FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 130068 October 1, 1998

Facts:
M/V Pavlodar owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC)
arrived at the port of Manila. Senen Gavino was assigned by the Manila Pilot's
Association (MPA) to conduct docking manuevers for the safe berthing of the vessel.
Gavino stationed himself in the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov,
beside him.
When the vessel was already about 2000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered the
anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel. However the
anchor did not hold as expected. The speed of the vessel did not slacken.
A commotion ensued between the crew members. When Gavino inquired about the
commotion, Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it.
The bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage
to the pier. PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against FESC, Gavino and MPA.
CA ruled in favor of PPA holding them liable with MPA (employer of Kavankov)
entitled to reimbursement from Gavino.

Issue:
Are the counsels for the parties committed acts which require the exercise of the
court's disciplinary powers?

Held:
YES. The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario thru its
associate, Atty Tria, is the counsel of record for FESC in both GR no 130068 and GR
no 130150. GR 130068 which is assigned to the Court's second division, commenced
with the filing of a verified motion for extension of time which contained a
certification against forum shopping signed by counsel Tria stating that to the best of
his knowledge there is no action or proceeding pending in the SC, CA or any other
tribunal.
Reviewing the records, the court finds that the petition filed by MPA in GR no, 130150
then pending with the third division was duly filed with a copy thereof furnished by
registered mail to counsel for FESC (atty Tria). It would be fair to conclude that when
FESC filed its petition GR no 130068, it would aready have received a copy of the copy
of the petition by MPA. It wa therefore encumbent upon FESC to inform the court of
the pending action. But considering that it was a superfluity at that stage of the
proceeding , it being unnecessary to file such certification of non forum shopping with
a mere motion for extension, the court disregarded such error.
On the other hand it took the OSG, representing PPA, an ordinately and unreasonably
long period of time to file its comment, thus unduly delaying the resolution of these
cases. In GR no 130068, it took 210 days before the OSG filed its comment. FESC was
not even furnished with a copy. In Gr no 130150 it took 180 days before comment
was filed. This disinclination of the OSG to seasonably file required pleadings
constitutes deplorable disservice to the public and can only be categorized as
inefficiency on the part of the govt law office.
Counsel for FESC, the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario, specifically its
asscociate Tria is reprimaded and warned that a repetition of the same acts shall be
dealt with severely.
The original members of the legal tean of the OSG are admonished and warned tha a
repetition shall also be dealt with more stringently.
Baka lang itanong kung ano ruling: The decision of the CA is affirmed. Gavino, MPA
and FESC are declared solidarily liable with MPA entitled to reimbursement from
Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the amount
equivalent to 75% of its prescribed reserved fund.