11. FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE PORTS of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. The vessel sustained damage
AUTHORITY too.
G.R. No. 130068 | October 1, 1998 | 297 SCRA 30
Subject: Skills and reasonable degree of diligence  Kavankov filed his sea protest (Exhibit "1-Vessel"). Gavino submitted his report to
Petitioner: Far Eastern Shipping Company the Chief Pilot (Exhibit "1 -Pilot ") who referred the report to the Philippine Ports
Respondent: Philippine Ports Authority Authority (Exhibit "2-Pilot"). Abellana likewise submitted his report of the incident
(Exhibit "B ").Per contract and supplemental contract of the Philippine Ports
DOCTRINE: Every man who offers his services to another, and is employed, assumes to Authority and the contractor for the rehabilitation of the damaged pier, the same
exercise in the employment such skills he possesses, with a reasonable degree of diligence. In cost the Philippine Ports Authority the amount of P1,126,132.25
all these employments where peculiar skill is requisite, if one offers his services he is (Exhibits "D" and "E").|||
understood as holding himself out to the public as possessing the degree of skill commonly  January 10, 1983: PPA, through the SolGen filed before RTC Manila, a complaint for
possessed by others in the same employment, and if his pretensions are unfounded he a sum of money against Far Eastern Shipping Co., Capt. Senen C. Gavino and the
commits a species of fraud on every man who employs him in reliance on his public Manila Pilots' Association. TC: ordered defendants to jointly and severally to pay
profession. the PPA the amount of P1,053,300.00 representing actual damages and the costs of
suit.|||
Generally, the degree of care required is graduated according to the danger a person or  Defendants appealed. Appellate court affirmed findings of lower court except the it
property attendant upon the activity which the actor pursues or the instrumentality which he found no employee-employer relationship between MPA and Capt. Gavino.
uses. The greater the danger the greater the degree of care required. What is ordinary under  Both FESC and MPA appealed to the CA.
extraordinary of conditions is dictated by those conditions; extraordinary risk demands  Upon motion by FESC dated April 24, 1998 in G.R. No. 130150, said case was
extraordinary care. Similarly, the more imminent the danger, the higher the degree of consolidated with G.R. No. 130068.|||
care.|||
Petitioners’ Assertion (FESC): Respondents’ Assertion (PPA):
FACTS:
 June 20, 1980: At 7am, the M/V PAVLODAR (flagship under USSR), owned and Petitioner FESC faults the respondent court It posits that the vessel was being piloted by
operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC for brevity), arrived at the with serious error in not holding MPA and Capt. Gavino with Capt. Kabankov beside
Port of Manila from Vancouver, British Columbia. The vessel was assigned Berth 4 Capt. Gavino solely responsible for the him all the while on the bridge of the vessel,
of the Manila International Port, as its berthing space. Captain Roberto Abellana damages caused to the pier. It avers that as the former took over the helm of MV
was tasked by the Philippine Port Authority to supervise the berthing of the vessel. since the vessel was under compulsory Pavlodar when it rammed and damaged the
Appellant Senen Gavino was assigned by the Appellant Manila Pilots' Association pilotage at the time with Capt. Gavino in apron of the pier of Berth No. 4 of the
(MPA for brevity to conduct docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the vessel command and having exclusive control of Manila International Port. Their concurrent
to Berth No. 4. the vessel during the docking maneuvers, negligence was the immediate and
 Gavino boarded the vessel at the quarantine anchorage and stationed himself in then the latter should be responsible for proximate cause of the collision between the
the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov. The sea was calm and damages caused to the pier. It likewise holds vessel and the pier — Capt. Gavino, for his
the wind was ideal for docking. the appellate court in error for holding that negligence in the conduct of docking
 When the vessel reached the landmark (the big church by the Tondo North Harbor) the master of the ship, Capt. Kabankov, did maneuvers for the safe berthing of the
one-half mile from the pier, Gavino ordered the engine stopped. When the vessel not exercise the required diligence vessel; and Capt. Kabankov, for failing to
was already about 2,000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. demanded by the circumstances. countermand the orders of the harbor pilot
Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel on the bow. The left anchor, and to take over and steer the vessel himself
with two (2) shackles, were dropped. However, the anchor did not take hold as in the face of imminent danger, as well as for
expected. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. A commotion ensued between merely relying on Capt. Gavino during the
the crew members & Kavankov (talking in Russian). When Gavino inquired what berthing procedure.|||
was all the commotion about, Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to
it. ISSUE: WON the CA erred in holding that the master had not exercised the required diligence
 After Gavino noticed that the anchor did not take hold, he ordered the engines demanded from him by the circumstances at the time the incident happened – NO.
half-astern. Abellana, who was then on the pier apron noticed that the vessel was
approaching the pier fast. Kavankov likewise noticed that the anchor did not take HELD:
hold. Gavino thereafter gave the "full-astern" code. Before the right anchor and As can be gleaned from the logbook, Gavino ordered the left anchor and two (2) shackles
additional shackles could be dropped, the bow of the vessel rammed into the apron dropped at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. He ordered the engines of the vessel stopped at 8:31
o'clock. By then, Gavino must have realized that the anchor did not hit a hard object and was
not clawed so as to reduce the momentum of the vessel. In point of fact, the vessel DISPOTIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, in view of all of the foregoing, the consolidated petitions
continued travelling towards the pier at the same speed. Gavino failed to react. At 8:32 for review are DENIED and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto
o'clock, the two (2) tugboats began to push the stern part of the vessel from the port side but
the momentum of the vessel was not contained. Still, Gavino did not react. He did not even
order the other anchor and two (2) more shackles dropped to arrest the momentum of the
vessel. Neither did he order full-astern. It was only at 8:34 o'clock, or four (4) minutes, after
the anchor was dropped that Gavino reacted. But his reaction was even (haphazard)
because instead of arresting fully the momentum of the vessel with the help of the
tugboats, Gavino ordered merely "half-astern". It took Gavino another minute to order a
"full-astern". By then, it was too late. The vessel's momentum could nolonger be arrested
and, barely a minute thereafter, the bow of the vessel hit the apron of the pier. ||

