REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 12-CEBU CITY

SULPICIO LINES, INC., AND

JORDAN L. GO,
Plaintiff , CIVIL CASE NO. CEB-34888
FOR: MARITIME TORT, BREACH OF
-versus – TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE
BILL OF LADING AND DAMAGES
BAYER CROPSCIENCE, AND
SEAQUEST LOGISTICS,
Defendants,
x--------------------------------/

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JORDAN GO

JORDAN L. GO –testified that he is 41 years old, married, a president and CEO of

Sulpicio Lines, Inc., and a resident of 415 San Fernando St., Binondo, Manila. He is
one of the plaintiffs of this case and knew his co-plaintiff Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
which is engaged in a domestic inter-island shipping. He knew M/V Princess of the
Stars due to the fact that she was their flagship vessel and duly licensed to be
operated in the inter-island route between Manila and Cebu. As President and CEO
of Sulpicio Lines, Inc., he has knowledge that the vessel has trading licenses and
certificates (Exhibits “U” to “MM-1”) which he identified as the following;
Passenger Safety Certification duly issued by the Maritime Industry Authority
which allows the ship to sail; Ship Station License, a license for the radio
communication equipment on board a ship issued by NTC; Minimum Manning
Certificate indicates the minimum number of two that should be on board the ship
to allow their safe navigation; Coastwise License issued by MARINA to allow the
ship ply its route; Certificate of Stability issued by Sangani Engineering Works,
which determine the stability calculations of the ship; Certificate of Vessel
Registry issued by MARINA to show that the ship was registered under the
Philippine Flag; Certificate of Ownership to show that the ship is duly owned by
Sulpicio Lines,Inc.; Safety Management Certificate issued by Bureau of Veritas to
show the safety management system of the Princess of the Stars; Tonnage
Measurement issued by MARINA that shows the tonnage calculations of the ship;
Load Line Certificate that shows the allowable load line for the Princes of the
Stars; Garbage Management Plan which is required and received by the Philippine
Coast Guard for protection against maritime pollutant; Certificate of Compliance
with Minimum Service Standards for 2nd Class Non-Air conditioned Passenger
Accommodation under category 1 to show that the ship complies with the minimum
standard required by MARINA for the second class accommodation; Certificate
of Compliance for Minimum Service Standard for 1st and 2nd Level Class Passenger
Accommodation sets with more than 4 hours of travel time under MC6565E which
is required by MARINA to determine if the ship complied with the service
standards; SAFETY FILM CERTIFICATION certifying that the ship possess the
appropriate safety film that showed and played on board the vessel upon
departure; OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION CERTIFICATE issued by the Philippine
Coast Guard stating that the ship complied with the oil pollution prevention
requirements; CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE issued by Maritime
Industry Authority which is a basic license for selling the appropriate goods; the
next is an attachment which is an attachment to the amendments of the company’s
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE (CPC); Exhibit “LL” are also
amendments to the CPC; Exhibit “MM” is the CLASS CERTIFICATE issued by the
Bureau Veritas that the ship, the Princes of the Stars was seaworthy when she was
inspected.

Plaintiffs, through their counsel manifested that in identifying the vessel

certificates and the trading licenses, the witness was reading the title or caption
of the documents marked as Exhibits “U” up to Exhibits “MM-1” inclusive while
photocopies have certified true copy stamped on each and every exhibit marked
and these documents were all examined by the defendants’ counsel.

The witness stated that M/V Princess of the Stars gross tonnage is
23,824.17 while the net tonnage is 16,040.19. The vessel measured 185 meters in
length by 29.4 meters in breadth and a depth of 14.5 meters. She has 7 decks
including the roof deck and was the fastest and the biggest inter-island Philippine
vessel of her time. The M/V Princess of the Stars was a combination of passenger
and cargo vessel.

As the Vice President for Marketing of the Sulpicio Lines, Inc. sometime in
2008, his group was responsible for establishing relationships with various clients
to secure regular cargo bookings for their various vessels. He recalled that M/V
Princess of the Stars had a regular voyage from Manila to the port of Cebu on
June 20, 2008 and left the port at around 8:04 in the evening with passengers and
cargoes on board. He was then familiar of a shipment on board the vessel a one unit
20-footer container van that contain various goods with Seaquest Logistic Manila
as the shipper and Seaquest Logistic Cebu as consignee carried under Bill of Lading
No. T-14 Voyage no. 393. This is so because Seaquest has been their regular
customer and shipped containers in their various destinations. He likewise
identified the Bill of Lading T-14 (Exhibit “G-2”) as the cargo of Seaquest
Logistics.

He narrated that there are certain procedure that a shipper of a regular or

special cargo must follow affecting particular cargo to be loaded on board their
vessel. A shipper must fill up a pro-forma bill of lading that discloses pertinent
information, the description of goods, the weight, the measurement, and the
payment of different fare for special or regular cargo. When ask the difference
between regular and special cargo was, witness said that special cargo was normally
called dangerous cargo. And for dangerous cargo, the shipper needs to disclose the
nature of the shipment for proper freight calculations and in order to secure the
required permits from the issuing government agency concerned. He defined
dangerous cargo as a cargo that is harmful to human and marine environment and it
is known to all their shippers. The filling up of pro-forma bill of lading by the
shipper is required for all types of cargo to make sure all the shippers including
the defendant of this case, Seaquest, in order that the shipping lines would put the
accurate information on their Bill of Lading. And in this present case, witness
identified the pro-forma bill of lading (Exhibit “YY”) as the one filled up by the
shipper Seaquest.

Even if he was then the Vice President for Marketing, their company only
learned that the container van covered by the Bill of Lading T-14 was toxic and
hazardous cargoes on June 21, 2008 after M/V Princess of the Stars capsized.
Witness recalled that their company received a letter from Del Monte, Philippines,
who is also a shipper, informing the witness that Del Monte has also toxic cargo on
board M/V Princess of the Stars on June 21, 2008. This prompted them to verify
other shippers such as Seaquest thru its employee Ms. Raquel B. Exconde who
confirmed that indeed the container declared in the Bill of Lading No. T-14
contains toxic cargo owned by Bayer Crop Science but did not give specific details.
He averred that Seaquest declared their shipment in the Bill of Lading as various
goods only, a procedure which is allowed when a forwarder consolidated various
type of cargo in one container, including that of Bayer Crop Science’s cargo.

The witness said that he then wrote a letter personally signed by him
(Exhibits “BBB”-“BBB-2”) dated June 28, 2008 to the Philippine Coast Guard for
the purpose of advising the Philippine Coast Guard with regards to his discovery of
a misdeclared shipment. He informed them that cargo forwarder Seaquest
Logistics shipped a container on board the M/V Princess of the Stars containing
toxic cargo owned by Bayer Crop Science. The letter was received by ASN Magno
PCG at 10:20 o’clock on the same date.

The witness stated that he also sent a letter dated June 28, 2008
(Exhibit “AAA” to “AAA-2”) to Ms. Edna del Rosario, the President of Seaquest
Logistics. He informed her that the shipment they had under the Bill of Lading No.
T-14 was declared only as Various Goods but in truth some of it was a dangerous
cargo. So he told her of their possible liability for failure to disclosed their toxic
cargo. The witness confirmed his signature affixed on the letter which was duly
received by Dave Viscara, representative of Seaquest Logistics on the same date.

Further, the witness testified that he received a copy of a letter (Exhibit

“ZZ”) dated June 27, 2208 signed by Norlito R. Gicana, CESO VI, Executive
Director of Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority addressed to then Secretary of
Transportation and Communication Honorable Leandro R. Mendoza. He said that
the letter (Exhibit “ZZ”) indicated that the container van marked as 860 198-7
that contains the following:
 Brand Name Active Ingredient Quantity
Antracol WP 70 Propineb 392 kgs
Tamaron 600 SL Metamidophos 150 liters
Trap 70 WP Niclosamide 17.5 kgs
Fuerza GR 3 Carbofuran 501 kgs
is the same container van marked as 860 198-7 with a description which reads “120
FTR SAID TO CONTAIN: VARIOUS GOODS” as indicated in the Bill of Lading No.
T-14(Exhibit “G-2”). The actual contents of the Bill of Lading were not known to
the plaintiffs not until they receive the letter (Exhibit “ZZ”) from the Office of
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. But the said letter did not include or attached
the official communication from Bayer Crop Science which is the basis of the
Office of Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority to write a letter to Secretary
Mendoza but witness said they were not given a copy of it until now.
.
The witness identified MSDS or Material Safety Data Sheet (Exhibit “FFF”)
as their proof that indeed the subject shipments covered by BLT-14 are toxic and
hazardous cargoes. The said MSDS was duly issued by defendant Bayer Crop
Science that indicated the nature of the products as well as the substance risk or
hazard identification to man and environment. He likewise identified the
Forwarding Service Agreement ( Exhibit “H-3”) consisting of five(5) pages that
appears as Document No. 414, page number 84, book no. 1, series of 2003 of
Notary Public Orchids C. Albino-Mateo. This document executed by and between
Bayer Crop Science, Inc. and Seaquest Logistic Inc., as the company and
forwarder, respectively, which truly proved that the two defendants who
disobeyed the shipment rules have a relationship.

