decree No. 603, Article 58
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, Sec. 6
Family Code: Articles 218, 219, 221 & Title X as amended by RA 6809
Cases 29, 104-118.
June 28, 2014
Article 2180 – paragraphs 1,2,3,7 & 8 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 23, 111-121.
July 01, 2014
Articles 2180-paragraphs 1,6, 7 ; 8, 2181, 2184-2185 – Civil Code of the
Philippines
Cases 57, 134,151, 163-180
July 03, 2014
Articles 1314, 2188-2194 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 11, 58, 81, 181-197.
July 05, 2014
Articles 682-683, 694-707, 1143 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Annotation: Legal Abatement of Nuisance 506 SCRA 676
Cases 198-222.
July 08, 2014
Articles 2195-2206, 2214-2215 – Civil Code
Cases 9,16, 90, 170, 203, 223-241..
July 10,2014
Articles 2195-2206, 2214-2215- Civil Code
Cases 47, 96, 242-260, 345, 380, 384..
July 12, 2014
Articles 2180-paragraphs 1,4,5 & 8, 2181 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 30, 34, 43, 118, 122-138, 186
July 15, 2014
Article 2180-paragraph 1, 4, 5 & 8 – Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 18, 21, 92 (read BOTH citations); 94, 97, 139-145. With respect to
142, read all 3 citations.
Article on “Hospital Liability”in Ateneo Law Jouirnal Vol. 55 (Dec.2010) No. 3, pp. 598-696.
July 17, 2014 - classes suspended due to typhoon Glenda
July 19, 2014
Article 2180-paragraphs 1, 4.5 & 8- Civil Code of the Philippines
Cases 43, 47, 98, 146 -165, 263
August 02, 2014
Articles 1169, 1175, 1226-1230, 1956, 1959-1961, 2195-2206, 2214-2216,
2226-2228-Civil Code
Cases 261-282..
August 05 & 07 ,2014
Articles 1169, 1175, 1956, 1959-1961, 2209-2213 – Civil Code
Central Bank Circular No. 416 and No. 905 as amended by Central Bank Circular No. 799
(series of 2013)
Cases 9, 103, 247, 283-310.
August 07 & 09, 2014
Articles 2209-2213- Civil Code
Central Bank Circular No. 416 and No. 905 as amended by Central Bank Circular No. 799
(series of 2013)
Cases 311-341.
August 12,2014
Articles 2216, 2221-2225 – Civil Code
Cases 13, 17, 30, 92 (Read 321 SCRA 584 only), 129, 138, 333, 342-360..
August 14, 2014
Articles 2216-2220 Civil Code
Cases 18, 47, 61, 91, 126, 361-383, 461..
August 16, 2014
Articles 2216-2220 – Civil Code
Cases 13, 18, 120, 138, 170, 229, 384-410.
August 19, 2014
Articles 2015, 2208, 2229-2235 – Civil Code and
4 Annotations on Attorney’s Fees.
Articles 9, 13, 18, 22, 27, 47, 91, 138, 179, 190, 263, 273, 283, 286-288, 297, 345, 360, 361, 364, 365, 368, 399, 406, 408-434..
August 23, 2014
Arts. 559, 1161, 1505 & 2177 - Civil Code
Arts. 100-113 - Revised Penal Code
Cases 107, 110, 133, 164, 435-458.
August 26, 2014
Arts, 29-35, 1161 & 2177 - Civil Code
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 111 Sections 1-5
The Confusing Fusion of a Civil Claim in a Criminal Proceeding 601 SCRA 570
Cases 458- 481.
August 28,,2014
Arts. 19-27, 29-35 & 2187 - Civil Code
General Orders No. 15
Reading and case on Product Liaibility
Cases 13, 70, 115, 179, 482-514.
Monday, June 2, 2014
TORTS & DAMAGES (2014-2015)
TORTS & DAMAGES (2014-2015)
Statutes:
1. Civil Code of the Philippines
Articles 19-27, 29-35, 559, 682-683, 694-707, 1143, 1146, 1148-1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1159, 1161-1162, 1169-1175, 1207, 1217, 1222, 1226-1230, 1314, 1505, 1956, 1959-1961, 2015, 2176-2185, 2187-2206, 2208-2235
2. Revised Penal Code: Articles 100-113
3. Other Enactments
a. Presidential Decree No. 603, Article 58
b. Family Code: Articles 218, 219, 221 &; Title X as amended by RA 6809
c. General Orders No. 15
d. Central Bank Circular Nos. 416
d. Central Bank Circular No. 905 as amended by Central Bank Circular No. 799 (series of 2013)
e. 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 111, Sec. 1-5
f. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, Sec. 6 (RA 9344)
4. Annotations & Article
a. Attorney's Fees as Damages (18 SCRA 360)
b. When the Defendant is Entitled to Attorney's Fees (20 SCRA 68)
c. Compensation for Legal Services (94 SCRA 794)
d. Judicial Guidelines on the Recovery of Attorney's Fees (104 SCRA 121)
e. Legal Abatement of Nuisance (506 SCRA 676)
f. The Confusing Fusion of a Civil Claim in a Criminal Proceeding (601 SCRA 570)
g. “Hospital Liability” in Ateneo Law Journal Vol. 55 (Dec. 2010) No. 3, pp. 598-696
Cases:
1. U.S. v. Barias 23 Phil 434
2. Samson v. Dionisio 11 Phil 538
3. Uy Piaco v. Osmena 9 Phil 299
4. Elcano v. Hill 77 SCRA 98
5. Tenchavez v. Escano 15 SCRA 355;64 OG 4239
6. Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v. First Farmers 103 SCRA 436
7. Vazquez v. Borja 74 Phil 560
8. Air France v. Carrascoso 18 SCRA 155; 64 OG 4524
9. Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp. v. Transport Venture, Inc. 456 SCRA 557
10. Singson v. BPI 23 SCRA 1117
11. Araneta v. de Joya 57 SCRA 59
12. Makati Shangrila Hotel & Resort, Inc. v. Harper 679 SCRA 444
13. Far East Bank v. Court of Appeals 241 SCRA 671
14. Cangco v. Manila Railroad 38 Phil 768
15. Rodrigueza v. Manila Railroad 42 Phil 351
16. Custodio v. Court of Appeals 573 SCRA 486
17. Philam Insurance Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals 666 SCRA 438
18. Flores v. Pineda 571 SCRA 83
19. Culion Ice, Fish v. Phil. Motors 55 Phil 129
20. Abaya v. Favis 3 CAR 450
21. Rasuman et al. v. Manila Reyna Hospital (CA) 76 OG 1638
22. Mendoza v. Casumpang 668 SCRA 436
23. De Guia v. Manila Electric Co. 40 Phil 706
