“We want to assure the public that DMPI are responsible corporate citizens and we are just as concerned with the environment and are actively assisting the authorities in addressing this pressing situation.”
by Ducky Paredes
Was it John Madden, the American football coach who first said, “sometimes the best defense is a good offense?” Whoever it was, the management of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. seemed to have been listening. This is the playbook that Sulpicio is going by when it filed a civil suit against the Weather Bureau.
When the accident had just happened, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. first seemed to be blaming God when they proclaimed that what happened was an “Act of God.” Their engine never quit, God did this thing.
This assertion was immediately answered by Bishop Teodoro Bacani: “That was not an act of God. That was human error. Maybe they were playing favorites or they were requested to do so that’s why the authorities allowed the sea vessel to set sail against their better judgment.”
Of course, the bishop is right. God never did anything to any Suplicio ships, although considering the number of passengers who have died on Sulpicio vessels, the owners may be thinking that an angry God is after them for whatever it is they did in a previous life. (The sinking of the MV Dona Paz killed more persons than the 9/11 terrorist attack, the bombing of Manila in World War II or the massacre of the innocents by King Herod.)
Okay. I guess that the way Sulpicio thinks: “If we can’t pin this one on God. Let’s blame the Weather Bureau. Everyone knows that they are always wrong anyway in their forecasts.”
They are apparently serious about this and have filed for several million pesos in damages from the ones who run Pagasa, the Weather Bureau.
But, honestly, this looks like a nuisance suit. In fact, the way that these things work, it is the captain of a vessel and not anyone else who ultimately decides whether his plane will fly of his ship will sail. It is always a judgment call on the part of the master of the vessel. If he does not like the sound of the engine, if he thinks that the weather will worsen, if he does not like some of the passengers on board, he will not sail or fly.
Sure, the Weather Bureau is supposed to guide us on what we can expect of the weather but storms also have minds of their own and, thus, weather forecasting cannot be regarded as an exact science. The room for error can be several hundred miles off or even several degrees of misdirection. To argue that the weather forecast was that the storm would bear northwest when it actually went west, is to give weather forecasting a more hallow place on the altar of science than it deserves.
(When I lived in a rural area in Mindanao, I never listened to the radio for weather forecasts. Instead, I would go to the fishing village a few meters from the house. I would ask the fishermen what the weather would be the next morning. Invariably, they would look up at the sky, looking for signs and give me a forecast that was about as god as any that I could get over the radio. It was uncanny. One would expect that captains and the various officers of passenger boats would also have this ability. Else, how could they survive on the high seas?)
The other suit that Sulpicio has filed is against Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) which, according to the complaint, hid the fact that the shipment that it was awaiting in Cagayan de Oro was toxic material.
Again, this is another nuisance suit. Both Del Monte and Dole Philippines, pineapple producers, have been using Endosulfan over several decades. During the tenure of Agriculture Secretary, Roberto S. Sebastian in the ‘90s, Endosulfan (thiodan) was banned. Both Dole and DMPI subsequently asked for a reconsideration which was eventually granted them by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). After all, this same chemical is still used in the United States as pesticide in apple orchards and potato fields and for tomatoes, among other crops. It is a dangerous chemical but, used with care, it does its damage only on crop pests.
Surely, this toxic chemical has been handled before by Sulpicio Lines. How can it now accuse DMPI of hiding the true nature of the shipment from them? And, would Sulpicio have done anything different, if the cargo was marked with huge red letters: “Highly Toxic Chemical”?
This particular shipment came from Israel and, according to DMPI, “it was packed and shipped in accordance with strict international shipping standards for cargoes of this type. In addition, Sulpicio Lines was fully apprised of the nature of the cargo as all documents were furnished to them including the material safety data sheet (MSDS) from the supplier.”
According to Del Monte: “DMPI continuously monitors the movement of delicate materials such as Endosulfan. Without the knowledge and consent of DMPI, Sulpicio Lines loaded the Endosulfan cargo in the MV Princess of the Stars instead of the MV Princess of the Paradise, which was to be the appointed vessel for this cargo. Upon learning that our cargo was loaded on the ill-fated MV Princess of the Stars, we immediately informed the FPA. DMPI is in constant touch with the FPA and other government agencies to ensure that any an all action be taken to avoid and prevent any damage.
“We want to assure the public that DMPI are responsible corporate citizens and we are just as concerned with the environment and are actively assisting the authorities in addressing this pressing situation.”
Can Sulpicio Lines make the same assertion of good corporate citizenry?
# # # #
hvp 07.01.08)
Post a Comment