You are on page 1of 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 155, MAKATI CITY

REV. FATHER ELIAS HOLMES


Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 001-2015


FOR: DAMAGES
KALIKASAN

AND

WRIT

OF

LPU CORPORATION
Defendants,
x--------------------------------x

PRELIMINARYCONFERENCE

The(stipulated)factsasagreedbyplaintiffsanddefendants.

1)ThedefendantisaForeignCorporationEngagedinTradeandBusinessinthePhilippines.It
ismainlyengagedincarryingandtransportingpassengersfromPhilippineportstotheUSports
andviceversa.US M/VThomas isapassengervesselwithacapacityof3000passengersper
trip.

2)ThecomplainantisaresidentofIloIlo,andapassengerofUS M/VThomas (apassenger


vesselownedandoperatedbyhereindefendantLPUCorp.headedtoCalifornia,USA),fora
EucharisticCongregation.

3)ThevesselranagroundtheTubbatahareefsinPalawanon5January2015.

4)USM/VThomascarrying(2,530)twothousandfivehundredthirtypassengers,includingthe
complainantherein,lefttheportofSubicbaytohernextportofcallinSingaporeandenrouteto
itsnextdestinationtherewasalreadyalowpressureareaarising.

5)WhileM/VThomasisonitswaytotheSubicPort,theShipCaptain,Capt.JohnScott(Capt.
Scottforbrevity)receivedawarningthatitwillbehardtopassthroughtheirusualroutedueto
theincomingtyphoon(typhoonSimon).

6)Capt.Scotttheninstantaneouslydecidedtochangetherouteforfearofthesafetyofthecrew
andpassengerswithoutsecuringpermitandapprovalofthePhilippineportauthority.

7)FromthenorthwestofSuluSea,theyreroutedtothesoutheastofPalawan.Whiletraversing
theinternalwatersofPalawan,M/VThomasranagroundtheTubbatahareefs.

8)Asaresultthereof,thecomplainant,includingtwentyfourotherssustainedseriousphysical
injuriesduetothestrongimpactofthevesseltothereefs.

9)Thecomplainantwasadvisedtotakearestfor120daysfortheinjuriesthatitsustained.The
strongimpactalsocauseddamagetothecoralreefswhere,atpresenttime,shipstillremains
afloat.TheTubbatahacoralreefsisaUNESCOheritagesite.

10)Thecomplainantisseekingforthefollowingreliefs,towit;

DamagesforthebreachofContractofCarriage.

IssuanceofWritofKalikasan.

Actualandlitigationexpenses

THEDISPUTEARISESFROMTHECLAIMOFTHEDEFENDANTSTHAT:
Thedefendantarguestheycannotbeheldliableforbreachofcontractofcarriage;andthatthis
courtisnotclothwithauthoritytoissueaTEPO/WritofKalikasan.

THEISSUESOFTHECASEARE:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
CARRIAGE THAT WOULD ENTITLE THE PLAINTIFF DAMAGES.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE OF TEPO/WRIT OF KALIKASAN


IS PROPER.

THEISSUESTHEREFOREARENOTFACTUALBUTQUESTIONSOFLAW,TOWIT:

TO FACILITATE THE HEARING OF THE CASE IT WAS AGREED THAT AN


EXCHANGEOFMEMORANDAANDWHATEVEREVIDENCETHROUGHAFFIDAVITS.

DEADLINEFORSUBMISSIONOFBOTHPARTIESOFSIMULTANEOUSMEMORANDA
ANDANNEXESISONFEB.7.10AMINCLASS. BEREADYFORCLARIFICATORY
QUESTIONSFROMTHEJUDGESANDI.

(CORRECTEDCOPY:PLEASEREDOACCORDINGTOCORRECTIONS.)

You might also like