Two weeks after M/V Princess of the Stars capsized, he said that their
company Sulpicio Lines, Inc. received a letter (Exhibit “XX”) dated July 2, 2008
addressed to Mr. Edgar Go, who was then their 1 st Vice President. The letter was
coming from Undersecretary Maria Elena Bautista, who was the head of the Task
Force Princess of the Stars ordering them to retrieve and take out the toxic cargo
from the ship due to its threat to the marine environment. Said letter (Exhibit
“XX”) contains enumerations of items which are the same items enumerated in
Exhibit “ZZ” as toxic to the marine environment and owned by two companies,
namely, Bayer Crop Science, Inc. and Del Monte, Philippines. He said that as far as
he knows after its discovery, the cargoes of the two companies were the only toxic
cargoes on board at the time of the incident.

Initially, the witness said that they refused to undertake the removal of
the toxic chemicals and that it was the responsibility of the cargo owner to
retrieve the said toxic cargoes for failure to properly declare its real nature.
However, since there was a threat of closure to their company, they were forced
to comply with the order. Consequently, their company Sulpicio Lines, Inc. were
forced to negotiate with Harbor Star Shipping Service, the local partner of Titan
Maritime (SEA) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, which is an international salvage company as
suggested by Undersecretary Ma. Elena Bautista. Eventually, they entered into a
Salvage Contract marked as (Exhibit “S” and its submarkings) dated July 24, 2008
with Titan Salvage and Harbor Star Shipping Services. Mr. Edgar Go, the 1 st Vice-
President of Sulpicio Lines, Inc., was the one who was authorized by the company
to sign the Salvage Contract wherein the witness identified the signature
appearing in the Contract as Mr. Edgar Go’s signature as well as all other
signatories namely; Amit Wahi, the commercial manager of Titan Maritime Pte. Ltd
and Geronimo Villa, C.O. of Harbor Star Shipping Services, the local partner of
Titan Maritime were properly identified by the witness.

On July 25, 2008, their counsel Atty. Arthur Lim, sent a letter (Exhibit “A”)
to defendant Bayer Crop Science and to defendant Seaquest Logistics (Exhibit
“B”), notifying them of the Salvage Contract they entered into with Titan Maritime
to recover the defendants’ undeclared hazardous cargo loaded on board M/V
Princess of the Stars. These notices were done before the salvage operation
started as confirmed by the witness.

All the hazardous cargoes identified and enumerated in the letter (Exhibit
“X”) by DOTC were successfully retrieved and recovered. As a consequence
thereof, the Titan Salvage and Harbor Star issued a Certificate (Exhibit “O”) that
the toxic cargo is ready to be turned over. Likewise, a Notice of Delivery(Exhibit
“Q”) issued by Coast Guard Romblon was given to Sulpicio Lines in the presence of
Harbor Star and a Certification of Delivery (Exhibit “P”) that proves that the toxic
cargo owned by Bayer Crop Science was turned over to them through their
representative.

The witness reiterated that their company Sulpicio Lines, Inc. through their
counsel, notified all the defendants Bayer Crop Science and Seaquest Logistics
relative to the salvaging of their toxic cargo as ordered by DOTC and as well as
their liability for the expenses of retrieval. But despite of all those notices, their
company did not receive any reply from said defendants. As the vice-president for
Marketing, he also made several attempts through written demand in order to
collect and demand payment from all the defendants but did not get any reply from
both of them. Hence, their company Sulpicio Lines, Inc. had to pay all the expenses
for the retrieval of the toxic cargoes of the two companies namely Bayer
Cropscience and Del Monte Philippines in the total amount of Seven Million five
hundred forty-five thousand US dollars ($7,545,000.00) as indicated in the Final
Consolidated Statement of Account (Exhibit “GGG”) issued by Titan Maritime
(SEA) Pte.Ltd.. This Final Consolidated Statement of Account was duly signed by
the commercial manager of Titan Maritime Amit Wahi and it consisted of the
initial billing mobilization billed before the salvage started and the five (5)
progress billings.

Further, the witness said that despite attempts by their company and by
himself to collect retrieval expenses from Del Monte Philippines, who is the owner
of another toxic cargo on board the M/V Princess of the Stars, still they failed to
receive any reply until to date. For that reason, they filed a case against Del Monte
Philippines. He said that considering that the Salvage Contract (Exhibit “S”) was
for the recovery of both Bayer and Del Monte toxic cargoes and there was only
one salvaging operation made for both, their company is charging Bayer of 40% of
the amount on the basis of the time spent for the retrieval. The computation of
for the charges are indicated in the Salvage Contract (Exhibit “S”). They did not
consider the declared value of the two (2) shipments in determining their
respective sharing because it is irrelevant considering that what they wanted to
recover here is the cost of retrieval only. Witness further said that he can
quantify the time spent in order to arrive at 60:40 ratio based on the progress
timeline of the salvage. That aside from the expenses of the retrieval, their
company demanded actual damages from the defendants in the amount of
P250,527.06, for the reason that if the cargo was properly declared, it should
have been classified as dangerous cargo and loaded on pure cargo vessel and the
appropriate tariff charges would have been imposed. Witness said that as Vice
President of Marketing, it is proper to collect moral damages in the amount of
P500, 000.00, because he expects that their regular shippers would properly
declare their items for shipment.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS JORDAN GO BY DEFENDANT

BAYER CROP SCIENCE

On cross examination, Mr. Jordan Go confirmed that the name of plaintiff

Sulpicio Lines, Incorporated is now Philippine Span Asia Carrier, Incorporated. He
affirmed his testimony that he was the Vice President for Marketing at the time
of the sinking of M/V Princess of the Stars who was then responsible for
establishing relationships with various clients to secure regular cargo bookings
where Seaquest is one of their regular and valued customer. He admitted that
during the voyage of M/V Princess of the Stars on June 20, 2008, their customer
at that time was Sequest Logistics and not Bayer. He likewise confirmed that the
Bayer cargo on board the M/V Princess of the Stars was retrieved by a salvaging
company that was hired by Sulpicio Lines Inc. and that they incurred expenses for
the retrieval of the said cargo. He said he had no knowledge as to the procedure
of the retrieval of the cargo since it was their company’s first time to retrieve
hazardous cargo. While it was confirmed upon notice from Del Monte Philippines
that endolsulfan was one of the hazardous cargo on board the vessel at the time
the vessel capsized but witness cannot determine the volume of endosulfan loaded
in the vessel. He likewise cannot recall the exact numbers of the Bayer cargo that
was placed inside a container van loaded on M/V Princess of the Stars on June 20,
2008 which are smaller in sizes but in number of pieces were more or less the same
with endosulfan.

On the basis of the report of Philippine Coast Guard, witness said that the
cargo of Bayer Crop Science was actually retrieved intact and with no leakage by
the Titan Salvage and Harbor Star. He reiterated that Sulpicio Lines, Inc. as a
common carrier has no responsibility to open and inspect any sealed container vans
for as long as the shipper declared their cargoes as various goods. If they were
informed that a cargo contains a dangerous cargo, they will withdraw the said
cargo from the passenger vessel and load it in the vessel exclusive for cargoes
only. And based on the regulations, it is the shippers’ responsibility to declare the
contents of the cargo. And considering that Seaquest was their regular customer,
they trusted them that they will not do anything that would violate any law or rules
that were detrimental and would compromise the shipping company and the
passengers as well.

The witness testified that Oriental Insurance Corporation was the insurer
of their vessels with coverage of Php 350 Million for hull and Php 500 Million for
cargo. He said that until to date, their company has not recovered the Php 500
Million insurance from Oriental Insurance Corporation. They have legal dispute with
the underwriters which he admitted he was not familiar with the case now filed in
court. He affirmed that the cost of retrieval of the salvaging companies was
shouldered solely by Sulpicio Lines without any aid from the government or other
entities and denied that the retrieval of the hazardous cargo was covered by
insurance policy. But since the documents are not with him at the time he was at
the witness stand, he reserved the presentation of insurance policies so the court
can determine whether retrieval of cargoes, toxic or not, is included in the policies.

The witness admitted that the pro-forma Bill of Lading was executed and
submitted by Seaquest alone to the issuing person in-charge and indicated therein
that the shipper and the consignee was Seaquest and not Bayer. As a regular
customer of Sulpicio Lines, this was not the first time that Seaquest declared
their container van as various goods even before the sinking of M/V Princess of
the Stars. As a common carrier, they are not authorized to inspect or open any
container van declared by any shipper or consignee as various goods. But they
constantly reminded and informed each and every shipper to make sure that all
dangerous cargoes must be properly declared as well as all the existing rules and
regulations of Coast Guard and Philippine Port Authority must be strictly followed
by all shippers and that includes Seaquest. Since Sequest Logistics was their
shipper for the longest time, they assumed that they have complied with all the
rules and regulations as well as standard procedures in shipping cargoes. Witness
said that their client then was Seaquest Logistics at the time of the sinking of
M/V Princess of the Stars.

On the other hand, plaintiffs stipulated that the cargo of Bayer was 100%
recovered (Exhibit “P”). The quantities recovered as indicated in Exhibit “O”, and
the Notice of Delivery of the amount of endosulfan (Exhibit “Q”) issued by Harbor
Star Shipping Services, Inc., would prove that the quantity or volume of the
amount of endosulfan was 130, 139 and 131 barrels each in three (3) 20-foot
container vans.

Further, the witness clarified that all shippers must fill up a pro-forma bill
of lading while Sulpicio Lines, on the basis of the information provided therein, will
issue the Bill of Lading. And if the shipper would provide information in its pro-
forma bill of lading and declared the goods inside the container van as “various”,
the same information would be transferred and reflected on the Bill of Lading
issued by the shipping lines. The purpose of requiring the pro-forma bill of lading
from the shipper is to make sure that the information provided is accurate and to
know the nature of the cargo in order to determine where it should to be loaded.
It is a standard practice of all shipping lines not go beyond opening container vans
of any shipper which would load container vans marked only as “various goods” in a
passenger cargo vessel. It is the sole responsibility of a shipper to declare
properly the nature of their cargo.