24. Carlos v. Manila Electric Co. 34 Phil 55
25. Picart v. Smith 37 Phil 809
26. Achevara v. Ramos 601 SCRA 270
27. Bank of America v. Philippine Racing Club 594 SCRA 301
28. Corinthian Gardens Association v. .Tanjangco 556 SCRA 154
29. Jarco Marketing Corp.v. Court of Appeals 321 SCRA 375
30. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad 397 SCRA 75
31. PNR v. Vizcara 666 SCRA 363
32. Lilius v. Manila Railroad 59 Phil 758
33. Wright v. Manila Electric Co. 28 Phil 122
34. U.S. v. Knight 26 Phil 216
35. U.S. v. Tanedo 15 Phil 196
36. U.S. v. Tayongtong 21 Phil 476
37. Barcelo v. Manila Electric Co. 29 Phil 351
38. Ong v. Metropolitan Water District 104 Phil 397
39. BPI v. Lifetime Marketing Corp. 555 SCRA 383
40. Penullar v. PNB 120 SCRA 171
41. Canlas v. Court of Appeals 326 SCRA 415
42. Gan v. Court of Appeals 165 SCRA 378
43. People v. Santos (CA) 44 OG 1289
44. Phoenix Construction Co.v. IAC 148 SCRA 353
45. McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court 211 SCRA 517
46. ORIX Metro Leasing & Finance Group v. Mangalinao 664 SCRA 87
47. Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 300 SCRA 20
48. Corpuz v, Lugue 465 SCRA 90
49. Gabeto v. Araneta 42 Phil 252
50. Manila Electric Co. v. Remoquillo 99 Phil 117; 53 OG 1429
51. Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil 81
52. Delgado vda. de Gregorio v.Go Chong Bing 102 Phil 556
53 Umali v. Bacani 69 SCRA 263; 72 OG 5020
54. Vda. De Imperial v. Heald Lumber Co. 3 SCRA 178; 59 OG 6250
55. Bernal and Enverso v. House et al. 54 Phil 327
56. Bayasen v. Court of Appeals 103 SCRA 197
57 Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp. 597 SCRA 526
58. Sabido v. Custodio 17 SCRA 1088
59. Teague v. Fernandez 51 SCRA 181; 69 OG 7489
60. Cipriano v. Court of Appeals 263 SCRA 711
61. Calalas v. Court of Appeals 332 SCRA 356
62. PNB v. Cheah Chee Chong 671 SCRA 49
63. Philtranco Service Enterprise Inc, v. Paras 671 SCRA 24
64. Mercury Drug Corp. v. Baking 523 SCRA 184
65. Novo & Co. v. Ainsworth 26 Phil 380
66. Cenzo v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. 33 Phil 425
67. Afialde v. Hisole 85 Phil 67; 47 OG 2332
68. Derifar v. Escano 40 OG (12th Supp.) 252
69. llocos Norte Electric Cooperative v. Court of Appeals 179 SCRA 5
70. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes 452 SCRA 532
71. Tamayo v. Gsell 35 Phil 953
72. Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co 7 Phil 359
73. Teh v. Philippine Aerial Taxi 58 Phil 838
74. Bernardo v. Legaspi 29 Phil 12
75. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court 189 SCRA 158
76. Bustamante v. Court of Appeals 193 SCRA 603
77. Taylor v. Manila Electric Co. 16 Phil 8
78. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co. 52 Phil 900
79. Astudillo v. Manila Electric Co. 55 Phil 427
80. Del Rosario v. Manila Electric Co. 57 Phil 478
81. Ngo Sin Sing v. Li Seng Giap & Sons,Inc. 572 SCRA 625
82. National Power Corp. v. Heirs of Noble Casiman 572 SCRA 171
83. Allied Bank v. BPI 692 SCRA 186
84. PNR v. Brunty 506 SCRA 685
85. Dumayag v. People 686 SCRA 347
86. Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. 687 SCRA 462
87. Africa v. Caltex 16 SCRA 448; 64 OG 37
88. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring 21 SCRA 279
89. F.F. Cruz & Co. v. CA 164 SCRA 731
90. Layugan v. IAC 167 SCRA 376
91. Macalinao v. Ong 477 SCRA 740
92. Ramos v. Court of Appeals 321 SCRA 584; 380 SCRA 467
93. Jarcia, Jr. v. People 666 SCRA 336
94. Bontilao v. Gerona 630 SCRA 561
95. Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy 671 SCRA 91
96. Capili v. Cardena 506 SCRA 569
97. Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital 341 SCRA 760
98. Perle Cie. d Seguros v. Sarangaya III 474 SCRA 191
99. NPC v. Court of Appeals 453 SCRA 47
100. Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Court of Appeals 189 SCRA 88
101. Ferrer v. Ericta 84 SCRA 705
102. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Tan 465 SCRA 137
103. Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals 332 SCRA 241
104. Lafarge Cement Phils, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp. 443 SCRA 522, 544-548
105. Paez et al. v. de la Torre et al. 7 CAR 671
106. Fuellas v. Cadano 3 SCRA 361
107. Paleyan v. Bangkili 40 SCRA 132
108. Cuadra v . Monfort 35 SCRA 160
109. Tamargo v. Court of Appeals 209 SCRA 518
110. Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court 214 SCRA 16
111. Amadora v. Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 315
112. Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan 160 SCRA 784
113. Ylarde v. Aquino 163 SCRA 697
114. Salvosa v. Intemediate Appellate Court 166 SCRA 274
115. PSBA. v. Court of Appeals 205 SCRA 729
116. Soliman, Jr. v .Tuason 209 SCRA 47
117. Saludaga v. FEU 553 SCRA 741
118. St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals 194 SCRA 341
119. Regino v. Pangasinan College of Science & Technology 433 SCRA 56
120. St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos 376 SCRA 473
121. Child Learning Center Inc. v. Tagorio 476 SCRA 236
122. Martin v. Court of Appeals 205 SCRA 591
123. Heirs of Redentor Completo v. Albayda,Jr. 624 SCRA 97
124. Yamada v. Manila Railroad 33 Phil 8
125. Phil. Rabbit Lines, Inc. v. Phil. American Forwarders, Inc 63 SCRA 231, 71 OG 4863
126. Filamer Christian Institute v. Intermediate Appellate Court 212 SCRA 637
127. Siriban et al. v. Cababa et al. 10 CAR 654
128. Cuison v. Norton & Harrison Co. 55 Phil 18
