REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH _____
MAKATI CITY
HARBOR STAR SHIPPING SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
- versus ______________

CIVIL

CASE

NO.

FOR:
Damages
with
Injunction (With Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction)
CAPT. VICENTE A. LAGURA,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

DAMAGES WITH INJUNCTION

(WITH PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)
Plaintiffs, by counsel, most respectfully state:
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff, HARBOR STAR SHIPPING SERVICES, INC.
[Harbor Star], is a domestic corporation with principal
address at 2224 A. Bonifacio St. corner Sergio Osmena
Highway, Bangkal Makati City, where it may be served with
summons, notices and other processes of this Honorable
Court. It has duly authorized its Davao Branch Manager, Mr.
Ronaldo Antonio C. Samong, to represent the Corporation
as per the Secretarys Certificate attached herein as Annex
A;

Defendant, CAPT. VICENTE A. LAGURA [Capt.

Lagura], is Filipino, of legal age, and a licensed harbor pilot
in the port of Davao with office address at Doors 1 & 2
Lagura Bldg., J.P. Cabaguio Avenue, Davao City where he
may be served with summons, notices and other processes
of this Honorable Court.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF

ACTION
1.

Harbor Star is primarily engaged in the business of

providing harbor assistance, lighterage, emergency towage,

salvage, deep-sea diving and other marine-related services.
It owns and operates several tugboats that are stationed in
major ports nationwide such as Manila, Bataan, Batangas,
Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos and Quezon.
2.

Prior to arrival at the port of destination, a foreign

cargo vessel appoints a local representative or agent [ship

agent] to make the necessary arrangements in preparation
for her arrival. Among others, a ship agent prepares a Notice
of Arrival to be submitted to the Philippine Ports Authority
[PPA]. The said notice indicates the name and particulars of
the incoming vessel, the estimated date and time of arrival
and the tugboat company nominated by the ship agent to
provide harbor tug assistance.
3.

Once the ship agent has appointed Harbor Star, the

former either provides a copy of the Notice of Arrival or

sends an email confirming the engagement of the latter for

HSSSI _ complaint

the provision of harbor tug assistance services to a particular

vessel.

The

Notice

of

Arrival

and/or

email

including

subsequent correspondences relating thereto comprises the

agreement between a ship agent and Harbor Star.
4.

Upon arrival of the foreign cargo vessel, the PPA

requires that a harbor pilot go onboard the vessel to

navigate

her

safely,

together

with

the

assistance

of

tugboats, in approaching the port where it will dock. The

same also applies during vessel departure. Since pilotage
services are mandatory, the PPA has established guidelines
governing pilotage services, code of conduct of pilots, and
pilotage fees.
5.

The professional association of harbor pilots

licensed to practice in the ports of Davao is known as Davao

Pilots Inc. whose incumbent President is Capt. Lagura, the
defendant herein. It is a requirement for a harbor pilot to
become a member of the said association to enable him to
practice his profession in the port of Davao.
6.

Defendant Capt. Lagura is also the President of

Davao Gulf Marine Services Inc. [Davao Gulf], a tugboat

company also operating in the port of Davao which directly
competes with Harbor Star.

It was incorporated by

incumbent ten (10) harbor pilots in the Port of Davao in 18

January 2012.

A printout of the webpage of Davao Gulf

confirming the foregoing is attached herein as Annex B.

Likewise, a copy of the company registration of Davao Gulf
issued by the Securities & Exchange Commission is attached
as Annex C.

HSSSI _ complaint

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Re: Actual Damages)
7.

On 18 September 2014, Harbor Star received a

Notice of Arrival relating to the cargo vessel named MV

Zhong Yu 18. The vessel appointed Philhua Shipping Inc.
[Philhua] as its ship agent who in turn nominated and
instructed Harbor Star to provide tug services. A copy of the
Notice of Arrival is attached herein as Annex D.
8.

Subsequently, on 29 September 2014, Philhua

informed Harbor Star that MV Zhong Yu 18 will have a pilot

on board at 0600H, and will commence docking immediately
thereafter. For this reason, Harbor Star prepared tugboats MT
Arneb and MT Vega, and commenced its operations in
anticipation

for

the

docking

of

MV

Zhong

Yu

18.

