You are on page 1of 7

Yu Con vs.

Ipil | Araullo (1916) non-liability of the shipowner for the unlawful acts, crimes or
quasi crimes, committed by the captain and the crew can no
FACTS longer be maintained in its absolute and categorical terms.
Respondent, Yu Con (Yu Con), chartered the banca Maria o In maritime commerce, the shippers and passengers in making
owned by petitioner Narciso Lauron (Lauron) with Gilcerio Ipil contracts with the captain do so through the confidence they have
(Ipil) as its master and Juto Solamo (Solamo) as it supercargo to in the shipowner who appointed him; they presume that the owner
transport certain merchandise and money from the port of Cebu to made a most careful investigation before appointing him, and,
Catmon. above all, they themselves are unable to make such an
Yu Con loaded the merchandise and delivered the money, investigation, and even though they should do so, they could not
placed in a trunk, to Ipil and Solamo. obtain complete security, inasmuch as the shipowner can,
Allegedly because there was no more room for Yu Cons trunk, Ipil and whenever he sees fit, appoint another captain instead.
o Thus, it is only proper that the shipowner should be made liable.
Solamo transferred the money to their own trunk in the stateroom.
Before the ship could sail, the trunk and the money placed therein
Coastwise Lighterage Corporation vs. Court of Appeals | Francisco
disappeared.
(1995)
ISSUES/HELD
FACTS
Are the petitioners liable for the loss? YES.
Pag-asa Sales Inc. (Pag-asa) contracted with petitioner,
Coastwise Lighterage Corporation (Coastwise), to transport molasses
RATIONALE
from Negros Occidental to Manila.
It is therefore beyond all doubt that the loss of the money Upon arriving in Manila Bay, one of the barges used struck a
occurred through the manifest fault and negligence of Ipil and sunken object which caused water to leak in through a hole.
Solamo.
The molasses was contaminated and rendered unfit for the use it
o They failed to take the necessary precautions in order that the
was intended.
stateroom containing the trunk in which they kept the money
Pag-asa filed a claim with and was paid by respondent,
should be properly guarded by members of the crew and they also
Philippine General Insurance Company (Philgen).
did not expressly station some person inside the stateroom for the
guarding and safe-keeping of the trunk. Philgen then filed an action before the RTC; the latter ruled in
o All of these circumstances, together with that of its having been favor of Philgen and this decision was affirmed by the CA.
impossible to know who took the trunk and the money, make the Hence, this petition.
conduct of Ipil, Solamo, and the other crew members eminently
supicious and prevent our holding that the disappearance or loss of ISSUES/HELD
the money was due to a fortuitous event, to force majeure. Was Coastwise transformed to a private carrier by virtue of the contract
Ipil and Solamo were depositaries of the sum in question and, having of affreightment? NO.
failed to exercise the diligence required by the nature of the obligation Did Coastwise exercise the necessary diligence? NO.
of safe-keeping assumed by them and by the circumstances of the time Was Philgen subrogated to the rights of Pag-asa? YES.
and the place, it is evident that they are liable for its loss or
misplacement and must restore it. RATIONALE
With respect to Lauron, he is also liable in accordance with the 1ST ISSUE
provisions of the Code of Commerce in force because, as the Although a charter party may transform a common carrier into
proprietor and owner of the vessel who executed a contract of a private one, the same however is not true in a contract of
carriage with Yu Con, there occurred the loss, theft, or robbery of the affreightment on account of the distinctions between the two.
P450 that belonged to Yu Con through the negligence of Ipil and o Under the demise or bareboat charter of the vessel, the
Solamo and which theft does not appear to have been committed by a charterer will generally be regarded as the owner for the
person not belonging to the craft. voyage or service stipulated but to create a demise, the
The old Code of Commerce absolved the shipowner from owner of a vessel must completely and exclusively
liability for the negligence of the captain and its crew but, in relinquish possession, command and navigation thereof to
the light of the principles of modern law, this doctrine on the the charterer, anything short of such a complete transfer is a
Page 1 of 7
contract of affreightment (time or voyage charter party) or not a A ships captain must be accorded a reasonable measure of
charter party at all. discretionary authority to decide what the safety of the ship and of
o On the other hand, a contract of affreightment is one in which its crew and cargo specifically requires on a stipulated ocean
the owner of the vessel leases part or all of its space to voyage.
haul goods for others and under such contract the general
owner retains the possession, command and navigation of FACTS
the ship, the charterer or freighter merely having use of the Captain Tayong was hired by Trenda World Shipping and Sea Horse Ship
space in the vessel in return for his payment of the charter Management through Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises for a period of 1
hire. year.