129. Go v. Intermediate Appellate Court 197 SCRA 22
130. Ortaliz v. Echarri 101 Phil 947; 54 OG 1831
131. MRR v. Cia. Transatlantica & Atlantic Gulf 38 Phil 875
132. Mamaril v. Boy Scouts of the Phils. 688 SCRA 437
133. Allied Banking Corp. v. Lim Bio Wan 549 SCRA 504
134. Jayme v. Apostol 572 SCRA 41
135. Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Velasquez Jr. 321 SCRA 393
136. Almirez v. Infinite Loop Technology Corp. 481 SCRA 364
137. Acevedo v. Advanstar Co. Inc 474 SCRA 656
138. Hernandez v. Dolor 435 SCRA 668
139. Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete 574 SCRA 439
140. Cereno v, Court of Appeals 682 SCRA 18
141. Nogales v. Capitoi Medical Center 511 SCRA 204
142. Professional Services Inc.v. Agana 513 SCRA 478; 544 SCRA 170; 611 SCRA 282
143. Dr. Rubi Li v. Spouses Soliman 651 SCRA 32
144. Aquino v. Heirs of Raymundo Calayog 678 SCRA 609
145. Lucas v. Tuaño 586 SCRA 173
146. Bahia v. Litonjua & Leynes 30 Phil 624
147. YHT Int'l v. Court of Appeals 451 SCRA 638
148. Brito Sy v. Malate Taxicab 102 Phil 483
149. Belizar v. Brazas 2 SCRA 526; 59 OG 8376
150. Filcar Transport Services, Inc. v. Espinas 674 SCRA 117
151. Genson v. Adarie 153 SCRA 512
152. Genato Commercial Co. v. MRR 14 CAR 509
153.. Ramos et al. v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. 19 SCRA 289
154. Phil, Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals 350 SCRA 46
155. .Maxion v. MRR 44 Phil 597
156. Smith & Co. v. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co. 55 Phil 517
157. Marquez v. Castillo 68 Phil 568
158. Meralco v. Castillon 688 SCRA 455
159. Duquillo v. Bayot 67 Phil 131
160. Universal Aquarius, Inc. v. Quezon City Human Resources Mgmt. Corp. 533 SCRA 38
161. Campo et ai. v. Camarote & Genilge 100 Phil 459; 53 OG 2794
162. Keppel Cebu Shipyard Inc. v. Pioneer Ins. & Surety Corp. 601 SCRA 96; 681 SCRA 44
163. Duavit v. Court of Appeals 173 SCRA 490
164. De Leon Brokerage v. Court of Appeals 4 SCRA 517; 114 Phil 437
165. Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 426
166. Saria v. Mangubat 4 CAR 777
167. Chapman v. Underwood 27 Phil 374
168. Caedo v. Yu Ke Thai 26 SCRA 410
169. Serra v. Mumar 668 SCRA 335
170. Pleyto v. Lomboy 432 SCRA 329
171. Mallari Sr. v. Court of Appeals 324 SCRA 147
172. Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals 441 SCRA 24
173. Mendoza v. Soriano 524 SCRA 260
174. Merritt v. Gov't of the Phil. Islands 34 Phil 311
175. Rosete v. Auditor General 81 Phil 453
176. Palafox v. Province of llocos Norte 102 Phil 1186
177 Republic v. Palacio 23 SCRA 899
178. Mendoza v. de Leon 33 Phil 508
179. Torio v. Fontanilla 85 SCRA 599
180. Santos v. Santos 92 Phil. 281; 48 OG 4815
181. City of Manila v. Teotico 22 SCRA 267
182 Jimenez v. City of Manila 150 SCRA 510
183. Dumlao v. Court of Appeals 114 SCRA 247
184. Palma v. Graciano 99 Phil 72
185. Araneta v. Arreglado 104 Phil 529
186. Pacis v. Morales 613 SCRA 607
187. Daywalt v. Corporacion de Agustinos Recoletos 39 Phil 587
188. Gilchrist v. Cuddy 29 Phil 542
189. So Ping Bien v. Court of Appeals 314 SCRA 751
190. Lagon v. Court of Appeals 453 SCRA 616
191, People's Bank & Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber 20 SCRA 84
192. Dingcong v. Kanaan 72 Phil 14
193. Viluan v. Court of Appeals 16 SCRA 742
194. Abadilla v. Colombres et al. 9 CAR 859
195. Rivera v. Crespo 12 CAR 518
196. Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals 144 SCRA 596
197. Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils. Inc. 705 SCRA 242
198. Iloilo Cold Storage v .Municipal Council 24 Phil 471
199. Ayala v. Barretto 33 Phil 538
200. Sitchon v. Aquino 98 Phil 458
201. Velasco v. Manila Electric 40 SCRA 342
202. Cardona v. de Brozas 1 CAR 219
203. Ramcar v. Millar et al. 6 SCRA 517; 116 Phil 825
204. Tan Chat v. Municipality of lloilo 60 Phil 465
205. Umali v. Aquino 1 CAR 339, 58 OG 248
206. City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. 455 SCRA 308
207. Homeowners Assoc.of El Deposito v. Lood 47 SCRA 174
208. San Rafael Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Manila 46 SCRA 40
209. Farrales v. City Mayor of Manila 44 SCRA 239
210. Timoner v. People 125 SCRA 830
211. Owner of 51 of the Jackpot Slot Machines v. Director of the NBI 10 SCRA 395
212. Kapisanan Lingkod Bayan Inc.v. Lacson (CA) 61 OG 2487
213. AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp. 506 SCRA 625
214. Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City 658 SCRA 853
215. Canlas et al. v. de Aquino et al. 2 SCRA 814
216. Reyes et al. v. Villegas et al. 12 CAR 302
217. Farrales v. Dacanay 8 CAR 687
218. Magtibay v. Goco 1 CAR 418
219. Estate of Gregorio Francisco v. Court of Appeals 199 SCRA 595
220. Tamin v. Court of Appeals 208 SCRA 863
221. Telmo v. Bustamante 592 SCRA 552
222. Tayabas v. People 517 SCRA 488
223. Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corp. 195 SCRA 168
224. Saba v. Court of Appeals 189 SCRA 50
225. Huist v. PR Builders, Inc. 532 SCRA 74
226. Choa Tek Hee v. Phil. Publishing Co. 34 Phil 447
227. Mendoza v. Phil. Airlines 90 Phil 836
228. Lasam v. Smith 45 Phil 657
229. llao-Oreta v. Ronquillo 535 SCRA 633
230. Algarra v. Sandejas 27 Phil 284
231. Raagas v. Traya 22 SCRA 839
232. Angeles v. Lerma (CA) 45 OG (No. 6) 2589
233. Lacson v. Quisumbing 11 CAR 509
234. Associated Realty Dev't Co.v. Court of Appeals 13 SCRA 52
235. Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. 110 Phil 346