Consequently Harbor Star incurred expenses when it sent its

tugboats to the location of MV Zhong Yu 18. A copy of the
Dispatch Tickets of MT Arneb and MT Vega are attached
herein as Annexes E and F, respectively.
9.

At around 0630H on the same date, Philhua

informed Harbor Star that Capt. Lagura refused to assign a

pilot to board MV Zhong Yu 18 unless it agrees to avail of the
services of Davao Gulf, a company where he is not only a
stockholder but also serves as President. This was so despite
the valid and existing agreement between Philhua and
Harbor Star.

Worse, it was even after Harbor Star already

dispatched its tugboats to conduct the docking assistance.

10.

Further, Capt. Lagura informed Philhua that the

pilots in Davao do not like that Philhua exclusively avails of

the tug services of Harbor Star.
HSSSI _ complaint

11.

Due to the time lost and to avoid any further delay

in docking the vessel, Philhua by 0930H decided to submit to

the coercion, intimidation and undue influence of Capt.
Lagura resulting from his refusal to assign a pilot who would
board the vessel. Hence, Philhua was forced to dishonor its
agreement with Harbor Star by recalling the tugboats and
then engage the tugboats operated by Davao Gulf. Shortly
thereafter, a pilot namely Capt. Windelyn O. Bureros,
boarded MV Zhong Yu 18 to dock her at Tefasco port.
12.

In view of the improper and malicious interference

of Capt. Lagura, Harbor Star therefore lost expected

revenues from the transaction while Davao Gulf illegally
profited there from in the amount of One Hundred Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P130,000.00). A copy of the Billing
Statement submitted by Davao Gulf to Philhua confirming
the foregoing is attached as Annex G.
13.

There was a valid, legal and binding contract

between Harbor Star and Philhua when the latter sent the
Notice of Arrival to former instructing it to provide tugboat
services to the vessel.

In fact, the contract was not only

perfected amongst the parties but there was already partial

performance by Harbor Star of its obligation to Philhua when
it dispatched the tugboats to assist MV Zhong Yu 18 [See
Annexes E and F].
14.

Philhua was also willing to comply with its

obligations to Harbor Star. However, it was prevented from

doing so when Capt. Lagura interfered by refusing to assign
a pilot to go onboard the vessel unless the tugboats of

HSSSI _ complaint

Davao Gulf, not Harbor Star, are engaged to assist during

the docking operations. Philhua therefore was left without
any recourse and was compelled to breach its contract with
Harbor Star by utilizing the tugboats operated by Davao Gulf.
15.

There is undue influence when a person takes

improper advantage of his power over the will of

another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom
of choice [See Article 1337, New Civil Code]. Capt. Lagura
thefore deprived Philhua of its freedom to choose a tugboat
service provider of its choice. [See Article 1314, New Civil
Code].
16.

In view of the unlawful acts committed by Capt.

Lagura, Harbor Star therefore lost expected revenues from

its contract with Philhua. Defendant Capt. Lagura should
therefore be held liable to pay actual damages in the amount
of

ONE

HUNDRED

THIRTY

THOUSAND

PESOS

(PHP

130,000.00) in favor of Harbor Star.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Re: Moral Damages)
17.

Harbor Star respectfully repleads the foregoing

allegations in so far as they are applicable.

18.

When Capt. Lagura refused to assign a pilot to

board the foreign vessel availing of the services of tugboats

operated by Harbor Star, he debased the reputation of the
latter directly before its regular customer in Davao.
19.

The unlawful and deplorable acts of the defendant

HSSSI _ complaint

therefore damaged the reputation of Harbor Star, resulting in

social humiliation as the former has already established a
stellar reputation in the shipping industry.

In Crystal vs.

Bank of Philippine Islands (G.R. No. 172428, November

28, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that:
x x x Obviously, an artificial person like
herein
appellant
corporation
cannot
experience physical sufferings, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral
shock or social humiliation which are basis of moral
damages. A corporation may have good
reputation which, if besmirched may also be a
ground
for
the
award
of
moral
damages. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
20.

