Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 51214. January 26, 1989.]

EDGARDO DORUELO, ANTHONY ESTENZO, Petitioners, v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, and MARIA EFIGENIA SHIPPING CORP., Respondents.

Manuel A. De Guzman, Danilo M. Garcia and Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba, for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.

Tividad & Ong-Alvarez for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONTROLLING. — The rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authorities. We are satisfied, judging from its thoroughness, that the Philippine Coast Guard (through the Board of Marine Inquiry) heard the case judiciously and evaluated the evidence carefully. Such an evidence, appears not only substantial but preponderant as well.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONSTRUED. — Substantial evidence in more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760). But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed No. 4. Adv. Op. p. 131.)

3. ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION TO BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. — We however, modify the decision insofar as the respondent Ministry had modified its provisions on the penalty imposable on the petitioner, Edgardo Doruelo. The Philippine Coast Guard had prescribed a two-year suspension; a prescription reversed on appeal, and the penalty increased to three years, "based on the verified information that Capt. DORUELO is involved in another sea collision involving his vessel. thereby indicating his propensity to reckless operation of a watercraft." For another cardinal rule in administrative adjudication is that" [t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties effected."


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


The Court modifies the decision of the respondent, the Philippine Coast Guard, 1 as well as the 1st Indorsement, in the nature of a disposition on appeal, of the respondent, the then Ministry of National Defense, 2 affirming the said decision.

The decision disposed of twin marine protests filed by the petitioner, Captain Edgardo Doruelo, in his capacity as master of LSCO Petroparcel, a steel tanker owned and operated by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, and Patron Delfin Villarosa, master of MB Maria Efigenia XV, a fishing boat owned and operated by the respondent, Maria Efigenia Shipping Corporation, arising from a maritime collision between the two vessels on September 21, 1977 resulting in the sinking of the fishing boat.

The decision disposed of as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Capt Edgardo Doruelo and Chief Mate Anthony Estenzo be suspended for a period of two (2) years from the practice of their marine profession and be disqualified to board any vessel as marine officer during the period of suspension.

(2) Patron Delfin Villarosa be exonerated of any liability in the incident but he is hereby admonished and warned not to lose his cool and composure when faced with a similar situation in the future.

This decision shall become final and executory when no appeal is filed with the Minister of National Defense Thirty (30) days after receipt of a copy thereof.

SO ORDERED. 3

The petitioners then appealed to the Ministry. The Ministry submitted a modified disposition, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

After careful review and consideration of the evidence on record and other allied papers attached thereto, this Office finds the decision of the Commandant Philippine Coast Guard legally in order. Accordingly; the herein appeal of Capt Edgardo Daruelo and Chiefmate Anthony ESTENZO of LSCO PETROPARCEL is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Additionally, based on the verified information that Capt. DORUELO is involved in another sea collision involving his vessel, thereby indicating HIS propensity to reckless operation of a watercraft, the penalty of suspension against him is hereby increased from two (2) years to three (3) years. 4

The findings of the Philippine Coast Guard, so far as material to this petition, are hereinbelow reproduced as follows:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

x       x       x


Evidence clearly shows that LSCO Petroparcel and the two fishing boats, MB Maria Efigenia XV and MB Maria Efigenia XI, the first towing the latter, were headed in the same direction at the time of the incident with the LSCO Petroparcel as the overtaking vessel while the fishing boats the overtaken vessels. This is evident from that fact that LSCO Petroparcel, which was a faster vessel having an operational speed of eight (8) knots, had overtaken the fishing boats in 45 minutes and was abeam the towing fishing boat now identified as MB Maria Efigenia XV. Rule 24 of the International Rules of the Road provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, every vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the above-quoted provision, LSCO Petroparcel as the overtaking vessel was required to keep out of the way of the overtaken vessels. Capt Doruelo claimed that when he had overtaken and was abeam the towing fishing boat, he altered course to left easy to give leeway to the fishing boat and to an unidentified dry cargo vessel which he allegedly sighted approaching from the opposite direction when his vessel was abeam the fishing boat. That the latter allegedly followed his vessel by altering to hard port, so he ordered hard port but still the fishing boat followed until she hit his vessel at her starboard side. In effect, Capt Doruelo was trying to impress the Board that he had kept out of the way of the overtaken fishing boats as required by the above-cited provision, but that the fishing boats followed and, in the process, the towing fishing boat hit his vessel.