Although the plaintiff does not have the cargo manifest on his possession,
he admitted that there were other container vans that were declared by their
shippers as “various goods” only in their Bill of Lading such as consolidators,
retailers and other product distributors. And once these container vans were
sealed and brought to their premises, they were not allowed to open it and it is the
obligation of the shippers to apprise Sulpicio Lines as to the contents of their
cargo. As a common carrier, the witness confirmed that there is an extraordinary
diligence required to ensure the safety of the passengers but nonetheless
admitted that in the domestic ports, there are no precautionary measures such as
large x-rays or sniffing dogs that would help in verifying if there are contrabands
on board the domestic vessels. The witness asserted that they merely rely on what
were being declared by the shipper because it is the obligation of the shipper to do
so. On the possibility that there are some shippers who did not come forward or
had not revealed the real contents of their container vans at the time of the
incident, the witness said that communications were made to other shippers who,
on the other hand confirmed the contents of their cargo. These shippers, the
witness continued, are their regular clients; hence they know the true nature of
their cargoes.

The witness denied having knowledge that at the time M/V Princess of the
Stars capsized, the shipper of the goods which is subject of this case was Bayer.
They only learned that the shipper was Bayer when they get in touched with
Seaquest Forwarder after the incident. The witness added that they do not have
any idea what was disclosed by Bayer to Seaquest but only get what Seaquest
declared to them. And since Seaquest was their regular customer, they just rely on
what Seaquest would inform them as it normally shipped under consolidated
container van and is always denominated as “various goods”. With respect to other
shippers, witness said they rely on their declarations but after the incident where
M/V Princess of the Stars capsized, they are now asking their packing list to
verify that these shippers have no hazardous cargo. The witness likewise
confirmed that as the former vice-president for marketing in their company, one
of his function is to establish relationship with various clients to secure regular
cargo, and one of their client is the defendant of this case Seaquest Logistics.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF JORDAN GO BY DEFENDANT SEAQUEST

LOGISTICS

The witness reiterated that as the Vice-President for marketing, he was

responsible for establishing relationship with various shippers and forwarders
including the defendant of this case, Seaquest Forwarder. He made it a point that
they could attend the respective needs of their clients but definitely do not have
any idea what kind or what cargoes their clients are going to ship on their vessel.
This is because in a consolidated cargo, the shipper may ship several types of
cargo. He was fully aware of different kinds of shipping arrangements such as the
cargo of Seaquest which was shipped through STC or said to contain various goods
wherein a container van was loaded with goods from different cargo owners and
then the shipper would declare all the contents of the van as “various goods.

The witness explained that in STC or “said to contain” various goods

arrangement of loading a cargo, an empty container van is taken out from their
yard by a shipper, like in this case, the Seaquest Forwarder. Seaquest Forwarder
would then bring it over to their warehouse or premises and load all the cargoes
from their different cargo owners to the container van without the presence of a
witness or representative from the shipping company. On a pier to pier
arrangement, the shipper would bring the sealed container van back to the shipping
lines yard for proper documentation in preparation for its voyage so that the said
container van would be ready for loading to the vessel and brought it to its
destination. In this instance, the shipping lines has no knowledge as to the contents
of the sealed container van and has no more time to see the cargoes inside due to
time constraint as the vessel was then preparing for her voyage. The shipping lines
merely relies on the declaration made by the shipper as to the contents of the
sealed container van.

The witness admitted that as one of the major shipping companies in the
Philippines, they have guidelines and procedure when it comes to shipper load and
count shipping arrangements to ensure the safety of the vessel and its passengers.
But it has been their practice not to open the cargo considering that it is the
ultimate responsibility of a shipper and the cargo owner to declare the nature of
their cargoes to be loaded in the vessel. And since their company have been in
business with Seaquest Forwarder for over ten (10) years, their relationship was
based on trust. Aside from the plaintiff’s shipping company, the defendant
Seaquest Forwarder was also doing business with other carriers which adopted the
same practice that it is the ultimate responsibility of the shipper and cargo owner
to declare the nature of their cargo, a practice where no written guidelines were
made. The witness agreed that prior to the preparation of the bill of lading, their
company would ask the shipper to fill up a pro-forma bill of lading that would state
the name of the shipper, the consignee, the port of origin, the destination, the
quantity of goods and its value of the shipment. This was done by the shipper
without the presence of any representative from the shipping lines. He claimed
that Seaquest Forwarder loaded to M/V Princess of the Stars on June 20, 2008
its cargo in a 20 footer container which is 20 feet long and 8 ½ high with a limit
load of 18 tons with mixed cargoes from different clients including that of Bayer
cargoes. They accepted the container van of Seaquest Forwarder as it is
regardless if loose cargoes were loaded and how it was arranged inside the
container and they called it as consolidated cargoes. He retorted that he cannot be
certain if in that container only the Bayer cargoes were inside and the shipping
arrangement was placed STC because they accepted it based on one container.
 The witness averred that the issue of this case was basically to recover the
expenses they incurred during the retrieval of the toxic cargoes of Bayer
Cropscience and Del Monte Philippines which were loaded on the vessel M/V
Princess of the Stars owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines and capsized on June
20, 2008. Their company were asked by the DOTC to retrieve and recover the
toxic cargoes attributed to the cargoes of Seaquest and Bayer Cropscience of
which they complied without any aid or help extended by the two shippers despite
written notices asking the two shippers to retrieve their toxic cargoes. This is the
very reason why he was sitting in the witness stand.

They sent a letter to the Philippine Coast Guard after having a conversation
with defendant Seaquest who confirmed that indeed the cargoes loaded on M/V
Princess of the Stars on June 20, 2008 by defendant Seaquest are potentially
harmful. Likewise, he affirmed that there are other cases or claims for cargo
losses filed against their company Sulpicio Shipping Lines by other shippers with
cargoes loaded on the capsized vessel. Although he declared that the cargoes of
Bayer are toxic and poisonous, this declaration was based on the order of DOTC to
retrieve the items. He reiterated that the container van of Sequest Forwarder
containing the cargoes of Bayer also contain other cargoes belonging to different
owners. These cargoes are allowed to be declared as various goods provided no
cargoes which are toxic in nature were mixed in the said container van, otherwise
the shipper and the cargo owner has to properly declare it as required by the
government.

The witness through counsel stipulated that there has been no claim filed by
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. with regards to the under declaration of cargo loaded by
Seaquest as to the assessed value or valuation of the shipment but reiterated that
their complaint is purely for the reimbursement of the cost of the retrieval of the
defendants’ cargo.

REDIRECT OF PLAINTIFF SULPICIO

The witness averred that the amount spent by the plaintiffs for retrieval
operations and the costs sought to be recovered in this action was not covered by
any insurance policy in favor of Sulpicio Shipping Lines and that the amount paid to
the salvage company was purely out from the Sulpicio Lines, Inc.’s pocket.

He reiterated further that the Bill of Lading on this case indicated that
Seaquest was the shipper of the container van and does not state Bayer Crop
Science. He said that being the ultimate cargo owner, it is Bayer’s primary
responsibility to declare properly their cargo to ensure that it is not harmful to
the environment and for the safety of all the passengers on board.
 RE-CROSS FROM DEFENDANT BAYER

The witness contends that M/V Princess of Stars has insurance coverage for
the passengers and loss of cargo thus it is the reason why there were insurance
claims from the cargo owners. This insurance coverage was for the loss of cargo
only and did not include the retrieval of cargo. Likewise, he reiterated that when
the vessel capsized, there was insurance coverage for the hull only of the ship or
salvaging of the ship but does not have any insurance coverage for the retrieval or
salvaging of the cargo. Although their company were able to claim and receive the
proceeds of the insurance coverage for the hull, incidentally the ship was
mortgaged to a bank for the insured value. So all the proceeds from the hull
insurance that Sulpicio Lines, Inc. received goes to the bank to pay the mortgage
loan and non was allotted for the salvaging of the cargo considering that it has no
insurance coverage. The vessel insurance policy exactly covers only the hull, the
cargo losses and the passengers affected by the incident.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS NESTOR