In view of the foregoing, Harbor Star is thus

entitled to recover, from Capt. Lagura, moral damages in the

amount of _______________.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Re: Exemplary Damages)
21.

Harbor Star respectfully repleads the foregoing

allegations in so far as they are applicable.

22.

The pilots are all times expected to exercise good

conduct, discipline, and sobriety in the performance of their

duties.

They are also expected to report with punctuality in

attending to the requirements of their duties.

In fact, the

harbor pilot on duty shall report alongside the vessel within

one (1) hour from notice during fair weather conditions. The
acts of Capt. Lagura therefore in refusing to act as pilot or
assign a pilot to board a foreign vessel when the latter has
availed of the services of the tugboats of Harbor Star is a

HSSSI _ complaint

violation of his code of conduct as a pilot [See Sections 2 to

4, PPA Memorandum Circular 27-90].
23.

Not

only

that,

the

act

of

Capt.

Lagura

in

concurrently engaging in the tugboat business through

Davao Gulf conflicts with his rendition of pilotage service
which is considered as moonlighting. His acts therefore is
prohibited and constitute a grave misconduct and violation
of his oath to provide quality public service under Section 6,
PPA Memorandum Circular 27-90 which reads:
ARTICLE III PROHIBITED ACTS
x

Section. 6. Moonlightling Harbor pilots shall not

concurrently engage in any business or occupation
which will conflict or tend to conflict with their
rendition of pilotage service.

24.

By way of correction or example to the public

good, Capt. Lagura therefore must be made to indemnify

Harbor Star for exemplary damages in the amount of
_____________________.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Re: Attorneys Fees)
25.

Harbor Star respectfully repleads the foregoing

allegations in so far as they are applicable.

26.

In view of the series of unlawful acts committed by

Capt. Lagura, Harbor Star was compelled to bring the

present action to protect its rights and business interests.
HSSSI _ complaint

Defendant should therefore be held jointly and solidarily

liable for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the
amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Re: Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction)
27.

Harbor Star respectfully repleads the foregoing

allegations in so far as they are applicable.

28.

There

paramount

is an

necessity

extremely
for

the

urgent,

issuance

pressing and
of

temporary

restraining order and the issuance of writ of preliminary

injunction in the instant case to prevent serious damage to
the business of Harbor Star. Thus, this instant application is
being filed to avoid injurious consequences to Harbor Star,
which cannot be remedied. Harbor Star, therefore, this
respectfully asks this Honorable Court to issue the injunctive
remedy prayed for to prevent a continuous irreparable injury
that it may suffer before its claims can be thoroughly studied
and adjudicated.
29.

The term great or irreparable injury has a

definite meaning in law.

In the case of Social Security

Commission v. Hon. Bayona (G.R. No. L-13555, May 30,

1962, 5 SCRA 126), it was held that it does not have
reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but
rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted.
30.

As clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court:

HSSSI _ complaint

An injunction, by its very nature, has

the effect of staying the hand of the
court. The petition for certiorari having
been filed before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the granting of the
writ of preliminary injunction, even beyond
that period, should be given a retroactive
effect if it is to subserve the purpose for
which an injunction is granted. For, as it
has been aptly held, the "purpose of
preliminary
injunction
is
to
preserve status
quo until
parties'
rights
can
be
fairly
and
fully
investigated
and
determined
by
strictly legal proofs according to
principles of equity". It is a provisional
remedy to which "parties litigant may
resort for the preservation of their
rights and interests, and for no other
purpose, during the pendency of the
principal action" [Calo vs. Roldan,* 42 Off.
Gaz., (No. 12), pp. 3174, 3179]. And under
our
own
rules,
the
purpose
of
preliminary
injunction
is
"the
preservation of the rights of the
parties
pending
such
(judicial)
proceedings"
(section
7,
Rule
67)(Emphasis supplied).
[Geronimo de los Reyes vs. Artemio Elepao, G.R. No. L5282, May 29, 1953].
32.

