Lopez vs.

Duruelo Case Digest

Lopez vs. Duruelo 52 Phil 229 Facts: On February 10, 1927, plaintiff Augusto Lopez was desirous of embarking upon the interisland steamer San Jacinto in order to go to Cebu, the plaintiff embarked at the landing in the motorboat Jison which was engaged in conveying passengers and luggage back and forth from the landing to the boats at anchor. As the motorboat approached San Jacinto in a perfectly quiet sea, it came too near to the stern of the ship, and as the propeller of the ship had not yet ceased to turn, the blades of the propeller strucked the motorboat and sank it at once. As it sank, the plaintiff was thrown into the water against the propeller, and the revolving blades inflicted various injuries upon him. The plaintiff was hospitalized. He filed a complaint seeking to recover damages from the defendant. The defendant however alleged that the complaint does not have a right of action, a demurrer was submitted directed to the fact that the complaint does not allege that the protest had been presented by the plaintiff, within twenty-four hours after the occurrence to the competent authority at the port where the accident occurred as provided for Article 835 of the Code of Commerce. Issue: Whether the motorboat Jison is a vessel provided for by Article 835 of the Code of Commerce? Held: The word vessel as used in the third section of tile IV, Book III of the Code of Commerce, dealing with collisions, does not include all ships, craft or floating structures of any kind without limitation. The said section does not apply to minor craft engaged in a river and bay traffic.Therefore, a passenger on boat like the Jison, is not required to make protest as a condition precedent to his right of action for the injury suffered by him in the collision described in the complaint.Article 835 of the Code of Commerce does not apply.

RUBISO V. RIVERA 37 PHIL 72

FACTS:
Rubiso filed a complaint against Rivera for the recovery of a pilot boat. He alleged that he is the rightful owner of a pilot boat, which was stranded and recovered by Rivera. The latter refused to return the said boat as he alleged too that he was the owner thereof. It was known that the original owners of the boat had secretly sold the pilot boat to Rivera on an earlier date than the sale in a public auction to Rubiso. Nonetheless, material is the fact that the entry into the customs registry of the sale of the boat was later than the recording of the sale to Rubiso.

HELD:
The requisite of registration in the registry, of the purchase of the vessel, is necessary and indispensable in order that the purchasers rights may be maintained against a third person. Such registration is required both by the Code of Commerce and Act 1900. It is undeniable, ergo, that Rivera doesnt have a better right than Rubiso over the pilot boat. Ships and vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, partake, to a certain extent of the nature and conditions of real property, on account of their value and importance in world commerce; and for this, the provisions of the Code of Commerce are nearly identical with Article 1473 of the CC Facts: The counsel of plaintiff brought a suit alleging that his clients were the owners of the pilot boat named Valentine, which has been in bad condition and on the date of the complaint, was stranded in the place called Tingly, of the municipality of Battings. The defendant Rivera took charge or took possession of the said boat without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and refused to deliver it to them, under the claim that he was the owner thereof. The refusal on the part of the defendant has caused the plaintiff damages because they were unable to derive profit from the voyages for which the said pilot boat was customarily used. The defendant, on the other hand, alleged that they purchased the subject pilot boat. The plaintiff alleged that the sale on behalf of the defendant Rivera was prior to that made at public auction to Rubio, but the registration of this latter sale was prior to the sale made to the defendant. Issue: Whether or not, the plaintiff still has the better right over the subject vessel? Held: Under the Code of Commerce, Art 573 provides: Merchant vessels constitute property that may be acquired and transferred by any of the means recognized by law. The acquisition of a vessel must be included in a written instrument, which shall not produce any effect with regard to third persons if not recorded in the commercial registry. The requisite of registration in the registry of the purchase of a vessel is necessary and indispensable in order that the purchasers rights may be maintained against a claim filed by third person. It is undeniable that Riveras right cannot prevail over those acquired by Rubiso in the ownership of the pilot boat, thought the latters acquisition of the vessel at public auction was subsequent to its purchase by the defendant, Rivera.

Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. CA Case Digest

Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (156 SCRA 169) Facts: A maritime collision occurred between the tanker CAVITE owned by LSCO and MV Fernando Escano (a passenger ship) owned by Escano, as a result the passenger ship sunk. An action in admiralty was filed by Escano against Luzon. The trial court held that LSCO Cavite was solely to blame for the collision and held that Luzons claim that its liability should be limite d under Article 837 of the Code of Commerce has not been established. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The SC also affirmed the CA. Upon two motions for reconsideration, the Supreme Court gave course to the petition. Issue: Whether or not in order to claim limited liability under Article 837 of the Code of Commerce, it is necessary that the owner abandon the vessel Held: Yes, abandonment is necessary to claim the limited liability wherein it shall be limited to the value of the vessel with all the appurtenances and freightage earned in the voyage. However, if the injury was due to the ship owners fault, the ship owner may not avail of his right to avail of limited liability by abandoning the vessel. The real nature of the liability of the ship owner or agent is embodied in the Code of Commerce. Articles 587, 590 and 837 are intended to limit the liability of the ship owner, provided that the owner or agent abandons the vessel. Although Article 837 does not specifically provide that in case of collision there should be abandonment, to enjoy such limited liability, said article is a mere amplification of the provisions of Articles 587 and 590 which makes it a mere superfluity. The exception to this rule in Article 837 is when the vessel is totally lost in which case there is no vessel to abandon, thus abandonment is not required. Because of such loss, the liability of the owner or agent is extinguished. However, they are still personally liable for claims under the Workmens Compensation Act and for repairs on the vessel prior to its loss. In case of illegal or tortious acts of the captain, the liability of the owner and agent is subsidiary. In such cases, the owner or agent may avail of Article 837 by abandoning the vessel. But if the injury is caused by the owners fault as where he engages the services of an inexperienced captain or engineer, he cannot avail of the provisions of Article 837 by abandoning the vessel. He is personally liable for such damages. In this case, the Court held that the petitioner is a t fault and since he did not abandon the vessel, he cannot invoke the benefit of Article 837 to limit his liability to the value of the vessel, all appurtenances and freightage earned during the voyage.

Manila Steamship Co. vs Insa Abdulhaman Case Digest

Manila Steamship Co. Inc. VS. Insa Abdulhaman (100 Phil 32) Facts: Insa Abdulhaman together with his wife and five children boarded M/L Consuelo V in Zamboanga City. The said ship was bound for Siokon under the command of Faustino Macrohon. On that same night, M/S Bowline Knot was navigating from Marijoboc towards Zamboanga. Around 9:30 to 10:00 in the evening of May 4, 1948, while some of the passengers of the M/L Consuelo V were then sleeping and some lying down awake, a shocking collision suddenly occurred. The ship that collided was later on identified as the M/V Bowline Knot. M/L Consuelo V capsized that resulted to the death of 9 passengers and the loss of the cargoes on board. The Court held the owners of both vessels solidarily liable to plaintiff for damages caused to the latter under Article 827 of the Code of Commerce but exempted defendant Lim Hong To from liability due to the sinking and total loss of his vessel. While Manila steamship, owner of the Bowline Knot was ordered to pay all of plaintiffs damages.

Petitioner Manila Steamship Co. pleads that it is exempt from any liability under Article 1903 of the Civil Code because it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees, particularly the officer in command of the M/S Bowline Knot. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Manila Steamship Co. is exempt from any liability under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code? Held: NO. Petitioner is not exempted from liabilities. While it is true that plaintiffs action against petitioner is based on a tort or quasi delict, the tort in question is not a civil tort under the Civil Code but a maritime tort resulting in a collision at sea, governed by Articles 826-939 of the Code of Commerce. Under Art. 827 of the Code of Commerce, in case of collision between two vessels imputable to both of them, each vessel shall suffer her own damage and both shall be solidarily liable for the damages occasioned to their cargoes. The shipowner is directly and primarily responsible in tort resulting in a collision at sea, and it may not escape liability on the ground that exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessels officers and crew.