PONTERES

Nestor Ponteres- testified that he is 57 years old, married, a Port Captain

and a resident of Mabolo, Cebu City. He further testified that he knows the
plaintiff Sulpicio Lines, Inc. because he is an employee or connected with the
company since 1975 up to present with continuous employment. He is holding the
position of Port Captain and assigned at the Towing Department and at the same
time, the Liaison Officer of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. to different government offices.
Before he became a Port Captain, he was a master mariner of one of the vessels of
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. being a master mariner by profession. He commanded one of
the vessels of the company and sailed by the sea as a mariner including
apprenticeship and all other positions in the company since 1975 until 1988. He
became the Port Captain of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. in 1988 and up to present. As Port
Captain, he knew M/V Princess of the Stars because it was the flagship of Sulpicio
Lines, meaning the latest and the biggest vessel of the company with authorized
route Cebu-Manila and vice-versa. He cannot recall the exact date when the said
vessel was purchased by the company but it was sometime in 2006. In June 20,
2008, the vessel sank somewhere in Sibuyan Island. While M/V Princess of the
Stars was still an operating vessel, it has a trading and operating certificates
which he identified namely: Passenger Safety Certificate (Exhibit “U”); Ship
Station License (Exhibit “V”); Minimum Safe Manning Certificate (Exhibit “W”);
Coastwise License (Exhibit “X”); Certificate of Stability (Exhibit “Y”); Certificate
of Vessel Registry (Exhibit “Z”); Certificate of Ownership (Exhibit “AA”); Safety
Management Certificate (Exhibit “B”); Tonnage Measurement (Exhibit “C”); Load
Line Certificate (Exhibit “D”); Garbage Management Plan (Exh. “E”); Certificate of
Compliance for Minimum Service Standards for Second Class non air-conditioned
Passenger Accommodation (Exhibit “FF”); Certificate of Compliance for Minimum
Service Standards for First and Second Class Passenger Accommodation (Exhibit
“GG”); Certification on Film, Safety Film before voyage (Exhibit “HH”); Oil Pollution
Prevention Certificate of Compliance (Exhibit “II”); Certificate of Public
Convenience (Exhibit “JJ”); MARINA decision on the route (Exhbit “KK”); Rider to
CPC (Exhibit “LL”); Bureau Veritas Classification Certificate of the Vessel (Exhibit
“M” and “MM”), all are certified true copies as certified by the Franchising Office
of MARINA. He affirmed that these are the same documents which have been
pre-marked in the presence of Atty. Abesames. He recalled that Captain Florencio
Marimon, Jr was the master or Captain of the vessel M/V Princess of the Stars at
the time of the incident and has been serving on board the said vessel since she
began sailing. In hiring officers of the vessel, he said they followed procedures
provided in the company’s Safety and Quality Management Manual book. It is an
IMO ISM for the operation of ships and pollution prevention including the
requirements of quality safety system I0901200 which served as their operating
manual during that time.

When presented with all the personal documents of Captain Miramon

including his PRC ID (Exhibit “N” with submarkings ) followed by other markings
inclusive the licences, certificate of completion in various trainings as well as those
documents belonging to Chief Mate Ricardo Pelicano,Jr., Second Mate Franco
Labiaga; Third Mate Ermelito Ayapana; Chief Engineer Nuñez; Second Engineer
Rellera; Third Engineer Sabordo; Radio Operator Santiago Duroy,Jr.; and Fourth
Engineer Ricky Gonzaga, he confirmed that these documents belong to all of the
above mentioned crew of the vessel and all are in order. A subsequent filing of a
Marine protest (Exhibit “HHH”) was made by their company Sulpicio Lines when
M/V Princess of the Stars capsized and this was filed by his counterpart in Manila,
Captain Benjamin Eugenio due to the fact that there were no survivors of the crew
on board the vessel including the Captain.

As a Port Captain, he actively participated in the recruitment of the vessel

personnel including the captain, deck officers and other crew members of the
vessel. He required all the applicants to submit their personal data sheets and all
other documents issued by MARINA and Coast Guard and eventually personal
interviews would follow. He personally conducted a background check with the aid
of his assistant, on all the applicants and this was done for the very reason that as
a mariner, they have a big responsibility assigned to all of them on board. He has to
check the performance of all the applicants with their previous employer, their
family background whether one belongs to a broken family, a drunkard or a
gambler. With respect to Captain Miramon, he said that he is a reasonable man, a
God fearing person and a good father to his family. He knew Captain Miramon since
his apprenticeship in 1976 when the witness was then a Junior Officer and both of
them were crew of the same vessel.

When then M/V Princess of the Stars arrived here in Cebu twice a week and
docked at the Cebu International Port, domestic site, it is a company policy to have
a community relation with the crew and the vessel officers. He then conducted an
arrival conference at his office located at Don Sulpicio II St., North Reclamation
Area, Cebu City to discuss any happenings or problems on board and to monitor the
performance of the employees and officers of the vessel. Based on the company’s
manual wherein the drug and alcohol policy are provided, he said Sulpicio Lines
would impose disciplinary measures to those employees caught and violated the said
policy upon his recommendation after he conducted an investigation and the worst
penalty would be dismissal from the service of an employee.

The Safety Quality Management Manual for Passengers Control and Cargo
Operations (Exhibit ‘’III”) was identified by the witness including some of its
excerpts. He defined hazardous goods or hazardous cargo as stated in 7.20 and
7.10 of the manual as dangerous cargo that may affect any person if there is an
accidental leakage that would result to exposure of human and environment to
danger. When a dangerous cargo is loaded on board the vessel, he would not know
unless the shipper would declare that they are loading dangerous cargo. Their
company would never know also that dangerous cargo was loaded on the vessel
because they cannot check the cargo itself but can rely only on the shipper’s
declaration in the pro forma bill of lading.

The witness said that there are different types of loading a cargo. One of
which is a door to door cargo loading wherein the shipper would take a container
van and bring it to their warehouse and there they load various cargoes from
different owners. This is known or called as consolidated cargoes. The shipper then
would seal and padlocked the said container van and bring it back to the pier for
loading to the vessel. The standard operating procedure of this kind of loading is
that the shipping company must send a checker or a representative to check and
witness the loading of the cargo in the container van by the shipper. In the case at
bar, it is a door to door loading but sans the checking of a representative from
Sulpicio Lines on what were loaded in the container van. Sulpicio Lines have no
direct participation on the loading of the cargo but rely solely on what the shipper
Seaquest Forwarder declared and provided in their pro forma bill of lading. This is
so because obviously, Seaquest Forwarder was their regular customer for a longer
period of time. Although their company is very selective in issuing and accepting
door to door arrangement, they allow Seaquest because of their trust to the
defendant forwarding company.

A shipper is required to secure a permit and clearance from the Philippine

Port Authority and Philippine Coast Guard with respect to inter-island shipment of
hazardous cargoes. It is the responsibility of the shipper to secure the said
permits from the said government agencies. The defendant shipper were not able
to present the said clearances or permit when they shipped their cargo on M/V
Princess of the Stars, hence, they presumed that it is not hazardous. Neither did
they ask for it because they rely on what was declared in the bill of lading.
According to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the Philippine Port
Authority must examine the hazardous goods before they issue clearances. Once
the clearance is issued, the shipper is allowed to board their hazardous cargo not
on M/V Princess of the Stars, which is a passenger and cargo vessel but on a cargo
vessel only authorized to shipped dangerous cargo.
 CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT BAYER CROPSCIENCE

Mr. Nestor Ponteres confirmed that he is the Port Manager of Cebu and his
duty is limited only to the port where he is assigned. Considering that there is a
different Port Manager in Manila, his testimony was based not on personal
knowledge of what happened on June 20, 2008 where Seaquest container was
loaded on M/V Princess of the Stars because this was done in Manila but based on
general rules and procedures that they followed as provided in Sulpicio Lines’
Safety Quality Management Manual. He likewise has no personal knowledge if on
the day of loading of the Seaquest container van on June 20, 2008 on M/V Princess
of the Stars, the crew and the captain strictly followed the procedures on loading
all kinds of cargoes from the port of Manila.

He reiterated that an arrival conference with the ship crew and the captain
were regularly conducted at least once a week purposely to create an atmosphere
of unity, bond of loyalty and camaraderie among the crew members. This is done by
the company so that during the voyage, the crew will function as a team and
cooperate with each other. They would trust and depend on each other so that if in
case they would encounter some difficulties in their work, they would help each
other. He personally feels that these conferences that the company conducted are
effective and there is a sense of loyalty as if everyone is part of a community or a
family.

The Safety and Quality Management Manual of the company is a confidential

document of Sulpicio Line, Inc.. It was not given to anybody including MARINA and
the Philippine Coast Guard but it was inspected by MARINA. Since it is their
company policy, the manual is not available to the public including the shippers, but
only to a limited number of officers for the enforcement of its requirements.
Although the manual was issued on May 1, 1998, it was updated in conformity with
the requirements of the safety procedures of the Philippine Coast Guard and
MARINA and was strictly followed by Sulpicio Lines, Inc.. He admitted that there
was some minor non-conformity but their management would immediately rectify it
and impose some disciplinary measures against the erring crew member upon
recommendation of the investigators with whom he is a member. Although a
corresponding disciplinary action were imposed to the erring crew, such disciplinary
action was imposed with compassion. The erring crew were given a warning for the
first offense, suspension for 30 days for the second offense and the third
offense would be termination from the service. He admitted that since the
issuance of the manual in 1998 until the time of the sinking in 2008, there have
been some instances wherein the Sulpicio Lines, Inc. dismissed some of its crew
for non-conformity. The common cases of which are drunkenness and gambling on
the ship while on duty but they rectified it and imposed a grave penalty of
dismissal if necessary.
 The witness affirmed that with regards to loading containers on a vessel,
the receiving checker would examine and check for damages, leakages, locks, seals
and precise documentation of the contents of the container before accepting the
cargo. Their company have strict examination of the container except when it is a
door to door arrangement where the shipper sealed its own container van while it
was still in their warehouse and not on the port but he cannot determine who
sealed the container if the shipper has a forwarder. The container van might be
sealed by the shipper, the owner of the product or the forwarder. As long as the
cargo is declared and itemized based on the Bill of Lading, it is a common practice
of the company to accept container van with consolidated goods in one container
van and declared as various goods. As to the documentation such as the
procurement of the Bill of Lading, the witness said that the receiving person has
more knowledge to it but presumed that they also followed the procedure in
accepting and receiving the cargoes when loading the container vans to the vessel.
The receiving checker who is under the supervision of the loading operation is the
one who would check the container. The witness said he is not competent to
determine whether Sulpicio Lines management were following the procedures with
regards to cargo operation.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF CAPTAIN PONTERAS BY DEFENDANT

SEAQUEST

The Safety Quality manual (Exhibit” III”) states the policy of the company
and the qualifications of the applicants in hiring employees as well as the procedure
in receiving cargoes. The witness said that once the cargoes are sealed by the
shipper, their company cannot open, examine, or inspect the container before
loading to their vessel. He admitted that their company does not provide training
or seminars to uplift the competency of their officers and crew and to cope up
with advance shipping technology but they have authenticated licenses issued by
the PRC. He likewise admitted that he would do monitoring every time the vessel
arrived at the port of Cebu City to make sure that the company’s policies as well as
rules and regulations were not violated by its employees. But on June 22, 2008 he
was not able to monitor M/V Princess of the Stars because it failed to reach the
port of Cebu. Since his assignment was in Cebu port, his monitoring was confined to
ensuring that all the documents of the vessel are ready, all the crew members were
complete and the availability of pre-departure checklist. During the sailing of the
vessel, the witness and his counterpart in Manila will do the monitoring and
supervision of the vessel through radio communication.