Further, the Supreme Court held in the case of

United Coconut Planters Bank vs. United Alloy Philippines

Corporation (G.R. No. 152238. January 28, 2005) that:
The grant or denial of a prayer for
preliminary injunction lies in the sound
discretion of the issuing court. It is not
intended to correct a wrong done in the
past, in the sense of redress for injury
already sustained, but to prevent
further injury. The purpose of a
preliminary injunction was clearly
discussed in Capitol Medical Center v.
Court of Appeals, from which we quote:
HSSSI _ complaint

10

"The sole
object
of
a
preliminary
injunction,
whether
prohibitory
or
mandatory, is
to
preserve
the status
quo until
the
merits of the case can be
heard. The status quo is the
last
actual
peaceable
uncontested
status
which
preceded
the
controversy
(Rodulfa vs. Alfonso, 76 Phil.
225). It may only be resorted to
by a litigant for the preservation
or protection of his rights or
interests and for no other
purpose during the pendency of
the principal action (Calo vs.
Roldan, 76 Phil. 445). It should
only be granted if the party
asking for it is clearly entitled
thereto (Climaco vs. Macaraeg,
4 SCRA 930; Subido vs.
Gopengco, 27 SCRA 455; Police
Commission vs. Bello, 37 SCRA
230)." (Underscoring supplied)
33.

Harbor Star desires nothing but for Capt. Lagura to

permanently enjoin from coercing, intimidating and exerting

undue influence over the ship agents in Davao City and to
enjoin them from engaging in business activities which
conflicts with the rendition of pilotage services.
34.
Star

It would be a great act of injustice should Harbor

be

unreasonably,

unlawfully

and

unjustifiably

be

deprived of its revenues from providing tugboat services to

its regular customers who are ship agents based in Davao, if
Capt.

Lagura

be

not

prevented

from

exerting

undue

influence over them.

35.

All the foregoing allegations establish that Harbor

Star is entitled to the relief prayed for, and that the whole or

HSSSI _ complaint

11

part of such relief consists of directing or compelling Capt.

Lagura and all other persons acting for and in his behalf (1)
to

cease

and

desist

from

coercing,

intimidating

and

exhibiting undue influence over the ship agents who already

have perfected contracts with Harbor Star; and (2) to cease
and desist from engaging in business activities that are in
conflict with rendering pilotage services.
36.

On the other hand, Capt. Lagura will not

suffer any form of damage if they were restrained

from committing acts of coercing, intimidating and exhibiting
undue influence, since his primary responsibility is to
perform his duties as harbor pilot and not engage in the
tugboat business.
37.

Harbor Star is ready, willing and able to post a

bond in such amount as may be fixed by the Honorable

Court to the effect that it will pay damages which it may
sustain by reason of the issuance of the temporary
restraining

order

and/or

preliminary

injunction

if

this

Honorable Court should finally decide that Harbor Star is not

entitled to its claims.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that upon filing
of the instant Complaint, the Honorable Court through the
Honorable Executive Judge, issue a 72-hour temporary
restraining order, and thereafter after due notice and
hearing, grant an extension of 17-days TRO and/or writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendant Capt. Vicente
HSSSI _ complaint

12

A. Lagura from abusing his authority as a harbor pilot

committing acts which are prejudicial to the rights of Harbor
Star until this case is resolved and become final and
executory.
Further, it is most respectfully prayed that, after trial on
the merits, judgment be rendered as follows:
1.

Declaring the Defendant Capt. Vicente A. Lagura

for having committed grave abuse of his authority as a pilot

and performed prejudicial acts thereby entitling plaintiff
Harbor Star Shipping Services Inc. to:
a. the amount of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND
PESOS (PHP 360,000.00) as actual damages;
b.
the amount of _____________________ as moral
damages;
c.
the amount of ____________________as exemplary
damages;
d. the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(PHP500,000.00) as attorneys fees plus costs of the suit;
and
2.
Declaring
permanent.

the

Writ

of

Preliminary

Injunction

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are

likewise prayed for.

Makati City. ____ December 2014.

HSSSI _ complaint

13

IGNATIUS LOYOLA A. RODIGUEZ

Roll No.
PTR No. Makati
IBP No.
MCLE Compliance No. IV
(02) 886 3703

HSSSI _ complaint

14