236. Puentebella v. Negros Coal Co. 50 Phil 69
237. Lemoine v. Alkan 33 Phil 162
238. De Castelvi v. Cia General de Tabacos 49 Phil 998
239. Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center 709 SCRA 409
240. Borromeo v. Manila Electric Co. 44 Phil 165
241. De Caliston v. Court of Appeals 122 SCRA 958
242. Northwest Airlines v. Catapang 594 SCRA 401
243. Shauf v. Court of Appeals 122 SCRA 713
244.Cathay Pacific v. Reyes 699 SCRA 725
245. Alcantara et al. v. Surro & Manila Electric Co. 93 Phil 472; 49 OG 2769
246. De Guzman v. Tumolva 659 SCRA 725
247. Junio & Soloria v. Manila Railroad 18 SCRA 732
248. Marchan v. Mendoza 24 SCRA 888
249. Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals 31 SCRA 511
250. Da Jose v. Angeles 708 SCRA 506
251. People v. Taan 506 SCRA 219
252. People v. Bariaan 531 SCRA 849
253. People v. Eling 553 SCRA 724
254. People v. Ocampo 601 SCRA 58
255. Davila v. PAL 49 SCRA 497
256. People v. Baguio 196 SCRA 459
257. Heirs of Raymundo Castro v .Bustos 27 SCRA 327
258. Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad 444 SCRA 355
259. Pereña v. Zarate 679 SCRA 208
260. GA Machineries v. Yaptinchay 126 SCRA 78
261. Vda. De Javellana v. Court of Appeals 123 SCRA 799
262. Bautista v. Maxino 81 SCRA 527
263. Benguet Electric Cooperative v. Court of Appeals 321 SCRA 524
264. Legaspi Oi! Co. v. Court of Appeals 224 SCRA 213
265. Globe Mackay Cable & Radio Corp. v. Barrios 119 SCRA 461
266. Lambert v. Heirs of Rey Castiilon 452 SCRA 285
267. Floreza v. de Evangelista 96 SCRA 130
268. Perfecto v. Gonzales 128 SCRA 635
269. Rodriguez Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court 135 SCRA 242
270. Herbosa v. Court of Appeals 374 SCRA 578
271. Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 684 SCRA 55
272. NPC v. National Merchandising Corp. 117 SCRA 789
273. Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco 30 SCRA 187
274. Sy v. Court of Appeals 124 SCRA 198
275. Albert v. University Publishing Co. 103 Phil 351
276. Joe's Radio & Electrical Supply v. Alto Electronics Corp. 104 Phil 333
277. Country Bankers Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals 201 SCRA 458
278. J Plus Asia Development Corp. v. Utility Assurance Corp. 700 SCRA 134
279. Limjoco v. Court of Tax Appeals 37 SCRA 663
280. Lambert v. Fox 26 Phil 588
281. Lawyers Cooperative v. Tabora 13 SCRA 762
282. Continental Cement Corp. v. Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. 659 SCRA 139
283. New Sampaguita Builders &; Construction, Inc. v. PNB 435 SCRA 565
284. DBP. v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 594 SCRA 461
285. Urban Consolidated Construction Phils. Inc. v. Insular Life Ass. Co. Inc. 597 SCRA 450
286. Ligutan v. Court of Appeals 376 SCRA 560
287. Trade & Investment Dev. Corp. v. Roblett Industrial Cons. Corp.. 474 SCRA 510
288. Gobonseng v. Unibancard Corp. 539 SCRA 564
289. Banco Filipino v. Ybañez 445 SCRA 482
290. Ting Ting Pua v. Lo Bun Tiong 708 SCRA 571
291. Viloria v. Court of Appeals 123 SCRA 259
292. Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co. Inc. 129 SCRA 439
293. Asiatrust Development Bank v. Tuble 677 SCra 519
294. People v. Arcillas 677 SCRA 624
295. Advocates for Truth-in-Lending, Inc.v. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board 688 SCRA 530
296. Lim v. DBP 700 SCRA 210
297. Phil, Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. v Kamalig Resources, Inc. 540 SCRA 139
298. Phil, National Bank v. Court of Appeals 196 SCRA 536
299. Floirendo, Jr. v. Metropolitan Bank 532 SCRA 43
300. United Coconut Planters' Bank v. Beluso 530 SCRA 567
301. Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma 527 SCRA 727
302. Svendsen v. People 546 SCRA 659
303. Zobel v. City of Manila 47 Phil 169
304. Ston Donne v. Inouye 40 Phil 728
305. Soriano v. Cia General de Tabacos 18 SCRA 999
306. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. First Metro Investment Corp 429 SCRA 30
307. Eusebio Calderon v. People 441 SCRA 137
308. Llenado v. People 668 SCRA 330
309. Santos Venture Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Santos 441 SCRA 472
310. Bareng v. Court of Appeals 107 Phil 641; 58 OG 1314
311. Plaridel Surety & Insurance Co. v. P.L. Galang Machinery Co. 100 Phil 679
312. Tan v. Court of Appeals 367 SCRA 571
313. Piczon v. Piczon 61 SCRA 67
314. Firestone Tires & Rubber Co. v. Delgado 104 Phil 920
315. Reformina v. Tomol, Jr. 139 SCRA 260
316. Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA 234 SCRA 78
317. Nacar v. Gallery Frames 703 SCRA 439
318. S.C. Megaworld Construction & Development Corp. v. Pasada 705 SCRA 584
319. Raymundo v. Galen Realty & Mining Corp. 707 SCRA 515
320. Sta. Lucia Realty Development Corp. v. Buenaventura 602 SCRA 463
321. Estores v. Supangan 670 SCRA 95
322. Escano v. Ortigas, Jr. 526 SCRA 26
323. Land Bank v. Santiago, Jr. 682 SCRA 264
324. Dela Cruz v. Planters Products, Inc. 691 SCRA 28
325. Mallari v. Prudential Bank (now BPI) 697 SCRA 555
326. Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City 697 SCRA 621
327. Country Bankers Ins.Corp. v. Lianga Bay and Community Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc. 374 SCRA 653
328. Bangis v. Heirs of Serafin & Salud Adolfo 672 SCRA 468
329. Catungal v. Hao 355 SCRA 29
330. Manufacturers Building Inc. v. Court of Appeals 354 SCRA 521
331. Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Del Rosario 335 SCRA 288