The Board, however, did not believe such claim. The Board observed that when LSCO Petroparcel allegedly altered her course to left easy, she was abeam the towing fishing boat, MB Maria Efigenia XV, with a distance of 300 meters separating them (per Capt. Doruelo’s Marine Protest and Chief Mate Estenzo’s testimony) and travelling at full speed of 8 knots while MB Maria Efigenia XV, which allegedly followed by also altering her course to hard port, was travelling at a speed of 6 knots and towing another vessel. Under the given circumstances the Board held that MB Maria Efigenia XV could not have overtaken LSCO Petroparcel and hit the latter at her starboard side considering her (LSCO Petroparcel) faster speed and head start of 300 meters and the fact that MB Maria Efigenia XV had a slower speed and towing another fishing boat which further slowed down her speed. 5

x       x       x


The petitioners’ challenges are mainly factual. The rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authorities. When is evidence "substantial" has been elaborated on, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . "Substantial evidence in more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" "Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling." The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93, 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene & Southern Ry. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288, 44 S. Ct, 565,569, 68 Law. ed. 1016; Tagg Bros & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U.S. 420, 244, 50 S. Ct. 220, 225 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed No. 4. Adv. Op. p. 131.) 6

x       x       x


We find nothing in the decision so questioned that would justify the review sought. On the other hand, we are satisfied, judging from its thoroughness, that the Philippine Coast Guard (through the Board of Marine Inquiry) heard the case judiciously and evaluated the evidence carefully. Such an evidence, appears not only substantial but preponderant as well.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The public respondents’ alleged "misconstruance of the facts" 7 is not a ground for review. As we have indicated, we yield to the Philippine Coast Guard’s factual findings because first, it had been called upon to make such findings and second, it was in a far better position to appraise the pieces of evidence before it. In any case, we cannot say that it had misconstrued the evidence, simply because it had rejected the petitioners’ own. The question is whether or not the evidence utilized to support the decision can stand scrutiny. Under the circumstances, we find that it can. The petitioners on the other hand, with their naked insistencies alone, have not.

We, however, modify the decision insofar as the respondent Ministry had modified its provisions on the penalty imposable on the petitioner, Edgardo Doruelo. The Philippine Coast Guard had prescribed a two-year suspension; a prescription reversed on appeal, and the penalty increased to three years, "based on the verified information that Capt. DORUELO is involved in another sea collision involving his vessel. thereby indicating his propensity to reckless operation of a watercraft." 8 For another cardinal rule in administrative adjudication is that" [t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties effected." 9 Hence, the respondent Ministry must be held to be in error in considering evidence not duly presented and in raising the penalty based thereon. If Captain Doruelo is liable for another sea mishap, let his liability be determined in the proper proceedings.

WHEREFORE, (1) the petition is hereby DISMISSED; and (2) the decision, dated November 21, 1978, insofar as it metes out the penalty of suspension of two (2) years against the petitioner, Captain Edgardo Doruelo, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. In re: Sinking of MB Maria Efigenia XV. (PCG) BMI Case No. 332, November 21, 1978; Rollo, 22-39.

2. In re: Appeal from a decision of the Board of Marine Inquiry (MBI) on the Sinking of MB MARIA EFIGENIA XV, (MND), June 23, 1979; id., 21.

3. Id., 38-39.

4. Id., 21.

5. Id., 32-33.

6. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635, 642-643 (1940).

7. Rollo, id., 9.

8. Id., 21.

9. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, supra, 643.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA