Cebu Shipyard v.
William Lines (Short title) - CSEW avers that since the fire experts were one in their opinion
GR # 132607 | May 5, 1999
Petitioner: Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc.
Respondent: William Lines, Inc. and Prudential Guarantee and Assurance
Company, Inc.
(Rule 130, Section 49)
FACTS
1. M/V Manila City is a luxury passenger-cargo vessel owned by
William Lines, Inc and was insured with Prudential for P45M for hull
and machinery which ncluded an Additional Perils Clause covering
loss of or damage through the negligence of ship repairmen.
2. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (CSEW) was also
insured by Prudential for 3rd party liability under a Shiprepairers
Legal Liability Insurance Policy for P10M.
3. William Lines, Inc. brought M/V Manila City to the Cebu Shipyard in
Lapu-lapu City for annual dry-docking and repair.
4. An arrival conference was held between representatives of William
Lines, Inc. and CSEW to discuss the work to be undertaken.
5. While the M/V Manila City was undergoing dry-docking and repairs
within the premises of CSEW, the master, officers and crew of M/V
Manila City stayed in the vessel, using their cabins as living
quarters while employees hired by William Lines to work on the
vessel were also present during the dry-docking.
6. Subsequently, after the vessel was transferred to the docking quay,
it caught fire and sank.
7. William Lines, Inc. then filed a complaint for damages against
CSEW, alleging that the fire was caused by CSEWs negligence.
8. Later, an Amended Complaint was filed impleading Prudential as
co-plaintiff, after the latter had paid William Lines, Inc. the value of
the hull and machinery insurance and as a result, Prudential was
subrogated to the claim of P45 million.
9. RTC rendered a judgment against CSEW which appealed to CA.
10. During the pendency of the appeal, CSEW and William Lines
presented a Joint Motion for Partial Dismissal with prejudice, on the
basis of an amicable settlement.
11. CA ordered the partial dismissal of the case insofar as CSEW and
William Lines were concerned and latter affirmed the order of the
RTC for CSEW to pay Prudential, the subrogee.
12. Hence this petition.
Contention of CSEW with regard to expert testimony
- CSEW contends that the CA erroneously ruled on the
inadmissibility of the expert testimonies it introduced on the
probable cause and origin of the fire.
that the fire did not originate in the area where the JNB workers
were doing hotworks but on the crew accommodation cabins, the
courts should have given weight to such finding based on the
testimonies of fire experts.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N CA committed a reversible error in ruling CSEW's expert evidence
as inadmissible or of no probative value.
PROVISION
Rule 130
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a
matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he
shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
RULING & RATIO
1. No.
1. Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses.
Although they may have probative value, reception in evidence of
expert testimonies is within the discretion of the court.
2. The word 'may' signifies that the use of opinion of an expert
witness as evidence is a prerogative of the courts.
3. It is never mandatory for judges to give substantial weight to expert
testimonies if from the facts and evidence on record, a conclusion
is readily ascertainable.
4. In the present case, the testimonies of the fire experts were not the
only available evidence on the probable cause and origin of the fire.
5. There were witnesses who were actually on board the vessel when
the fire occurred so between the testimonies of the fire experts and
the testimonies of those present during the fire, the latter are of
more probative value.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
decision, dated September 3, 1997, and Resolution, dated February 13,
1998, of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.