251. People vs. Paltinca

Doctrine:Right of way rule does not excuse operator who has last clear chance to take precaution. – Even if a vessel has the right of way, its operator who has perceived the danger of collision at a distance sufficient for him to avoid the same after seeing the smaller vessel crossing his path at a distance has the last clear chance, and hence is negligent if he fails to take the necessary precautions demanded by the circumstances. It is not enough that he blows his horn and signals the other vessel to move away. He should swerve his barge to the right to give way to the on coming vessel.

Lack of license gives rise to a presumption of negligence; Burden of proof. – Lack of license is a violation of maritime regulations, giving rise to a presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the operator to prove lack of negligence on his part.

Damage includes direct consequences of accident; Depreciation in value of damaged parts must be proved. – Damage is not limited to the result of the impact of the collision but to all direct consequences thereof. The refusal of the owner of the damaged vessel to take back the engine after its recovery from the water is justified if it is already a total loss and beyond repair. Depreciation in the value is a matter of conjecture and it is for the party liable for the damages to prove the depreciation.

Facts:The motorized vinta of Mana Mantol was hit by the barge “Altamira” of Inland Waters Transportation Company, in consequence of which the vinta capsized, its outboard motor damaged, its passengers losing personal effects and cargoes. At the time the said motorized vinta was coming in crosscurrent to dock at the city waterfront on the southern bank of the river to land its 13 passengers about half of whom were seated on top of its cargo about ½ ton weight. It was then operated by its owner, Mana Mantol, admittedly without license to ferry passengers and cargo and uninstructed in maritime laws, rules and regulations. The barge “Altamira” was coming down stream along with the strong river current, having come from its moving at the Inland Waters Transportation Company compound less than a kilometer upstream, and was then in the vicinity of the wharf at which it was to dock to receive passengers and cargoes in furtherance of the business of its owners. Said barge was a big and rectangular vessel and piloted then by Teopisto Paltinca.

Moments before the collision both vessels were in motion and were both approaching and nearing a common docking area. The vinta was crossing the channel of the Rio Grande bordered on one side by the southern bank of the river and on the other side by the inland formation in the middle of the river, blew its horns to warn intruding vinta against the later vessel’s trespassing on its right of way in the dangerous situation and circumstances obtaining them. It was as the vinta was clearing the path of the barge that the two vessels came in contact with each other, the middle front of the barge colliding with the rear end of the vinta.

Issue:Whether or not Paltinca is liable

Held: YESPaltinca argues that, as operator of the big barge, he had the right of way, contending that between the big barge and the small vinta, the big barge had the right of way and as such the smaller one should give the right of way to the larger vessel. The right of way does not absolve its operator from negligence, nor excuse him from taking the necessary precaution as the circumstances required. Even if he had the right of way, Paltinca as operator of the larger barge perceived the danger of collision at a distance sufficient for him to avoid the same because he saw the small vinta crossing his path at a distance; In other words, he had the last clear chance and hence, he was negligent in failing to take the necessary precautions demanded by the circumstances.

Paltinca claims that he did not exactly know at the time the path being pursued by the motorized vinta as he noticed the same at a distance of about 30 meters and signaled it to move to the right. The latter failed to heed the signal so that the accused tried to back up to avoid the accident. It was thus evident that the appellant knew that the motorized vinta was crossing his path, but failed to exercise caution, relying on the fact that he had the right of way, and that he blew his horn and signaled the smaller vessel to move away. Such precautions are not enough. Appellant claims to have slowed down by placing the gear in the neutral position. This only served to cause the vessel to get out of control. Appellant could have swerved the barge to the right to give way to the vinta. In this way, the accident could have been avoided.

Paltinca claims that the mere lack of license to operate the barge does not ipso facto warrant the conclusion that the accused is an incompetent and inept operator. We do not agree with him. Lack of license is a violation of maritime regulations, giving rise to a presumption of negligence.

Damage is not limited to the result of the impact of the collision but to all direct consequences thereof.