As soon as the container vans are loaded to the vessel, they can no longer
open it once the shipper has sealed it because they might be accused of stealing
the contents of the van. He was not sure if there were provisions in the Bill of
Lading that stated that they are barred from opening the container van for
inspection or examination of the cargoes before it will be loaded to the vessel.
Although the manual (Exhibit III to III-1) does not state that they are prohibited
in opening the van for inspection, it does not necessarily mean that it they are
required to do so considering that it is an unwritten shipping practice not to open
such cargoes. Although he is the port captain, he is only responsible for the crew.
Their manual provides that cargo inspection is under the Cargo Officer, hence he is
not competent to testify on the details of section 7.10 paragraph 3 of the manual.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS TOMAS

GUTIERREZ,JR. (JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT (EXHIBIT “JJJ”)

TOMAS GUTIERREZ, JR.- testified that he is of legal age, married with

residence address at Fairview, Quezon City, an employee of Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
(SLI) now known as Philippine Span Asia Carrier Corporation (PSACC) with company
address at Pier 12 North Harbor, Manila. He was connected with Sulpicio Lines,
Inc. now PSACC since June 2000 as Cargo Operation Officer until present. His
principal duties and responsibilities includes receiving documents relative to the
shipments of their shippers, clients/customers and to make sure that all shipments
are covered by a corresponding Bills of Lading; to receive the Pro-Forma Bill of
Lading from a shipper and to cause the issuance of the corresponding Bill of Lading
based on the data and information therein provided by the shipper of his agent.

On June 2008, he come across a shipment of One (1) Unit 20-footer

container van said to contain “Various Goods “of a shipper known as Seaquest
Logistics. It is covered by SLI Bill of Lading No. T-14 with Manila as port of origin
and Cebu as its port of destination. He was on duty that day together with his
fellow Cargo Operation Officers to document the shipments of their various
shippers who came to their office and filled up the Pro-forma bill of lading. The
same pro-forma bill of lading will then be presented by the shipper to the Cargo
Operation Officer who in turn would give it to the typing clerk. The said clerk
would type out all the information and data provided by the shipper in the pro-
forma bill of lading to the company’s Bill of Lading for shipment. The pro-forma bill
of lading together with the company’s Bill of Lading would then be brought back to
the witness for final review to make sure that the data in both documents do not
vary. It is then that the shipper will pay the freight as assessed in the company’s
Bill of Lading if it is “Freight Prepaid”, otherwise the freight is “Freight Collect”
where the freight will be collected at the port of destination.

The pro-forma bill of lading is a standard company requirement for the

shipper to fill up therein the particulars of the cargo, its description, and its
declared value. If it is a toxic or hazardous cargo, the shipper must also indicate
that in the pro-forma bill of lading. Without the pro-forma bill of lading, their
company will not issue their Bill of lading since there has no any information and
data that could be used as their basis for issuing the same.

The witness identified both the pro-forma bill of lading and the company’s
Bill of Lading where Seaquest is the cargo forwarder and declared it as regular
cargo. Its pro-forma bill of lading declares One (1) unit of 20 footer van said to
contain “VARIOUS GOODS” with a value of Php500, 000.00 at shipper’s load and
count with van No. 8601987, seal No. 1936297 and padlock No. 020050. Since it
did not declare any toxic or hazardous cargo then it is understood to be regular
cargo. This was confirmed when he asked the representative of Seaquest who said
that these “Various Goods” are regular cargoes and does not include toxic or
hazardous cargo. He likewise stepped out into the nearby pier area to check and
see that it is indeed a regular container van. Basically, it is the owner or shipper of
the cargo who should declare its nature or character, whether toxic or not because
the owner knows about it. Their company is just a carrier of the shipment and rely
only on the good faith and honesty of their shippers to disclose the nature and
character of their shipments. In terms of freightage fee, the toxic or hazardous
cargo has a higher freight charge compared to regular cargo. In terms of carrying
vessels on the basis of Bill of Lading No. T-14 that contained various goods, M/V
Princess of the Stars as a combined passenger-cargo vessel, can carry both
passenger and ordinary cargo. As company policy, the toxic or hazardous cargo
must be carried on purely cargo vessel considering its danger to human beings.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS TOMAS GUTIERREZ, JR. BY

DEFENDANT BAYER CROPSCIENCE

The witness said he graduated Civil Engineering degree and has completed
various seminars conducted by Marina. These are his educational attainment in
order for him to be qualified as Cargo Operation Officer. He admitted that he is
not familiar with International Laws on shipping of dangerous cargoes such as
Niclosamide or MarPol. If the shipper would disclose the contents of the cargo
that it is toxic and hazardous, their company would place it in a pure cargo vessel in
compliance with the International Law regarding the shipping of the dangerous
cargo. It is the function of the Shipping officer with regards to the arrangement
of the cargo inside the cargo since his function is only the documentation of the
declared cargo and issue company bill of lading and forward it the Shipping
Officer. He does not have any expertise in identifying products and would not know
the nature of the cargo being sent unless declared by the shipper. With respect to
other cargo, Indosulfan Technical, the said cargo was also declared as various
goods only.

The plaintiff through counsel manifested that the shipment of Indosulfan is

a subject of another case pending before RTC Manila Branch 24 and not the
subject matter of this case. Although this Indosulfan substance is mentioned,
witness does not know that it is hazardous.

As far as the witness is concern, being a Cargo Operation Officer means he

is in-charge of the cargo operation where cargoes of shippers will pass upon him to
make sure that the shipments are covered by a corresponding Bill of Lading. He
likewise directs the loading and unloading of port cargoes to make sure that there
will be a continuous movement of the operation. This function was not mentioned on
his Judicial Affidavit due to the fact that he focused on the documentation of the
cargoes of Bayer. With his description of his duties, defendant Bayer contends
that as an Officer he is not acting as such but only functions as a mere clerk. He
reasoned out that acting as a clerk when he received the Bill of Lading filed by
defendant Bayer is still included in his line of work. He will make verifications as to
the entries of the Bill of Leading thereafter if indeed what were entered in the
Bill of Lading were true and correct but do not verify the actual cargo that was
loaded in the vessel but merely rely on the declaration of the shipper since they
shipped it as a full container, locked and sealed. The shipper declared it as various
goods only without specific names of cargoes and accepted it based on their
declaration as ordinary goods and it was sealed already. The other Cargo Officer
was of the same rank with him and functioning the same duties, which is to check
the pro-forma entries of the bill of lading being filled up by the shipper and given
to the clerk for her to type it after which the Bill of Lading and the pro-forma will
be given back to him to check if those entries that were entered in the Pro-forma
are exactly the same entries as indicated in the company Bill of Lading. After the
shipper completed the documentation and paid the freightage fee, the cargoes will
then be loaded to the vessel without opening the container and did not pass
through a scanner since this is not provided in the port.

Although it is their company policy that toxic or hazardous cargo is not

carried by a passenger-cargo vessel but only by a purely cargo vessel of the
company, they did not bother to check the cargo because it was declared by the
shipper Seaquest Logistics as regular cargo only. The pro-forma Bill of lading was
submitted to him by defendant Seaquest Logistics without a representative from
defendant Bayer Cropscience.

He was not trained to identify cargoes that would be loaded in the vessel
but somebody from the Marketing department can, who would then prepare the
necessary documents needed since the cargo was already identified. All he has to
do is to give advice to the shipping officer that hazardous cargo is loaded. If a
shipper declares that their cargo is hazardous, he will assess additional fees or
special freight since it has a different assessment from the ordinary cargo and
eventually said cargo shall be scheduled to be loaded on a cargo vessel that would
go where it should be shipped to. Because their company was only a cargo carrier,
without the declaration of the shipper, they have no knowledge as to what is being
loaded in their vessel as cargo, may it be ordinary or hazardous cargo. They just
take the word of the shipper hook, line and sinker as the gospel truth.

In a consolidated shipment, the container van contained various goods or

cargoes and was mixed with toxic and non-toxic cargo loaded in one container just
like what the Seaquest did and was declared as the only shipper. Supposedly, the
whole container would then be declared and considered as hazardous which would
then be assessed with special freight charges. By declaring the cargo as non-toxic,
it is possible that the shipper can save money. It is their practice not to open the
sealed container because if there is anything that would be missing, it would be
charged against them. If shippers of cargo like Seaquest Logistics would have
declared it as hazardous, such cargo would have been loaded not on the passenger
vessel but on a purely cargo vessel for the safety of the passengers and the vessel
in general.
 At the time of the sinking of M/V Princess of the Stars, the witness was not
aware of any MARINA rules and any clearances to be complied with as a
requirement for toxic and hazardous materials to be loaded on board an inter-
island vessel. He does not know if violations were made by the shipper, their
liability if there is any, and he does not know whatever are required for its
shipment. If a forwarder consolidated a number of different packages owned by
different persons or entities in one container van and declared it as various good,
it cannot be considered as loose cargo since it is loaded in a full container. Loose
cargos are those cargos placed only in a pallet and not in a container. In this case,
in one full container, the Seaquest Logistics being the forwarder was the one who
gathered all their cargoes and put it in one container. The shipment of Bayer was
not through loose shipment but rather placed in one big container and it is Sulpicio
Lines, their company’s policy, not to open a sealed container van owned by their
shipper.