332. Central Azucarera de Bais v. Court of Appeals 188 SCRA 328
333. FNCB Finance v. Estavillo 192 SCRA 514
334. PVTA v. Tensuan 188 SCRA 628
335. State Investment House v. Court of Appeals 198 SCRA 390
336. People v. Iglesias 365 SCRA 156
337. Security Bank & Trust Co. v. RTC Makati, Br. 61 263 SCRA 483
338. Solangon v. Salazar 360 SCRA 379
339. PNB v. Court of Appeals 263 SCRA 765
340. Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. v. Court of Appeals 322 SCRA 73
341. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Alfa RTW Manufacturing Corp. 368 SCRA 611
342. Elegir v. PAL 676 SCRA 463
343. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca 14 SCRA 1063
344. Medina et al. v Cresencio et al 99 Phil 506; 52 OG 4606
345. MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v.Ssangyong Corp. 536 SCRA 408
346. Mindanao Academy v Yap 13 SCRA 190
347. PAL v. Lao Lim 684 SCRA 224
348. Ingal v. People 547 SCRA 632
349. Bacolod v. People 701 SCRA 329
350. Armovit v. Court of Appeals 184 SCRA 476
351. Bongal et af v. Ensoy et al 9 CAR 796
352. Celebes Japan Foods Corp. v. Yermo 602 SCRA 414
353. Land Bank of the Phils. v. Montalvan 675 SCRA 380
354. Ventanilla v. Centeno 1 SCRA 215; 110 Phil 811
355. Rafols v. Batangas Transportation 62 64 OG (No. 43) 7968
356. Araneta v. Bank of America 40 SCRA 144
357. SSS v. Court of Appeals 120 SCRA 707
358. Robes Francisco Realty & Development Corp. v. CFI of Rizal 86 SCRA 59
359. Swift Foods, Inc. v. Mateo, Jr. 657 SCRA 394
360. Consolidated Plywood Industries v. Court of Appeals 214 SCRA 209
361. Lazatin v. Twano 2 SCRA 842; 112 Phil 733; 61 OG 2473
362. Bright Maritime Corp. v. Fantonial 665 SCRA 350
363. Guita v. Court of Appeals 139 SCRA 576
364. Enervida v. de la Torre 55 SCRA 339
365. Soberano v. Manila Railroad 18 SCRA 732
366. San Miguel Brewery v. Magno 21 SCRA 292; 64 OG 13340
367. Cayetano-Abaño v. Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba 676 SCRA 204
368. Mambulao Lumber v. PNB 22 SCRA 292; 64 OG 10942
369. Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Agri-Medical & Educational Center
Bicol Christian College of Medicine 448 SCRA 413
370. Jardine Davies v. Court of Appeals 333 SCRA 684
371. San Fernando Regala Trading v. Cargill Phils. Inc. 707 SCRA 187
372. Manila Electric Co. v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corp. 540 SCRA 62
373. Flight Attendants & Stewards Association of the Phils. v. PAL 559 SCRA 261
374. Ventura v. Bernabe 38 SCRA 587
375. RCPI v. Verchez 481 SCRA 384
376. Fores v. Miranda 105 Phil 266; 57 OG 1939
377. Lopez v. Pan American 16 SCRA 431; 63 OG 5536
378. Zulueta v. Pan American 43 SCRA 397
379. Ortigas v. Lufthansa 64 SCRA 610; 71 OG 6383
380. Panam v. Intermediate Appellate Court 186 SCRA 687
381. Yutuk v. Manila Electric Co. 2 SCRA 337; 112 Phil 271; 58 OG 7057
382. Northwest Airlines v. Court of Appeals 186 SCRA 440
383. Panam v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Ongsiako 186 SCRA 561
384. Heirs of Engracio de los Santos v.Court of Appeals & Cia Maritima 186 SCRA 649
385. Capco v. Macasaet 189 SCRA 561
386. Maglutac v. NLRC 189 SCRA 767
387. American Express Int’l Inc. v. Court of Appeals 167 SCRA 209
388. PCI Bank v. Balmaceda 658 SCRA 33
389. Pantaleon v. American Express International Inc. 587 SCRA 551; 629 SCRA 276
390.Gonzales v. Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc. 692 SCRA 544
391. Valdez v. Tabisula 560 SCRA 332
392. Strebel v. Figueras 96 Phil 321
393. Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab 101 Phil 523; 54 OG 6599
394. Adriano v. Lasala 702 SCRA 340
395. Felisilda v. Villanueva 139 SCRA 431
396. Mercado v. Lira 113 Phil 112; 3 SCRA 124
397. Tamayo v. University of Negros Occ. 58 OG (No.37) 6023
398. PAL v. Court of Appeals 106 SCRA 391
399. Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals 454 SCRA 261
400. Mercado v. Court of Appeals 108 Phil 414
401. People v. Bautista 102 SCRA 493
402. People v. Vergara 700 SCRA 412
403. Prudenciado v. Allied Transport System Inc. 148 SCRA 440
404. Corona v. Court of Appeals 121 SCRA 865
405. People v. Ruiz 110 SCRA 155
406. Miranda Ribaya & Carbonell v. Bautista 95 SCRA 672
407. Domingding & Aranaz v. Ng 103 Phil 111
408. People v. Medrozo, Jr. 62 SCRA 245
409. Tan Kapoc v. Mesa 134 SCRA 231
410. Munsayac v. de Lara 23 SCRA 1086; 65 OG 9684
411. Martinez v. Gonzales 6 SCRA 331
412. Octot v. Ybanez 111 SCRA 79
413. People v. Arcillas 677 SCRA 624
414. People v. Taguibaya 658 SCRA 654
415. Matura v. Laya 92 SCRA 268)
416. Rotea v. Halili 109 Phil 495
417. Tankeh v. DBP 709 SCRA 19
418. Geluz v. Court of Appeals 2 SCRA 801
419. Inter Asia Investment Industries v. Court of Appeals 403 SCRA 452
420. Abobon v. Abobon 678 SCRA 399
421. Mirasol v. de la Cruz 84 SCRA 337
422. Alcatel Phils. Inc. v. I.M. Bongar &Co. Inc. 658 SCRA 741
423. Pirovano v. de la Rama S/S 96 Phil 335; 51 OG (No.2) 755
424. United General Industries Inc. v. Paler 112 SCRA 404
425. Rizal Surety & Insurance Co v. Court of Appeals 20 SCRA 61
426. Traders Royal Bank Employees Union Independent v. NLRC 269 SCRA 733
427. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co..v,. Inez Chavez & Co.18 SCRA 356; 64 OG 1758
428. Abrogar v. Intermediate Appellate Court 157 SCRA 571
429. Antonio v. Santos 538 SCRA 1
430. NPC Drivers & Mechanics Association v. NPC 565 SCRA 417
431. Masmud v. NLRC 579 SCRA 509
432. NPC v. Heirs of Macabangit Sangkay 656 SCRA 60
433. Miranda v. Carpio 658 SCRA 197
.