The nature of the contract as an affreightment is apparent and this is He took command of Inter-Orients vessel in Hong Kong.
bolstered by the admission that Coastwise has made; as such, it has o He was instructed to replenish bunker and diesel fuel, to sail
not been transformed into a private carrier. forthwith to Richard Bay, South Africa, and there to load 120, 000
2ND ISSUE metric tons of coal.
Being a common carrier, Coastwise failed to exercise extraordinary Since a storm would hit Hong Kong, precautionary measures were taken
diligence. to secure the vessels safety considering that the turbo-charger was
Coastwise violated Art. 6091 of the Code of Commerce, which leaking and the vessel was 14 years old.
subsidiarily governs common carriers, by embarking on a Captain Tayong followed-up the requisition by the former Captain for
voyage with an unlicensed patron, Jesus R. Constatntino. supplies of oxygen and acetylene, necessary for the welding-repair of
o It cannot safely claim to have exercised extraordinary the turbo-charger and economizer.
diligence, by placing a person whose navigational skills are The vessel sailed to Singapore.
questionable, at the helm of the vessel which eventually o On the way to Singapore, the vessel stopped in the middle of the
met the fateful accident. ocean for 6 hours and 45 minutes due to a leaking economizer.
o It may also logically, follow that a person without license to o He was instructed to shut down the economizer and use the
navigate, lacks not just the skill to do so, but also the utmost auxiliary boiler instead.
familiarity with the usual and safe routes taken by seasoned and When the vessel arrived in Singapore, the Chief Engineer reminded
legally authorized ones.
Captain Tayong that the oxygen and acetylene supplies had not been
3RD ISSUE
delivered.
Upon payment by PhilGen to Pag-asa, the former was o Upon inquiry, the Captain was informed that the supplies could only
subrogated into all the rights which Pag-asa may have had be delivered on Aug. 1 as the stores had closed.
against the carrier, Coastwise.
Captain Tayong called the shipowner, Seahorse Ship Management and
o If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or
informed them that the departure of the vessel for South Africa may be
negligence of a party other than the assured, then the insurer,
affected because of the delay in the delivery of the supplies.
upon payment to the assured will be subrogated to the rights of the
o He was advised to contact Mr. Clark, the Technical Director.
assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the
o According to Mr. Clark, after being informed that the ship cannot
insurer has been obligated to pay.
o Payment by the insurer to the assured operated as an travel without the supplies, Captain Tayong agreed with him when
he said by shutting off the water to the turbo chargers and using
equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which
the auxiliary boilers, there should be no further problem.
the latter may have against the third party whose
o According to Captain Tayong, he was informed by Sea Horse to wait
negligence or wrongful act caused the loss.
for the supplies.
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC | Feliciano (1994) Captain Tayong immediately sailed for South Africa upon the delivery of
the supplies.
RATIO DECIDENDI Upon reaching South Africa, Captain Tayong was instructed to turn-over
his post to the new captain. He was thereafter repatriated to the
1
Art. 609. Captains, masters, or patrons of vessels must be Filipinos, have legal capacity to
Philippines.
contract in accordance with this code, and prove the skill capacity and qualifications necessary to o He was not informed of the charges against him.
command and direct the vessel, as established by marine and navigation laws, ordinances or He then instated a complaint for illegal dismissal.
regulations, and must not be disqualified according to the same for the discharge of the duties of
the position.