On June 20, 2008, Seaquest Logistics filed a pro-forma bill of lading

wherein Sulpicio Lines, Inc. issued a corresponding Bill of Lading T-14 over which
the witness said he inspected. Seaquest Logistics, being their regular customers
went to their ship everyday to ship cargoes. He cannot recall if Sequeast Logistics
would always declare their cargoes as various goods in all those years that he had
been working with Sulpicio Lines, Inc., since he has a lot of matter to attend to.
But there was one time when they shipped and declared their cargo as appliances
and said cargo was loaded on the vessel without inspection since it is their practice
to rely on what their honest to goodness shipper would declare. Likewise, he cannot
recall any experience that the goods that were shipped on their vessel and on the
same voyage were contraband because before this cargo will reach to them, there
are Customs that would check on their cargos and hold it if they find out that
those are smuggled goods.

He reiterated that as a Cargo Operation Officer of Sulpicio Lines, Inc., he

would ensure that all shipments for loading were covered by a corresponding Bill of
Lading including that of the shipment containing defendant Bayer Cropscience
goods covered under Bill of Lading No. T-14 and was executed by forwarder
Seaquest and described the shipment simply as various good. He said that a shipper
would ask a forwarder to facilitate the shipment of their cargo but a forwarder
may not necessarily be the same company the shipper. In the container van which
was covered by Bill of Lading No. T-14 and declared only as various goods, the
witness said that he was not aware whether it contained only the goods of Bayer or
it is a consolidated cargo of different shippers considering that it was not
mentioned and not specified. Since the container van was already sealed, it is their
practice but with no written policy not to open the sealed container due to the fact
that they might be accused of stealing the content of the container. In the Bill of
Lading No. T-14, it was only Seaquest as the indicated party because the shipper
Bayer is not required to execute or sign a bill of lading and the shipper is not
required to go to Sulpicio Lines to inform them before they shipped their goods.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS TOMAS
GUTIERREZ BY DEFENDANT SEAQUEST LOGISTICS

On his own understanding, the witness said that a misdeclaration of cargo is

a declaration that is not right. A cargo would be considered a misdeclaration if
what is declared is 1000 bags of rice but what was actually shipped was 1000 bags
of corn. In the Bill of Lading, if what was declared is only various goods, that would
mean an ordinary cargo with different types of cargoes or different goods.
When he was hired by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. in the year 2000, he was then
employed as Cargo Officer and has no other work experience with other shipping
company. He did not undergo any special training to be a cargo officer but only an
ordinary training he just learned as he goes along. There were training also
conducted by their senior cargo operation officer inside their office on the aspect
of receiving and documentation of cargo to be loaded. He had no actual supervision
over the loading and has nothing to do with safety of the cargo. In preparing for
the documentation, he would ask the shipper whenever the cargo declared was
various goods only if they did not include toxic or hazardous cargo. It is not his
duty to inform shipper as to the list of hazardous cargo considering that
defendant Seaquest Logistics is a forwarding company or cargo consolidator. It is
required under the law that all forwarders should know the list of hazardous cargo
or goods as this list are issued by the Philippine Port Authority. He cannot recall
the name of the Seaquest representative anymore since it happened then in 2008
who came to him with the approved Bill of Lading and accepted it in their
department and placed inside the cargoes. He also recalled the shipment of
Endosulfan which is also a subject of another case and several hundreds of cargoes
of different shippers. It is their standard operating procedure to ask all the
shippers who comes to them if they are loading hazardous or toxic cargoes except
when it is identified by the shipper. In documentation of cargoes, the witness
admitted that he was not given memorandum by their company Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
about the latest findings on documentation of cargoes. Although he only learned it
by himself, he have followed proper procedures.

In his testimony, the witness said that it is the duty of the shipper and the
owner of the goods to declare the toxic or hazardous character of their goods but
this duty was not imposed in the contract of carriage and was not stated as well in
the Bill of Lading. He likewise admitted that one of the reasons as to why Sulpicio
Lines, Inc., do not open the containers from their yard is because they were afraid
that it might delay the shipping schedule or the departure of the vessel.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS

BAYER CROPSCIENCE

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF RINOMIR AQUINO (JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT)

(EXHIBIT 16)

RINOMIR AQUINO- 36 years old, Filipino, married, a Supply Chain Manager and a
resident of Soldier Hills 4, Bacoor, Cavite. He was holding such position at Bayer
Cropscience for 14 years. He is the head of the supply chain and is in charge of all
supply and demand planning of all products, including Quality, Health, Safety and
Environment (QHSE), warehousing and logistics, and the import and export teams
of Bayer. The qualification of a person holding the said position must be a graduate
of BS Chemical Engineering graduate with five (5) years of experience in quality
control and production. He must also have a training for Plant and Process Safety
and be accredited by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

He is aware of this case filed by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. now known as Philippine
Span Asia Carrier Corporation against Bayer for alleged maritime tort and breach
of contract. He likewise knows the other defendant of this case Seaquest
Logistics, Inc. who is one of Bayer’s forwarders for the shipping of its products
from 2003 to 2008 by virtue of the Forwarding Service Agreement duly signed by
their former Country Manager, Mr. Joseph Reynolds. He is familiar of the
signature of Mr. Reynolds because he has seen him sign so many times.

He was only familiar with Sulpicio Lines when it sued Bayer and Seaquest.
He avers that Bayer has no contractual relationship with Sulpicio and that there
has been neither transaction nor obligation with plaintiff Sulpicio Lines. The claim
of plaintiff Sulpicio Lines has no basis considering that they have only contracted
with Seaquest, as their forwarder. It is clearly stated in the Forwarding Services
Agreement that Seaquest is solely responsible for all the requirements necessary
to carry out the delivery of goods, including compliance with all laws and
regulations (Exhibit “1-Bayer-B). Likewise, Seaquest IS not an agent of Bayer
(Exhibit “1-Bayer-C”) as indicated in the Forwarding Service Agreement (Exhibit
“1”) containing Clause V on the Forwarder’s Independence and Forwarder’s
Employee. Their company chose Seaquest to be their forwarder after they
conducted a screening to ensure that they are a legitimate business and capable of
providing forwarding services for agrochemical companies such as theirs. Since
Seaquest had other clients in the agrochemical industry, defendant Bayer
Cropscience was convinced that indeed Seaquest has the capability to safely
transport its agrochemical products.

On June 21, 2008, he was aware that Bayer products were shipped aboard
the M/V Princess of the Stars which sank off the Coast of Sibuyan Island in
Romblon Province while en route to Cebu during a storm. The said goods were
promotional items which their marketing department occasionally sent to their
customers and were picked up from their warehouse on June 18, 2008 and later
shipped on June 20, 2008 aboard the M/V Princess of the Stars. It consists of
eighty-five (85) cartons in number and weighed around 1,091 kilograms. These
promotional items were considered small compared to regular orders but requires
the same amount of care and security in transport from the moment it was picked
up from their warehouse until delivery to the intended destination. Their company
Bayer Cropscience has no expertise in the transportation or carriage of goods thus
it obligates their forwarders through written agreements to follow all laws and
regulations on transporting goods after the forwarders left their warehouse. The
forwarder has the sole responsibility to ensure the goods are shipped, either by
land, sea or air, to the destination in accordance with the law and local ordinances
as well as government rules and regulations. As a forwarder, Seaquest never seek
Bayer’s approval before it loads the goods on any particular shipping lines and he
does not know that Seaquest would be shipping the Bayer products aboard the M/V
Princess of the Stars. Nobody from Bayer Cropscience executed or participated in
any way in the accomplishment of any Bill of Lading between Seaquest and Sulpicio
Lines, Incorporated. Prior to the sinking of the ship M/V Princess of the Stars,
Bayer Cropscience had no contact or communication with Sulpicio and there was no
instance where Seaquest required Bayer to execute a Bill of Lading for the goods
of Bayer which engaged Seaquest to transport to its customers considering that it
is the forwarder’s sole obligation and responsibility.