Vasquez vs CA Case Digest

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals (138 SCRA 553) Facts: MV Pioneer Cebu left the port of Manila and bounded for Cebu. Its officers were aware of the upcoming typhoon Klaring that is already building up somewhere in Mindanao. There being no typhoon signals on their route, they proceeded with their voyage. When they reached the island of Romblon, the captain decided not to seek shelter since the weather was still good. They continued their journey until the vessel reached the island of Tanguingui, while passing through the island the weather suddenly changed and heavy rains fell. Fearing that they might hit Chocolate island due to zero visibility, the captain ordered to reverse course the vessel so that they could weather out the typhoon by facing the strong winds and waves. Unfortunately, the vessel struck a reef near Malapascua Island, it sustained a leak and eventually sunk. The parents of the passengers who were lost due to that incident filed an action against Filipinas Pioneer Lines for damages. The defendant pleaded force majeure but the Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, it reversed the decision of the lower stating that the incident was a force majeure and absolved the defendants from liability. Issue: Whether of not Filipinas Pioneer Lines is liable for damages and presumed to be at fault for the death of its passenger? Held: The Supreme Court held the Filipinas Pioneer Lines failed to observe that extraordinary diligence required of them by law for the safety of the passengers transported by them with due regard for all necessary circumstance and unnecessarily exposed the vessel to tragic mishap. Despite knowledge of the fact that there was a typhoon, they still proceeded with their voyage relying only on the forecast that the typhoon would weaken upon crossing the island of Samar. The defense of caso fortuito is untenable. To constitute caso fortuito to exempt a person from liability it necessary that the event must be independent from human will, the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, the obligor must be free from any participation or aggravation to the injury of the creditor. Filipina Pioneer Lines failed to overcome that presumption o fault or negligence that arises in cases of death or injuries to passengers.

Abueg vs. San Diego Case Digest

Abueg vs. San Diego

(77 Phil 32) Facts: The M/S San Diego II and the M/S Bartolome, while engaged in fishing operations around Mindoro Island on Oct. 1, 1941 were caught by a typhoon as a consequence of which they were sunk and totally lost. Amado Nuez, Victoriano Salvacion and Francisco Oching while acting in their capacities perished in the shipwreck. Counsel for the appellant cite article 587 of the Code of Commerce which provides that if the vessel together with all her tackle and freight money earned during the voyage are abandoned, the agent's liability to third persons for tortious acts of the captain in the care of the goods which the ship carried is extinguished; article 837 of the same code which provides that in cases of collision, the ship owners' liability is limited to the value of the vessel with all her equipment and freight earned during the voyage (Philippine Shipping company vs. Garcia, 6 Phil., 281), and article 643 of the same Code which provides that if the vessel and freight are totally lost, the agent's liability for wages of the crew is extinguished. From these premises counsel draw the conclusion that appellant's liability, as owner of the two motor ships lost or sunk as a result of the typhoon that lashed the island of Mindoro on October 1, 1941, was extinguished. Issue: Whether the liability of the shipowner is extinguished by the total loss of the ship? Held: The provisions of the Code of Commerce invoked by appellant have no room in the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act which seeks to improve, and aims at the amelioration of, the condition of laborers and employees. It is not the liability for the damage or loss of the cargo or injury to, or death of, a passenger by or through the misconduct of the captain or master of the ship; nor the liability for the loss of the ship as result of collision; nor the responsibility for wages of the crew, but a liability created by a statute to compensate employees and laborers in cases of injury received by or inflicted upon them, while engaged in the performance of their work or employment, or the heirs and dependents and laborers and employees in the event of death caused by their employment. Such compensation has nothing to do with the provisions of the Code of Commerce regarding maritime commerce. It is an item in the cost of production which must be included in the budget of any well-managed industry. It has been repeatedly stated that the Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted to abrogate the common law and our Civil Code upon culpable acts and omissions, and that the employer need not be guilty of neglect or fault, in order that responsibility may attach to him and that shipowner was liable to pay compensation provided for in the Workmen's Compensation Act, notwithstanding the fact that the motorboat was totally lost.