Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TOPIC: Marine
FACTS:
In the course of its repair, M/V “Superferry 3” was gutted by fire. Claiming
that the extent of the damage was pervasive, WG&A declared the vessel’s
damage as a “total constructive loss” and, hence, filed an insurance claim with
Pioneer.
Pioneer paid the insurance claim of WG&A, which in turn, executed a Loss
and Subrogation Receipt in favor of Pioneer.
Pioneer tried to collect from KCSI, but the latter denied any responsibility
for the loss of the subject vessel. As KCSI continuously refused to pay despite
repeated demands, Pioneer, filed a Request for Arbitration before the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission CIAC seeking for payment of
U.S.$8,472,581.78 plus interest, among others.
The CIAC rendered its Decision declaring both WG&A and KCSI guilty of
negligence, the CIAC ordered KCSI to pay Pioneer the amount of
P25,000,000.00, with interest at 6% per annum. Both Keppel and Pioneer
appealed to the CA.
ISSUE:
To whom may negligence over the fire that broke out on board M/V
“Superferry 3” be imputed? What is the extent of the damage, if any?
RULING:
Undeniably, the immediate cause of the fire was the hot work done by
Angelino Sevillejo (Sevillejo) on the accommodation area of the vessel,
specifically on Deck A. As established before the CIAC – Pioneer contends that
KCSI should be held liable because Sevillejo was its employee who, at the time
the fire broke out, was doing his assigned task, and that KCSI was solely
responsible for all the hot works done on board the vessel. We rule in favor of
Pioneer.
At the time of the fire, Sevillejo was an employee of KCSI and was subject
to the latter’s direct control and supervision.There was a lapse in KCSI’s
supervision of Sevillejo’s work at the time the fire broke out.
2. Damages
(b) If it is injured to such an extent as to reduce its value more than three-
fourths; x x x.
The Loss and Subrogation Receipt issued by WG&A to Pioneer is the best
evidence of payment of the insurance proceeds to the former, and no
controverting evidence was presented by KCSI to rebut the presumed authority
of the signatory to receive such payment.