Page 2 of 7
ISSUES/HELD
WoN Captain Tayong was illegally dismissed? YES. FACTS
On March 12, 1920, 2K cases of petroleum and 8,473 cases of
RATIONALE gasoline were loaded in the motor boat Alfonso
Confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed o The loading was done without the permission from the customs
at any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an authorities
appropriate investigation. o The cases were loaded by means of straps supporting 10-12
o They are also entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of cases at a time
employment and the protection of labor laws. o The cases were placed in the hold of the ship, which is 14ft
The captain of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee. from the boiler of the main engine and 4ft from the boiler of the
A captain commonly performs 3 distinct roles: (1) he is a general agent smaller engine
of the shipowner; (2) he is also commander and technical director of On March 13, the smaller engine was in operation preparatory to the
the vessel; and (3) he is a representative of the country under whose departure
flag he navigates. Subsequently, a fire broke out with an explosion on board Alfonso
o The most important is the role performed by the captain as the followed by a violent expulsion of gasoline and petroleum
commander of the vessel. Such a role analogous to that of Chief Due to the magnitude of the fire and the inflammability of the materials
Executive Officer of a present-day corporate enterprise. and the proximity of the steamer Y. Sontua, the fire spread to the said
A ships captain must be accorded a reasonable measure of steamer
discretionary authority to decide what the safety of the ship and of its Sontua brought this action to recover from Ossorio, the owner of
crew and cargo specifically requires on a stipulated ocean voyage. Alfonso, alleging that the damages were due to the negligence of the
o The captain is held responsible for such safety. agents and employees of Ossorio
The captain has control of all departments of service in the vessel, and Ossorio contended that the damages were caused by a fortuitous event
reasonable discretion as to its navigation. and are not imputable to his or any of his
It is the right and duty of the captain, in the exercise of sound agents/employees/mandataries negligence
CFI ruled in favor of Sontua and held that:
discretion and in good faith, to do all things with respect to the vessel
and its equipment and conduct of the voyage which are reasonably o The explosion was due to the negligence of the persons in charge
necessary for the protection and preservation of the interests under his of Alfonso
charge. o Ossorio is liable for the negligence of his agents and employees
o It is a basic principle of admiralty law that in navigating a
merchantman, the master must be left free to exercise his own best ISSUES/HELD
judgment. WoN the explosion was due to the negligence of the persons in charge
o The requirements of safe navigation compel us to reject any of Alfonso? YES.
suggestion that the judgment and discretion of the captain of a WoN Ossorio, the owner of the motorboat, was liable for the negligence
vessel may be confined within a straight jacket. of his agents and employees? YES.
The master is entitled to delay for such a period as may be reasonable
under the circumstances. RATIONALE
Captain Tayong had reasonable grounds to believe that the safety of Issue #1
the vessel and crew required him to wait for the delivery of the supplies Expert testimony introduced by Sontua shows the explosion and fire,
needed. which caused the damages, are imputable to the negligence of the
o The vessel had stopped mid-ocean for 6 hours and 45 minutes on persons having charge of Alfonso at that time. It was shown that:
its way to Singapore because of its leaking economizer. o Due to the manner by which the cases were loaded, the cases
o Captain Tayong did not maliciously and arbitrarily delay the voyage would receive bumps resulting in damage to the cans and
to South Africa. consequent leakage (use of straps)
The decision of Captain Tayong did not constitute a legal basis for his o The gases formed by the volatilization are apt to accumulate in a
summary dismissal. compartment without sufficient ventilation (hold of a ship)

Yu Biao Sontua & Co. vs. Ossorio | Romualdez (1922)


Page 3 of 7
o This accumulation will cause the gases to ignite upon comin gin Also, while the vessel was achored in Kawasaki, Japan, they assaulted
contact with a spark or upon temperature being sufficiently the officer on watch for the day. When the vessel was about to sail that
raised (smaller engine was in operation) day, the two went ashore despite the warning given them. They were
Issue #2 arrested by Japanese authorities.