The defendant Bayer Cropscience’s good name as a company was dragged

into numerous news publications casting suspicions on their best practices and
environmental and safety standards because of the plaintiff’s baseless accusation
in filing this case. Bayers Cropscience’s name and business reputation was sullied
and as a consequence, it suffered a loss of goodwill. For such loss of good will and
damage to reputation, Bayer is asking at least Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
200,000.00) and to serve as an example against others who might be minded to
follow suit, refuse to acknowledge their obligations and make baseless and
malicious accusations, each plaintiffs should be adjudged to pay exemplary and
punitive damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand pesos (Php200,000.00).
In order to defend itself, Bayer Cropscience was constrained to engage the
services of legal counsel, Tan Concepcion & Que Law Office, hence they incurred
expenses for attorney’s fees and travel expenses in the amount of no less than
Five Hundred Thousand. Since it is provided in the Forwarding Service Agreement
(Exhibit “1-Bayer-B”) with Seaquest and if found to be negligent or committed any
act which exposed Bayer to liability in this case, Bayer would have asked for
reimbursement for any amount it is compelled to pay.
 CROSS EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT WITNESS RINOMIR
AQUINO BY PLAINTIFF SULPICIO

Before he was promoted as the Supply Chain Manager of Bayer Cropscience,

witness became the Quality Assurance Analyst from 2003 to 2006, then became
the Quality Assurance Supervisor from 2006 to 2012, then transferred to Supply
Chain as procurement officer, then became the Supply Chain Officer and then
Supply Chain Manager in 2013 up to present. At the time of the happening of the
incident, he was then the Quality Assurance Supervisor of Bayer Cropscience who
was responsible of the quality assurance for all the production or finished products
either formulated or imported products which were refilled in the production
plant. He was also in-charge with the evaluation of packaging materials and raw
materials in their physical and chemical properties. Since he was also in-charge
with the warehouse and logistics for Bayer Cropscience, one of his responsibilities
incorporated in the Quality, Health Safety and Environment (QHSE) in the quality
of the product and the safety of the products for distribution, and storage as well.
When the previous QHSE officer resigned last year, he was also the designated
PCO Officer or Pollution Control Officer today. He believed that Bayer has a
corporate social responsibility framework. They have a stewardship program within
the company and this extends to the customers or to the end users. As to their
stewardship program, their company has a specific Stewardship Officer and that
he was not sure on the exact rules and responsibility of such officer but on the
QHSE part, his role pertains only on the site itself.

He reiterated that Bayer Cropscience loaded 85 cartons of products and

weighs approximately 1,091 kilos which is supposedly promotional items in support
of the marketing campaigns of our marketing colleagues and were shipped on board
M/V Princess of the Stars. These products were Antracol, Tamaron, Fuerza to
name a few and these are the only thing he can remember. Antracol is a fungicide
which is a type of product that treats or manages diseases or fungus in plants and
other indications which they call as insecticide were Tamaro and Fuerza which are
used to treat insect pests or manage insect pests. All the products of Bayer are
registered under Fertilizer and Pesticides Authority which is categorized based on
their properties and it is labelled with a green, yellow, red, or blue band depending
on their toxicity level. These bands indicated the toxicity level of the products
based on the FPA guidelines and every product can be considered toxic based on
their intensity of usage but he was not sure if these are dangerous or hazardous
because his knowledge was based only on the FPA guidelines itself. Based on the
FPA guidelines, Antracol has a green band which is under the category of least
toxic, Tamaron has a red band and is under the category 1 which has a high toxicity
level and Fuerza with a yellow band under category 4. The FPA guidelines did not
mention about highly toxic or least toxic but just toxic and is based on the
minimum exposure, but it is better to refer to the FPA guidelines to be sure.
The witness confirmed that the cargo of Bayer were promotional items
which were then sent to its customers in Cebu and that a corresponding Material
Safety Data Sheet to these particular products Antrocol, Tamaran and Fuerza
where provided to their forwarder Seaquest by Bayer Cropscience. Although he
was not an expert on MSDS because he was still the Quality Assurance Supervisor
at that time, it was included on the files that have been transferred to him. The
MSDS is usually furnished to a forwarder by their company’s QHSE Officer when
they transport their product.

He reiterated that their company Bayer Cropscience did not communicate at

any given point in time with Sulpicio Lines, Incorporated with respect to the
shipments made in relation to this case. The basis of their claim for damages was
due to the doubts and suspicions cast upon their best practices and environmental
and safety standards of Bayer as a result of the filing of this case. He believes
that Seaquest Logistics is aware of their products considering that they have been
their forwarder since 2003 until the incident happened. He confirmed that
Antracol, Tamaron and Fuerza are all registered as brand name.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT BAYER

CROPSCIENCE RINOMIR AQUINO BY DEFENDANT SEAQUEST LOGISTICS

He reiterated that their products are rated under toxic category by the
FPA and is well aware of its effect in case something happens on the bases of its
label. He believed that at the start of the contract with Seaquest as their
forwarding company, there was an agreement on the handling of their product
considering that they are all toxic. He was able to retrieve an attendance sheet
(Exhibit “13”) on one of their annual training which they conducted for all
forwarders, contractors and third party employees where Seaquest Forwarder
participated. On that training, he told them as to the kind of products they are
forwarding, and taught them how to read the label because all their products are
properly labelled even the corrugated cartons. These products should be
specifically separated from any foods or feeds stuffs during transport since they
are all considered toxic. Although they were taught during their annual training, it
has also been reduced into a written agreement in their contract that the handling
of the cargo is the obligation of Seaquest. It was during his tenure as Supply Chain
Manager when they conducted the last training on May 13, 2008 where Seaquest
attended and specific instructions were given to Seaquest as to how to read the
label and how to take care of themselves in case of contamination or some
incidents during the routes. He confirmed that their products were tightly machine
sealed water proof aluminium pouches, co-extruded multi-layer bottles and plastic
bags with polypropylene bags that upon retrieval there were no leakages but its
labels were smudged and some were dissolved. He was not sure if there was a
document that would show that at the time the products were to delivered to
Seaquest for shipment, there were specific instructions to handle these products
carefully due to the fact that it was not his responsibility and he presumed that
Seaquest Forwarder must know how to handle their products considering that
there have been trainings conducted and Seaquest know how toxic the products
are according to the label.
 REDIRECT OF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT BAYER RINOMIR
AQUINO BY DEFENDANT BAYER CROPSCIENCE

He confirmed the signature of the former Warehouse Manager Mr. Dennis

Belarmino who was then in-charge of the Attendance sheet for the participants to
sign during the training that he conducted. Seaquest Forwarder sent eight (8)
participants as they were familiar having seen them before. He identified Exhibit
9-Bayer which is the Guidelines for Safe Warehousing of Pesticides Module as part
of the training that was conducted by Defendant Bayer Cropscience at that time.

RE-CROSS OF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT BAYER RINOMIR

AQUINO BY PLAINTIFF

The witness said that with respect to the trainings and seminars that were
conducted by defendant Bayer Cropscience and based on all the documents that he
had shown, he cannot recall that plaintiff Sulpicio Lines, Incorporated was invited
to attend those trainings and seminars.

RE-CROSS OF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT BAYER RINOMIR

AQUINO BY DEFENDANT SEAQUEST FORWARDER

The witness cannot recall and pinpoint who among the eight (8) participants
of Seaquest in the trainings based on the Attendance Sheet were the persons who
delivered those products that were now subject of this case due to the fact that
it was Dennis Belarmino who conducted the training.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT

SEAQUEST RUSTY D. CELERIAN (JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT [EXHIBIT “1”])

RUSTY D. CELERIAN- 55 years old, married, a resident of Phase 2, Block 3,

Lot 4 CJ Ledesma Village, Tacas, Jaro, Iloilo, City, an employee of Seaquest
Logistics. He testified that he knows the plaintiff Sulpicio Lines, Incorporated
because they ship goods through it and likewise know the co-defendant Bayer
Cropscience because their company Seaquest Logistics was their freight forwarder
before this case was filed. Seaquest Logistics, Incorporated is a domestic freight
forwarder for sea freight, trucking and air freight. Before he was employed with
the defendant Seaquest Logistics, he worked as Operations Supervisor at Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation from 1988 to 1992 handling vessel operations. After that he
was employed with Starlight Cargo Forwarding, Incorporated as Operations
Manager from 1992 to 2000, then in 2001 to 2007, he was employed by Starlight
Ferries, Incorporated as Operations Manager handling RORO Operations. In
November 2007, he was employed by Seaquest Logistics, Inc. until 2010 and
connected again in Seaquest Logistics, Inc. in December 2011 up to present.

Ever since he started working for Seaquest Logistics, Incorporated, he has

been shipping cargo with Sulpicio Lines, Incorporated and on the basis of
information and belief, Seaquest has been shipping cargoes with SLI. In shipping
container vans, they book with shipping lines a specific number of container vans
for specific destinations. After that they will van out, meaning their truck will pull
out an empty container vans from the container yard of Sulpicio Lines to be
brought to their warehouse for stuffing or loading. Once the container is full, they
will seal it with the shipping lines seal and bring the loaded container back to the
shipping lines yard for grounding and documentation. While loading the container
van, there was no inspector or representative of Sulpicio Lines present to witness
what kind of cargoes they are loading. “By grounding” means unloading of the
container van from their truck to the container yard of Sulpicio Lines, while
“documentations” are the preparations of the bill of lading. While the container van
is in the container yard of the shipping company, the shipping lines has all the right
to open the container van if it is in doubt with the declaration or for whatever
reason. However, it must be done in the presence of the shipper’s representative.
In all the years that he has been with Seaquest, there was no incident that his
attention was called to open their van but Sulpicio Lines cannot be prevented to
open their container van. Their company shipped various goods such as but not
limited to consumer goods, hardware, industrial products and medicines in
container vans by FULL CONTAINER LOAD OR LESS CONTAINER LOAD. In full
container load, the cargo is shipped by single shipper and consigned to one
consignee or customer, while in less container load, it shipped by a multiple
shippers consigned to multiple consignees which is also referred to as consolidation
cargoes. They usually consolidate almost all kinds of cargoes but they have to
ensure proper mixture, which is they do not mix food stuffs and perishable goods
with paints, chemicals and other related products. They identify their products in
the container van when they shipped with Sulpicio Lines as the products were
stated in the bill of lading but when the cargo is consolidated, they will just
declare it as various goods and do not identify each and every cargo. In the cargo
manifest consisting of twenty-five (25) pages, he found the name of their company
Seaquest and noticed certain cargoes denominated as various goods as well as
cargoes that may be classified as dangerous goods.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF RUSTY CELERIAN BY PLAINTIFF

SULPICIO LINES

Rusty Dasig Celerian stated that he was the Cebu Branch Manager of
Seaquest Logistics from November 2007 until April 2010. He resigned from
Seaquest Logistics on April 2010 but returned to the company on December 2011
up to present with the same capacity as Cebu Branch Manager.
 As a Manager, he is in-charge of the whole operations of the branch
including the overseeing of the documents although he has staff assigned to it but
made it a point that he is aware of all the transactions that is happening in his
branch. When he joined Seaquest Logistics last 2007 and assigned in Cebu, he saw
a lot of documents involving transactions of the company with Sulpicio Lines. He
then presumed that prior to his employment with Seaquest, there had been
transactions already with Sulpicio Lines. Likewise, as far as he could remember,
Bayer Crop science had been their client before he joined Seaquest Logistics
considering that Cebu Branch encountered several shipments from Bayer. He was
aware that defendant Bayer had a warehouse in the reclamation area where they
deliver their shipments.