434. RGM Industries Inc. v. United Pacific Capital Corp. 675 SCRA 400
435. Martinez v. Barredo 81 Phil 1; 45 OG 4922
436. Nissan Gallery Frames v. Felipe 709n SCRA 214
437. MD Transit v. Court of Appeals 22 SCRA 559; 66 OG 2081
438. Cerezo v. Tuazon 426 SCRA 167
439. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. People 427 SCRA 456
440. Arambulo v. Manila Electric 55 Phil 75
441. Pajarito v. Seneris 87 SCRA 27 5
442. Baza Marketing Corp v. Bolinao Security 117 SCRA 156
443. Ciemente v. Foreign Mission Sisters (CA) 8 OG 1594
444. Connell Bros v. Aduna et al 91 Phil 79
445. Jamelo v. Serfino 44 SCRA 464
446. Joaquin v. Aniceto 12 SCRA 308; 63 OG 10838
447. De Los Santos v. Tan Khey (CA) 58 OG 7693
448. Steinmetz v. Valdez 72 Phil 92
449. US v. Baggay 20 Phil 142
450. Teleria v. Garcia (CA) 40 OG 115
451. Generoso v. Universal Textile Mills Inc. 95 SCRA 128
452. Miranda v. Malate Garage 99 Phil 670; 52 OG 5145
453. Bantoto v. Bobis 18 SCRA 690
454. Ramirez v. Yatco 9 SCRA 435
455. Chua v. Court of Appeals 443 SCRA 259
456. People v. Bayot 670 SCRA 285
457. People v. Escleto 671 SCRA 149
458. Barredo v. Garcia and Almario 73 Phil 607
459. Chan v. Yatco 103 Phil 1126
460. Padua v. Robles 66 SCRA 485
461. Ace Haulers Corp. v. Court of Appeals 338 SCRA 572
462. Safeguard Security Agency, Inc.v. Tangco 511 SCRA 67
463. Parker v. Panlilio and PAL 91 Phil 1
464. Lanuza v. Ping 100 SCRA 205
465. Virata v. Ochoa 81 SCRA 472
466. Marcia et al. v. CA 120 SCRA 193
467. Manio v. Gaddi 44 SCRA 198
468. Andamo v. IAC 191 SCRA 195
469. Yakult Phils. V. CA 190 SCRA 357
470. Mendoza v. Arrieta 91 SCRA 113
471. Escueta v. Fandialan 61 SCRA 278
472. Tactaquin v. Palileo 21 SCRA 346 and 21 SCRA 1431
473. Jocson v. Glorioso 22 SCRA 316; 64 OG 10042
474. PNB v. Catipon 98 Phil 287; 52 OG 5503
475. Albornoz v. Albornoz 98 Phil 785
476. Tan v. Standard Oil Co. 91 Phil 672; 48 OG 2745
477. Salta v. de Veyra 117 SCRA 212
478. Manantan v. Court of Appeals 350 SCRA 387
479. Sapiera v. Court of Appeals 314 SCRA 370
480. Manliclic v. Calaunan 512 SCRA 642
481. Lim v. Kou Co Ping 679 SCRA 114
482. Abellana v. Marave 57 SCRA 106
483. Santos v. Pizarro 465 SCRA 232
484. Velayo v. Shell Co. 100 Phil 186
485. PNB v. Court of Appeals 83 SCRA 237; 74 OG 6635
486. Manila Gas Corp. v. Court of Appeals 100 SCRA 602
487. Grand Union Supermarket v. Espino, Jr. 94 SCRA 953;76 OG (No. 29) 5073
488. California Clothing Inc. v. Quiñones 708 SCRA 420
489. Petrophil Corp v. Court of Appeals 371 SCRA 702
490. Cebu Country Club Inc. v. Elizagaque 542 SCRA 65
491. Heirs of Purisima Nala v. Cabansag 554 SCRA 437
492. Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp. 660 SCRA 392
493. Ardiente v. Pastorfide 701 SCRA 389
494. (Stanfilco) Dole Phils. v. Rodriguez 678 SCRA 651
495. Padillo v. Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc. 689 SCRA 53
496. AEI Phil. Inc. v. Coquia 558 SCRA 300
497. Comsavings Bank (now GSIS Family Bank) v. Capistrano 704 SCRA 72
498. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi 698 SCRA 280
499. Pe et al. v. Pe 5 SCRA 200; 115 Phil 186
500. Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals 18 SCRA 994; 64 OG 3238
501. Domingo v. Maliwat 3 CAR 913
502. Quisaba et al. v. Sta Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood Inc. 58 SCRA 771; 71 OG 7970
03. Padalhin v. Laviña 668 SCRA 549
504. Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals 109 Phil 629; 60 OG 1846
505. Wassmer v. Velez 12 SCRA 648
506. Castro v. Manila Electric Co. 9 SCRA 999
507. Toledo et al. v. Saulog Transit Corp. 3 SCRA 930
508. Equitable Banking Corp. v. Rural Insurance & Surety Co. 11 SCRA 774
509. Heirs of Pedro Tayag Jr. v. Alcantara 98 SCRA 723
510. Lim & Taha v. Ponce de Leon & Maddela 66 SCRA 299; 72 OG 68
511. Carandang v. Santiago et al. 97 Phil 94
512. Reyes v. Sempio Dy 141 SCRA 208
513. Bernaldes v. Bohol Land Transportation 7 SCRA 276
514. Vinzonz-Chato v. Fortune Tabacco Corp. 525 SCRA 11
515. Villanueva v. Rosqueta 610 SCRA 334
516. San Mateo v. People 692 SCRA 660
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Lecture on General Average by ULYSSES DIWA
Lecture
on General Average
by
ULYSSES
DIWA
Ladies and Gentlemen: Good
Evening.
Why Don’t we start with an example
to illustrate tonite’s subject.
Let us suppose the container
vessel, called “FERDIMEL MARCOUALDEZ” whilst on a loaded passage from Hong Kong
to Singapore, encountered heavy weather when she was a few miles off San
Fernando, La Union; and as a result of the heavy weather she became unstable so
that the master – Captain Fabian Enriles found it necessary to jettison some of
the containers marked “BENIGMO BONIFACIO”. After a sufficient No. of containers
were thrown over-board, the vessel regained even keel; took shelter at San
Fernando anchorage and when the weather calmed down the following day (thanks
to AMADO PINEDA), the voyage was resumed. However, it did not take very long
after departure from San Fernando,
when the vessel developed engine trouble which immobilized her, so that
“Salvage Assistance” was called for and the m.t. “EDWARDO COJREAGAN” came to
the rescue and towed the “FERDIMEL MARCOUALDEZ” to Bataan Shipyard &
Engineering Co. for repairs. Subsequent to these, the ship proceeded on her
voyage to Singapore
without further trouble – and, as the pleasant clause says: “and sailed happily
ever after”.
From that illustration, ladies and
gentlemen, we have in fact two general average situations: ONE: the “jettison”
of past cargo, and TWO: the “salvage assistance” rendered by the motor bug
“EDWARDO COJREAGAN”.
So, what is “General Average”?
General Average has existed for
thousands of years, and perhaps we should take a brief look at maritime history
which will throw some light on the matter.
