This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioners likewise submitted a copy of the Coastwise License[50] issued to the M/V Don Martin, proving that the vessel had been registered only for coastwise trade. A craft engaged in the coastwise and interisland trade was one that carried passengers and/or merchandise for hire between ports and places in the Philippine Islands[51] Under Section 902 of the TCCP, the right to engage in the Philippine coastwise trade was limited to vessels carrying a certificate of Philippine registry,[52] like the M/V Don Martin.[53] To legally engage in coastwise trade, the vessel owner must further submit other documents, like the bill of lading and coastwise manifest,[54] documents that were also presented by the petitioners during the forfeiture proceedings.[55] In the absence of any showing by the respondents that the vessel was licensed to engage in trade with foreign countries and was not limited to coastwise trade, the inference that the shipment of the 6,500 sacks of rice was transported only between Philippine ports and not imported from a foreign country became fully warranted. | |||||