The rule is that where the vessel is one of freight, a public POEA ruled that the dismissal was without just and valid cause. It didnt
concern or public utility, it owner or agent is liable for the give much weight to the Certified true copy of the official logbook
tortuous acts of his agents because the alleged entries were only handpicked and copied from the
The Code of Commerce further provides that the general liability of a official logbook. Theres no way to verify the truth of the entries.
vessel owner extends to losses by fire arising from other than a natural NLRC affirmed POEAs decision
or other excepted cause, whether occurring on the ship, or
communicated from other vessel, or from the shore. This means that ISSUES/HELD
losses by fire are not within the exceptions (act of God or peril WON Macatuno was validly dismissed based on the entries in the logbook?
of the sea except by local custom) UNLESS proximately caused NO.
by one of the exceptions
Re: allegation that obligations under Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce RATIONALE
are inherent in the master, the SC said that although such duties are An employer may dismiss or lay off an employee only for the just and
inherent to the master, it does not authorized causes under Art. 282 and 283 of the LC. The ship captains
logbook is a vital evidence as Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce
Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC | Romero (1996) requires him to keep a record of the decisions he had adopted as the
vessels head. In Haverton Shipping v. NLRC, it was held that a copy of
FACTS an official entry in the logbook is legally binding and serves as an
Private respondent Macatuno was hired by Wallem Shipmanagement exception to the hearsay rule.
Limited thru its local manning agent, Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., as An employer may dismiss or lay off an employee only for the just and
a seaman on board the M/T Fortuna authorized causes under Art. 282 and 283 of the LC. The ship captains
While the vessel was berthed at the port of Kawasaki, Japan, an logbook is a vital evidence as Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce
altercation took place between Macatuno and a fellow Filipino, requires him to keep a record of the decisions he had adopted as the
Gurimbao on the one hand, and a cadet/apprentice officer of the same vessels head. In Haverton Shipping v. NLRC, it was held that a copy of
nationality as the captain of the vessel on the other hand. an official entry in the logbook is legally binding and serves as an
when both were on duty, the apprentice approached them and told exception to the hearsay rule.
Gurimbao to drain the water mixed with oil and dirt w/c had However, the Haverton Shipping ruling does not apply in this case. In
accumulated at the upper deck of the vessel, using a shovel. Gurimbao Haverton Shipping, there was an investigation of the incident which led
told him that throwing oil and water was prohibited by Japans laws but to the seamans dismissal before he was dismissed. Thus, the facts in
the apprentice got mad and ordered Gurimbao to use a hose to siphon the logbook were supported by facts from the investigation. In this
off the water. Gurimbao did as he was told to avoid trouble. Gurimbao case, there was no investigation conducted by the ship captain before
complained to Macatuno about the improper and unauthorized act of the repatriation so the contents of the logbook have to be duly
the apprentice. They reminded the apprentice that he wasnt an officer indentified and authenticated lest an injustice result from the blind
of the vessel and thus, he had no right to order any member of the adoption of such contents which just serve as prima facie evidence of
crew. The apprentice reacted violently. Macatuno pushed twice the the incident.
apprentices chest whil Gurimbao mildly hit his arm. The apprentice ran In Haverton Shipping, what was presented was a copy of the official
to the captain who witnessed the incident from his window entry from the logbook itself. In this case, petitioners didnt submit as
The master entered the incident in the tankers logbook evidence to the POEA the logbook itself or even authenticated copies of
As a result, Macatuno and Gurimbao were repatriated to the Philippines the relevant pages which could have been easily photocopied. What
where they immediately filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal was offered in evidence was just a typewritten collation of excerpts
with the POEA from what COULD be the logbook because by their format, they could
Petitioners alleged that the incident wasnt the first infraction have been lifted from other records kept in the vessel in accordance
committed by the two. The logbook showed that while the vessel was with Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce.