Tracing
back, in the Western world, maritime commerce first developed in the
Mediterranean Sea and in particular in the Eastern end of it, where the two ancient
Phoenician cities of Tyne and Sidon – in what is now known as Lebanon –
developed as major shipowning and trading centres. During the last 600 years
B.C. the Greek cities, surrounding the sea, and particularly the Island of Rhodes, also developed as major
shipowning and trading centres. With the development of the Roman Empire, the
whole of the Mediterranean became a unified commercial area and activities
extended throughout it and out into the Atlantic, up the whole of the Western
seaboard of Europe, through the Red Sea to India, and down the East African
coast. At some time during this period of something like 1,000 years, there
developed the ideas which underlie the concept of “general average” as it is
known today. Reference to the idea occurs in the writings of the 4th
Century B.C. Greek lawyer and orator, Demosthenes – and when the great
“Byzantine Emperor and lawyer codified
the Roman Law in 533 A.D. we first find a definition of General Average which
itself refers back to the law of the Island of Rhodes. A relevant decree
provided:
“That if
in order to lighten a ship, merchandise is thrown over-board that which has
been given for all shall be replaced by the contribution of all”.
(You will
notice from that ancient decree that the subject matter involved was only the
act of throwing cargo over-board, or, what is commonly known in marine circle
as “jettison”.)
And
speaking of jettison biblical history tells us about an incident where, in the
middle of a stormy voyage, the apostles – had to throw over-board some of their
cargo and gears in order to save their boat from sinking. Whether or not that
contributed to the saving of the property and of their lives is a matter of
fact, because the story goes on to tell us that the scared apostles had to wake
their “holy passenger” up – who had to command the sea and the raging winds and
waves to calm down and stop. But surely, that incident is one of the earliest
recorded instances of jettison in Christian literature.
The
definition of general average developed from that Rhodian decree that I
previously mentioned. Its principle was retained in the Middle Ages and was
carried on to our time by the advanced maritime nations.
The basic
idea of general average in the English speaking sector of the world was first
enunciated in 1801 in the case of Birkley v. Presgrave wherein Judge
Lawrence declared:
“All loss
which arises in consequences of extraordinary sacrifices made or expenses
incurred for the preservation of the ship and cargo comes within general
average, and must be borne proportionally by all who are interested”.
General
Average, therefore, is basically a system of making good – or putting back to
the original financial situation prior to an occurrence – maritime losses based
on Equity.
IS THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL
AVERAGE ADOPTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?
ABA, SIYEMPRE!
General
Average reached our legal system through:
A. Continental Law – introduced by Spain which
resulted in the relevant provisions contained in our Code of Commerce.
B. The Common Law system of the U.S.A. and of England.
C. International Conventions.
Article
811 of our Code of Commerce defines General Average as follows:
“As a
general rule, general or gross average shall include all the damages and
expenses which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel, its cargo,
or both at the same time, from a real and known risk and particularly the
following:
The Code
of course, enumerates 12 instances of damages and expenses – as enumeration
which is not exclusive.
Having
gone into the extent and depth of general average in my studies in London, it is not unsafe
to say that our Philippines Codal provisions on the matter are now inadequate,
if not obsolete.
The first
example under Art. 811, for instance, says:
“The goods
or cash invested in the redemption of the vessel or of the cargo captured by enemies,
privaters or pirates, and the provisions, wages, and expenses of the vessel
detained during the time of the settlement or redemption is taking place”.
This
provision was relevant during the time of the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco.
And worse, Arts. 813 and 814, which prescribe the formalities in order to incur
the expenses and cause the damage corresponding to general average – are
self-defeating. If these are to be followed as a pre-requisite to a general
average act, nothing will be saved, including the sailors themselves.
But having
said that, even the English and American laws – or even those of other super
maritime nations are not – on their own, adequate. Moreover, inasmuch as every
maritime country has – considering its own local laws and practices – developed
its own law relating to general average, this naturally resulted in
considerable divergence in the treatment of general average. Owing to the
inconvenience caused by many differing laws governing general average, efforts
were made during the last century to draft and secure the adjudication of a
Code of general average which would be universally applied and as a result of
conferences of shipowners, merchants, underwriters, lawyers and Average
Adjusters held at York in England, Antwerp, in Belgium and other places, the
York Antwerp Rules of 1890 were devised. The original intention may have been
to incorporate these Rules into the national laws of the various countries; but
although this desirable object was never achieved, they were nevertheless
voluntarily adopted, almost universally by shipowners by reference in their
contracts of affreightment – which, by the way, are bills of lading or charter
parties. The York Antwerp Rules, by the way, have, since 1890 undergone
amendments which gave way to the York Antwerp Rules of 1924, 1950 and the most
recent of which are the York Antwerp Rules of 1974.
The York
Antwerp Rules of 1974 or the YAR, 1974, consist of (1) a rule of interpretation
which provides for the supremacy of the Rules over local laws and practice of
general average, (2) lettered rules (A-G) which are the general provisions and
(3) numbered rules (1-22) which are the specific rules – and which, by the way,
are not exclusive.
It should
be pointed out that it is common to find provisions in contracts of affreightment
or in marine insurance policies which provide – in effect – for the application
of other relevant rules where the YAR 1974 are not sufficiently useful to the
contracting parties.
Rule A of
the YAR gives the most modern and most appropriate definition of general
average. It says:
“There is
a general average act when and only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or
expenditure is intentionally and reasonably made or incurred for the common
safety for the purpose of preserving
from peril the property involved in a common maritime adventure”.
From this
definition, let us briefly touch upon the essential features of general average
or what in the local situation, Mr. Agbayani calls: requisites for general
average:
1. The common
adventure must be in peril.
The peril or changes must be real,
must be imminent; it must not be imaginary.
The fear of the possibility of
encountering peril is not sufficient to give wise to a claim for general
average contribution, nor is a mistaken idea that a peril exists when in
fact it does not.
This latter point is illustrated
by the decision in the English case of Joseph Watson v. Fireman’s Fraud
Inc., Co. of San Francisco, (1992): wherein during the course of a voyage,
smoke was seen issuing from the ship’s hold in which resin was stowed and water
was poured on the cargo and steam was injected into the hold so that considerable
damage was done to the cargo. A claim for general average contribution in
respect of what they considered as “sacrifice of cargo” was denied by the court
because, no evidence was found that there had ever been a fire in the vessel.
It was a mistaken idea or what we may locally term “AY MALI”.
- The sacrifice must be voluntary.
It must be an intentional act on
the part of many as opposed to accidental loss by maritime peril.
Case: Plaintiff’s vessel on a
loaded voyage to Port A, stranded in the channel not very far from Port A
docks, both ship and cargo in imminent peril. Vessel was refloated and owing to
serious leaks which developed, the pilot decided to take her to Port A docks.
