G.R. No.

130068 October 1, 1998

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.

G.R. No. 130150 October 1, 1998

MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs.
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS:
On June 20, 1980, the M/V PAVLODAR, flying under the flagship of the USSR, owned and operated by the
Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC), arrived at the Port of Manila from Vancouver, British Columbia at
about 7:00 o'clock in the morning. The vessel was assigned Berth 4 of the Manila International Port, as its
berthing space. Captain Roberto Abellana was tasked by the Philippine Port Authority to supervise the
berthing of the vessel. Appellant Senen Gavino was assigned by the Appellant Manila Pilots' Association
(MPA) to conduct docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the vessel to Berth No. 4.

Gavino boarded the vessel at the quarantine anchorage and stationed himself in the bridge, with the master
of the vessel, Victor Kavankov, beside him. After a briefing of Gavino by Kavankov of the particulars of the
vessel and its cargo, the vessel lifted anchor from the quarantine anchorage and proceeded to the Manila
International Port. The sea was calm and the wind was ideal for docking maneuvers. - When the vessel
reached the landmark (the big church by the Tondo North Harbor) one-half mile from the pier, Gavino
ordered the engine stopped. When the vessel was already about 2,000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered
the anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel on the bow. The left anchor,
with 2 shackles, were dropped. However, the anchor did not take hold as expected. The speed of the vessel
did not slacken. A commotion ensued between the crew members. A brief conference ensued between
Kavankov and the crew members. When Gavino inquired what was all the commotion about, Kavankov
assured Gavino that there was nothing to it. - After Gavino noticed that the anchor did not take hold, he
ordered the engines 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 hold. Gavino thereafter
gave the "full-astern" code. Before the right anchor and additional shackles could be dropped, the bow of
the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. The vessel sustained
damage too. Kavankov filed his sea protest. Gavino submitted his report to the Chief Pilot who referred the
report to the Philippine Ports Authority. Abellana likewise submitted his report of the incident. - The
rehabilitation of the damaged pier cost the Philippine Ports Authority the amount of P1,126,132.25.

ISSUE:
Whether or not both the pilot and the master were negligent

RULING:
Yes. The SC started by saying that in a collision between a stationary object and a moving object, there is
a presumption of fault against the moving object (based on common sense and logic). It then went on to
determine who between the pilot and the master was negligent.

PILOT
A pilot, in maritime law, is a person duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a vessel into or out of ports, or
in certain waters. He is an expert who’s supposed to know the seabed, etc. that a master of a ship may not
know because the pilot is familiar with the port. He is charged to perform his duties with extraordinary care
because the safety of people and property on the vessel and on the dock are at stake. Capt. Gavino was
found to be negligent. The court found that his reaction time (4 minutes) to the anchor not holding ground
and the vessel still going too fast was too slow. As an expert he should’ve been reacting quickly to any such
happenings.
MASTER
In compulsory pilotage, the pilot momentarily becomes the master of the vessel. The master, however may
intervene or countermand the pilot if he deems there is danger to the vessel because of the incompetence
of the pilot or if the pilot is drunk. - Based on Capt. Kavankov’s testimony, he never sensed the any danger
even when the anchor didn’t hold and they were approaching the dock too fast. He blindly trusted the pilot.
This is negligence on his part. He was right beside the pilot during the docking, so he could see and hear
everything that the pilot was seeing and hearing. The master’s negligence translates to unseaworthiness
of the vessel, and in turn means negligence on the part of FESC.