docked in Batangas, they left it during working hours w/o permission. Moreover, the alleged entry in the logbook states that the apprentice
officer was attacked and assaulted. However, under the Table of
Page 4 of 7
Offenses and Corresponding Administrative Penalties in the contract of Since there is no contractual obligation, herein respondent is obliged to
employment, the offense falls under insubordination which may give only the diligence required of a good father of a family in
constitute assaulting a superior officer. An apprentice officer cannot be accordance with article 1173 of the NCC
considered a superior officer since he is bound in the form of law to a The respondent exercised such diligence when:
master. He is just a learner or a trainee. o The vessel sailed only after the main engine, machineries, and
The entry in the logbook is also so sketchy that, unsupported by other other auxiliaries were checked and found to be in good running
evidence, it leaves so many questions unanswered. In the absence of a condition
more detailed narration in the logbook entry of the circumstances o The Master left a competent officer to watch on the bridge with a
surrounding the alleged assault, the termination of Macatuno cannot be pilot who is experienced in navigating the Orinoco River
held justified. o The Master ordered the inspection of the vessels double bottom
tanks when the vibrations occurred anew
Wildvalley Shipping Co., LTD. vs. Court of Appeals | Buena (2000) According to sections 11 and 32 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing Pilotage Services as well as Art. 612 of the Code of
FACTS Commerce, the master remains the overall commander of the vessel
Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by respondent Philippine President even when there is a pilot on board. He remains in control of the ship
Lines, Inc. (PPL), arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore as he can still perform the duties conferred upon him by law despite
Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez, an official pilot of Venezuela, was the presence of a pilot who is temporarily in charge of the vessel. It is
designated by the harbor authorities in Puerto Ordaz to navigate the not required of him to be on the bridge while the vessel is being
vessel through the Orinoco River navigated by a pilot
The master (captain) of the vessel, was at the bridge together with the HOWEVER, Section 8 of Philippine Ports Authority Administrative Order
pilot (Vasquez), the officer on watch, and a helsman when the vessel No. 03-85 provides:
left the bridge when the vessel was under way o For entering a harbor and anchoring thereat, or passing through
Vessel experience some vibrations when it entered the San Roque rivers or straits within a pilotage district, as well as docking and
Channel undocking at any pier/wharf, or shifting from one berth or another,
Vessel proceeded on its way, with the pilot assuring the watch officer every vessel engaged in coastwise and foreign trade shall be under
that the vibration was a result of the shallowness of the channel compulsory pilotage
Vessel again experienced some vibrations, watch officer called the Orinoco River being a compulsory pilotage channel necessitated the
master to the bridge engaging of a pilot who was presumed to be knowledgeable of every
Master checked the position of the vessel and verified that it was in shoal, bank deep, and shallow ends of the river
the center of the channel, went to confirm or set down the position of Pilot Vasquez testified that he:
the vessel, and ordered the Chief Officer of the vessel to check all the o Is an official pilot in the Harbor at Port Ordaz, Venezuela
double tanks o Had been a pilot for 12 years
Then the vessel ran aground in the Orinoco River, obstructing the o Had experience in navigating the waters of the Orinoco River
ingress and egress of vessels o Is very familiar with the configuration of the river as wel as the
As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by course headings
petitioner Wildvalley, was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day o Does not even refer to river charts when navigating the Orinoco
Wildvalley filed suit against PPL and Pioneer insurance (insurer of the River
vessel) for damages in the form of unearned profits and interest The law does provide that the master can countermand or overrule the
thereon order or command of the Harbor Pilot on board but the Master deemed
RTC held in favor of Wildvalley, finding negligence of the Master it best not to order the pilot to stop th vessel because the latter had
CA reversed the decision hence the appeal assured him that they were navigating normally before the grounding
of the vessel
ISSUES/HELD Licensed pilots, enjoying the emoluments of compulsory pilotage are
Is PPL liable for damages because of negligence of its Master? NO. in a different class from ordinary employees, for they assume to have a
skill and a knowledge of navigation in the particular waters over which
RATIONALE their licenses extend superior to that of the master
The grounding of the vessel is attributable to the pilot
Page 5 of 7
o In his experience as a pilot, he should have been aware of the reason of the destruction of its pier and the loss of its merchandise
portions which are shallow and which are not, and his failure to then stored on said pier.
determine the depth of the said river and his decision to plod on his
set course, in all probability, caused damage to the vessel ISSUES/HELD
In the case of Homer Ramsdell Transportation Company vs. La WON respondents are liable. YES.