Both the master and the pilot contemplated that the vessel would strike the
pier in entering the docks owing to the strong tide. The vessel did in fact
strike the pier and damaged herself and the pier. The court held that the
damage to both ship and pier, which was the direct result of intentional
docking was allowable in general average.
- The sacrifice or expenditure, as the case may be, must be reasonably made.
If it is a case of general
average, sacrifice – the act must be done prudently.
If it is an expenditure – it must be fair and reasonable.
Situation: Mr. P.A.
SIKLAB, whose vessel, the MV “MARUPOK” with cargo, runs aground and needs
salvage assistance, sends out his other vessel, the MV “MANINGNING” – a
thoroughly new cargo vessel and which is many miles away from the scene of the
grounding – to refloat the MV “MARUPOK” and at the end of the salvage work
charges an exorbitant P 3,000,000.00,
when reasonably a salvage tug nearby can easily do the same job for say P 100,000.00. Clearly, an Arbitrator or
the court can only allow a salvage cost of P
100,000.00.
- The sacrifice, or expenditure, must be extraordinary in nature, and not one which is necessarily involved in the performance of the contract of affreightment.
Example : If a
vessel meets with heavy weather which threatens to become worse and the master
decides to increase the speed of his vessel in order to reach port – the cost
of extra fuel is not allowable in general average.
- There must be a common adventure and a common danger.
It is essential to preserve more
subject matters than one: i.e. not just for ships alone, or for cargo alone, or
for freight alone – but there must be at least two interest at risk.
Example: If the
refrigerating machinery of a reefer vessel (or the so-called “BANANA OR FRUIT
BOAT”) on a loaded voyage from, say, Davao to Yokohama, breaks down on route
and the vessel puts into Manila to effect necessary repairs. In such a case any
threat of loss or damage would be limited to the refrigerated cargo, for as far
as the ship is concerned, the voyage could quite safely continue. Therefore,
the deviation to Manila
resulting in expenditure will not give rise to general average.
6. The object of the sacrifice or expenditure
must be nothing other than the preservation of the property imperiled in the
common adventure.
From the expenses incurred or
damages caused must follow the successful saving of ship and cargo or others.
G.A. Loses: i.e.
GENERAL
AVERAGE SACRIFICE AND EXPENDITURE
It will be noted from the
definition of G.A. that the loss may either be a sacrifice or an
expenditure.
I. SACRIFICE: Something voluntarily made. Thus, there may be a sacrifice of
cargo or a sacrifice of ship for the common safety.
A)
Sacrifice of cargo – (1) exemplified by jettison or throwing over-board
of cargo (as in our example of the jettison of BENIGMO BONIFACIO cargo from the
FERDIMEL MARCOUALDEZ).
(2)
damaged to cargo by fire extinguishing operations.
(3) damage to cargo caused by lightening
operations as when refloating a grounded vessel caused by intentionally running
a vessel ashore.
B) Sacrifices
of ship
(1) damage
to the vessel resulting from intentional breaking.
(2)
damage to the vessel’s engine used in efforts to refloat the vessel from a
position of peril.
(3)
damage to ship caused by water used in fire extinguishing operations, or by
lightening operations whilst this vessel is ashore and in peril.
II. EXPENDITURE: refers to extraordinary expenses incurred
for the common safety.
Examples:
1. Payment
for salvage assistance as in our case of the motor tug “EDWARD COJREAGAN”.
2. Expenses
of entering and leaving a port of refuge: port charges.
3. Detention
expenses at port refuge.
4. Cost of
labour and vessels used to lighten a ship ashore.
5. Cost of
discharging and reloading cargo for the purpose of effecting necessary repairs
for the safe prosecution of the voyage.
6. Cost of
storage for cargo discharged.
CONTRIBUTIVE
INTEREST, CONTRIBUTORY VALUES.
It will be useless, of course,
just to know what G.A. is without proceeding on to the very purpose of
the principles, i.e. contribution. Whilst at the inception of a voyage, the
trip is K.K.B., i.e. each party bear its own relevant expense of one sort or
another, should there be an intervening “general average” prior to completion
of adventure, then those property saved thereby should contribute
proportionately to the G.A. loss. In this regard, the YAR rules provide the
guide under Rule XVII: contributory values:
Ex: G.A. expenditure:
Salvage P
100,000.00
Port charges, etc.
10,000.00
Total
G.A. P
110,000.00
Ship: Sound
value: P
2,500,000.00
Less: damage 50,000.00
Cargo: CIF: P
3,000,000.00
damage: NIL = P 3,000,000.00 pays P 60,550.00
G.A. and Insurance
The
principle of G.A. is closely linked with marine insurance, but in fact the
principles of G.A. are much older than any known system of marine and G.A. is
better understood when studied apart from insurance. However, from the
inception of Marine Inc., G.A. was a liability undertaken by insurance –
unless, by express stipulation between the Insurer and the assured – the G.A.
contribution payable by ship is not covered by the policy on the vessel.
Why
“general average? What is the origin of the words general average”
As I said at the outset, the term “general”
means “common” or gross, i.e.
Not “specific” or “particular” that is why, in
contrast “particular average” is a partial loss of a subject written which is
caused by a fortuitous event meaning accidental loss of a part. In particular
average or P.A. the loss is borne by only one party.
Case of
Commerce: Arts. 809/810
Now back to “general average”
General is
therefore “common” or “gross” but what about “average”? “Average” is derived
from the ITALIAN word “AVERE” meaning “property” – “general average” therefore
means “common property” or if referring to loss on property: “common loss”.
AVERAGE ADJUSTER
From all
that exposition, we therefore have the science, the art and the practice. Let
us now come to know the scientist, the artist and the practitioner.
One who
adjusts a Particular Average Claim or prepares a General Average Statement is
by English tradition called an “Average Adjuster” which is what our profession
is called. We adjust “average” (or losses in marine property) and we are called
average adjusters. Again by tradition, altho we deal with “losses” – we are not
called “loss adjusters”; this is because loss adjusters are NON-marine
adjusters (fire, losses, construction damages etc. are their territory). Ours
is marine, i.e. ship or vessels and cargo on board same.
The first
average adjusters were old seaman or commercial travelers who waited at the
quay side. If a vessel suffered a loss because a G.A. act was committed, the
adjusters explained the ancient sea laws to the inexperienced parties who in
those days – if they were cargo owners, normally traveled with their cargos –
hence the term “super cargo”. In modern maritime commerce, of course, some G.A.’s
are much more involved and some P.A. bases are very complicated so that a
highly technical skill is required to deal with these cases. That is why
“average adjusting” just like other profession entails rigorous training and
devoted study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)