Under English and American authorities, generally speaking, the pilot supersedes the master
for the time being in the command and navigation of the ship, and his orders must be
obeyed in all matters connected with her navigation. He becomes the master pro hac
vice and should give all directions as to speed, course, stopping and reversing, anchoring,
towing and the like. And when a licensed pilot is employed in a place where pilotage is
compulsory, it is his duty to insist on having effective control of the vessel, or to decline to
act as pilot. Under certain systems of foreign law, the pilot does not take entire charge of the
vessel, but is deemed merely the adviser of the master, who retains command and control of
the navigation even in localities where pilotage is compulsory.|||

Here, Capt. Gavino was assigned to pilot MV Pavlodar into Berth 4 of the Manila International
Port. Upon assuming such office as compulsory pilot, Capt. Gavino is held to the universally
accepted high standards of care and diligence required of a pilot, whereby he assumes to
have skill and knowledge in respect to navigation in the particular waters over which his
license extends superior to and more to be trusted than that of the masters. A pilot should
have a thorough knowledge of general and local regulations and physical conditions affecting
the vessel in his charge and the waters for which he is licensed, such as a particular harbor or
river. He is not held to the highest possible degree of skill and care, but must have and
exercise the ordinary skill and care demanded by the circumstances, and usually shown by an
expert in his profession. Under extraordinary circumstances, a pilot must exercise
extraordinary care.

The court affirm respondent court's finding that Capt. Gavino failed to measure up to such
strict standard of care and diligence required of pilots in the performance of their duties.

The negligence on the part of Capt. Gavino is evident; but Capt. Kabankov is no less
responsible for the collision. His unconcerned lethargy as master of the ship in the face of
troublous exigence constitutes negligence.||| Capt. Kabankov's shared liability is due mainly
to the fact that he failed to act when the perilous situation should have spurred him into
quick and decisive action as master of the ship. In the face of imminent or actual danger, he
did not have to wait for the happenstance to occur before countermanding or overruling the
pilot. By his own admission, Capt. Kabankov concurred with Capt. Gavino's decisions, and this
is precisely the reason why he decided not to countermand any of the latter' s orders.
Inasmuch as both lower courts found Capt. Gavino negligent, by expressing full agreement
therewith Capt. Kabankov was just as negligent as Capt. Gavino.|||