He admitted that Seaquest filled up all the information contained in the Pro-
forma Bill of lading which is like a draft, where it is being turned over to the
shipping lines encoder who prepared the Bill of Lading which would be filled up
based on the information supplied in the pro-forma bill of lading by the shipper. He
stated that the procedure called Shipper’s Load, Count and Seal is allowed to
Seaquest Logistics being one of the regular client of Sulpicio Lines. Their customer
service books to Sulpicio Lines for a number of containers for specific destinations
like five (5) containers bound for Iloilo or 10 containers bound for Cebu and so on
and so forth. When Sulpicio Lines confirmed their bookings, they send their trucks
to the shipping line’s yard and van out or pull out the empty containers and mount it
on their trailer trucks and brought it to their warehouse. Sulpicio Lines would then
issue and provide a seal for the empty container vans. In their warehouse, they
loaded the cargoes in the empty containers based on its destination after which
they seal the van with a specific van number using the seal issued by Sulpicio Lines
without the presence of shipping line’s representative. The reason that they
declare it Shipper’s Load and Count due to the fact that Sulpicio would not allow
them not to declare the same because there was no witness from the shipping lines
during the loading and sealing of the container vans. As soon as the container vans
were loaded and sealed, the sealed container vans were brought back to the
shipping lines yard and have it grounded waiting for the issuance of the Bill of
Lading before it would be loaded to the vessel on a specific voyage. All the cargoes
loaded are labelled especially consolidated cargoes to enable them to easily
identify the owners of the cargoes upon arrival to their branch for delivery to
their various clients. The loaded container vans are pulled out from the pier and
are brought to their warehouse after which they unloaded all the cargoes from the
container vans without the presence of a representative of the shipping lines and
delivered all the cargoes to their various clients. This is their usual practice until
now.

He averred that as a shipping company, Sulpicio Lines can open the sealed
container van provided it must be done in the presence of a representative from
the shipper otherwise anything that would happen to the contents of the van shall
become a liability of Sulpicio Lines. Although Sulpicio Lines were the owner of the
container vans, the risk of opening it were their responsibility due to the fact that
each container has a declared specific seal number stated in the Bill of Lading.
Once the seal is broken, it has to be resealed with another seal issued by the
shipping lines. When the cargoes arrived in their branch, they had difficulty in
identifying the cargoes due to the fact that the number seal did not match with
what was written in the Bill of Lading. Likewise, they also experienced where upon
arrival of the vans, all were empty because it was hijacked and all the contents
were taken. Hence, the presence of a representative of the shipper is important
when the shipping lines opened the vans in order to attest that the shipper did not
take anything or nothing happened to its contents and after which reseal the van.
This is so because in this case, Seaquest is the one who actually stuffs and seals
the container vans.

A consolidated goods composed of multiple shippers and consignees. Some of

their clients would usually label their cargoes because they were the ones who
know who their consignees were. There were some cargoes that they were the one
who had labelled with respect only as to the name of the shipper and consignee but
not the contents of the cargoes. There were some cargoes that they already
recognized the shipper like the cargoes of Bayer, hence they need not have to
label it. They usually picked up the sealed cargoes of their clients without knowing
its contents but relied on the declaration of the shipper.

Although he had joined Seaquest since 2007, he did not know what kind of
goods or cargoes Bayer would normally or regularly ship with their company due to
the fact that they would not open and looked on the contents of the cargoes of all
their clients. But based on their declaration, Bayer would usually ship through
Seaquest, fertilizers for the agricultural products. In this particular shipment of
Bayer through Seaquest, he was not aware nor seen any Forwarding Service
Agreement because his assignment is in Cebu and all the documents between the
principal and their company was with their head office in Manila. What he only
confirmed was that a waybill was issued for that shipment which was used when
they deliver the cargoes to Bayer.

The Cargo Manifest was shown to him wherein he declared that he noticed
certain cargoes were listed dangerous which in his opinion is a general term but he
was not in a position to define dangerous goods although as far as he knows these
are poison. It contains chemicals that are considered dangerous such as sulfuric
acids, gasoline and paints. On the basis of the Cargo Manifest there was no Bayer
shipment found on it but he can find the shipment of Seaquest Logistics as the
shipper and at the same time the consignee under Bill of Lading T-14 Unit 1 which
was described as various goods only and did not indicate what kind of goods were
those various goods that were shipped. Further, the said Cargo Manifest, Seaquest
Logistics under Bill of Lading T-14 made a declaration and description with respect
to their cargoes as various goods.

The witness affirmed that Raquel Exconde is their Operations Manager

based in Manila. Although it is now known to everyone that Bayer cargoes were
Carbofuran, Antracol, Tamaron and Bayluscide, witness said that he had no
knowledge whether their company Seaquest was given by Bayer the Material
Safety Data Sheet for this particular cargoes. He was not privy nor had any access
to those documents considering that those documents were in Manila under the
management of Raquel Exconde while his assignment is in Cebu branch.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT BAYER

The witness confirmed that he was the Cebu Branch Manager of Seaquest at
present as well as at the time M/V Princess of the Stars capsized and that the
shipments on board such vessel did not reach his branch and was never received by
the salvaging company and shipped back to Manila. He likewise confirmed that the
shipper and consignee stated in the Bill of Lading T-14 was Seaquest over which
also declared the goods shipped as “Various Goods” because it was a consolidated
load. It contained many shipments from different customers in order to filled up
the container van. Although the goods were declared only as various goods, Sulpicio
Lines did not ask any question to make it more specific or detailed because as per
experience and even up to present, they always declare their cargoes as “Various
Goods” as reflected in the Bill of Lading with Seaquest Manila as the shipper and
Seaquest Cebu as the consignee, the destination. It is an established practice in
the shipping industry that if the shipper or the forwarder would declare its
consolidated cargoes as various, the shipping company would accept the same.

His work experiences would prove that he can determine whether or not the
cargo is dangerous or not. He has no formal training but handled vessel operations
at Aboitiz Shipping Corporation prior to his employment at Seaquest. His previous
employment gave him some advice that dangerous goods should not be allowed on
board a passenger vessel. It can only be loaded on the container ships but prior to
its loading, the shipper must secure first a permit to load from the Coastguard to
allow loading of these dangerous cargoes. The list of goods classified as dangerous
is not available in his office but only in Manila due to the fact that the volume of
their business is in Manila. Even if the container vans contains dangerous items, he
would not know because the cargoes are just simply labelled as “Various Goods” and
they are only the receiver and not the one forwarding it. Based on his experience
with other shipping companies, he never opened a container without the presence
of the shipper or the consignee because he knew the risk. If the shipping lines are
in doubt of the contents of the shipper or any circumstances affecting their
cargoes like leaking due to holes or rusting containers over which would affect
other cargoes, the shipping lines would have to call and inform the shipper first in
order not to be liable. On the other hand, forwarders should also inform or notify
the shipping lines in cases wherein upon reaching the cargo in their warehouse they
found some defect like there was a pin hole in the container during the
loading/unloading, the shipper must inform the shipping lines and cannot just open
or unload the container van without the presence of the claims officer of the
shipping lines.

As he perused the Cargo Manifest he identified dangerous goods one of

which are 55 cartons of varnish where in his own opinion it should not be shipped on
a passenger ship. It is flammable and may corrode where once it leaks it may
affect the other cargoes adjacent to it. He identified other dangerous goods such
as paints but he refused to scan it one by one because it is too many.

Although he knew that Bayer was a regular client of Seaquest even prior to
his employment with the same, he was not aware about the terms of the
Forwarding Service Agreement. It is because their principal office or head office
in Manila has the copy of the said document. He only confirmed that a Waybill or
HBL or House Bill of Lading were issued for each shipment made by Bayer.
Likewise, he was not aware of the procedures made in accepting cargoes of Bayer
because it was done in Manila. He was not aware also that there were trainings
conducted by Bayer to its forwarders because he was already an employee of
Seaquest when Bayer was their client. He knew that Bayer were into fertilizer and
farming agricultural industry but had no personal knowledge what cargo Bayer had
shipped which is the subject matter of this case.

REDIRECT OF WITNESS BY SEAQUEST

Witness agreed that there were goods that are considered dangerous per se
like dynamite or poison that are not allowed to be loaded on a passenger ship.
There were goods also classified as dangerous such as varnish or paints which has
legitimate uses but still considered as dangerous goods. When it comes to
dangerous goods per se, whether consolidated or not, it is not allowed to be loaded
on a passenger ship.