Compania Generale Transatlantique
o The master of a ship, and owner also, is liable for any injury done RATIONALE
by the negligence of the crew employed in the ship, the same There was a strong undercurrent in the direction from west to east;
doctrine will apply to the case of a pilot employed by the master or Current forced ship towards the pier which impact resulted in its
ownerbut if it is compulsive upon the master to take a sinking. This is due to the fact that the ship was not fastened with a
pilot, and, a fortiori, if he is bound to do so under penalty, rope to a tree on shore and that the bow anchors had not been
then, and in such case, neither he nor the owner will be dropped.
liable for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the pilot, Appellants urge that, according to the bills of lading of the lost
for in such a case the pilot cannot be deemed properly the servant merchandise, the defendant National Coal Company's liability ceased
of the master or the owner when the said merchandise was unloaded and placed on the dock. This
Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply since there was a temporary shift of contention is without merit. There is nothing in the bills of lading to
control over the ship from the master, the requisites of negligence and uphold it.
control are absent o Article 619 of the Code of Commerce provides that the captain shall
The vessel was not unseaworthy as evidenced by the Lloyds Register be answerable for the cargo from the moment that it is delivered to
of Shipping confirmed the same him at the wharf or alongside the ship in the harbor of embarkation
until delivered on the shore or wharf of the port of discharge. Under
Ohta Development Co. vs. Steamship Pompey | Avancena (1926) this provision of the law it is the delivery of the cargo at the port of
discharge that terminates the captains responsibility as to the
FACTS cargo.
Ohta Development Co. was the owner of a pier in Davao. On this pier When the merchandise was lost on account of the sinking of the dock,
were two groups of posts, three to a group, about 2 feet from the pier it had not yet been delivered and consequently it was under the
itself, which served as a protection to the pier against the impact of responsibility of the captain. The National Coal Company, as the
vessels. operator, is responsible for the indemnities arising from the lack of skill
The steamship Pompey, in command of Captain Galvez, in the name of or negligence of the captain. (Articles 587 and 618 of the Code of
The National Coal Company, was carrying cargo consisting principally Commerce.)
of flour and rice for Ohta, docked alongside the said pier. It cannot be said the liability of the other defendants is subsidiary and
The ship docked with her bow facing towards the land; and fastened limited to what the steamship Pompey may answer for. Such argument,
her ropes to the posts on the pier. The evidence shows that, previously, seemingly based upon article 587 of the Code of Commerce which
other ships docking alongside the said pier had the bow facing towards authorizes the shipowner to abandon the ship in order to answer for his
the land and fastened a rope to a tree situated on the beach, a liability to third persons, is inapplicable, for the reason that there was
precaution taken to avoid the ship from getting too close to the pier. no abandonment of the ship. The Court does not believe that
Steamship Pompey, et.al. based their contention upon article 837 which
When the Pompey docked, she did not stretch a rope to the tree on the
refers to collisions, because that is not the case here.
shore, neither did she drop her bow anchors. After being thus docked
they proceeded to unload the flour and rice.
Guzman vs. William X | Torres (1907)
The work of discharging and the hauling of the cargo to the warehouse
of Ohta was done without any interference on the part of Ohta and FACTS
exclusively by laborers and the crew the ship.
Guzmans agent contracted with Behn, Meyer & Co., agents of steamer
There being only 15 or 20 laborers engaged in the hauling, a large
Kudat, in the sum of P150, for the towing of the lorcha Nevada, owned
amount of cargo accumulated on the dock, with the result that the pier
by Guzman, to the port of Iloilo. During the voyage, the port tow line
sank with all the merchandise.
broke, and the captain of the Kudat ordered the crew of the Nevada to
RTC: sentenced Steamship Pompey, Galvez, and the National Coal come on board the Kudat and to abandon the lorcha; that as the
Company, to pay Ohta Development damages suffered by the latter by master (arraez) protested several times against such order, the captain
Page 6 of 7
insisted and threatened to cut the other tow line. The crew then
abandoned the lorcha and boarded the steamer and the captain then
ordered the abandonment of the lorcha and cast her adrift by having
the tow line cut, and the steamer then proceeded on her voyage to
Iloilo.
The master or pilot of the lorcha went to the collector of customs and
entered a protest, in which he stated that the weather was fair, the sea
calm, that the moon was bright. The captain of the Kudat did not enter
any protest in order to justify the abandonment of the lorcha nor the
circumstances connected therewith.
Guzman filed a complaint with the CFI of Manila against the captain
and owners of the steamer Kudat, demanding for indemnity for
damages suffered for the abandonment of the lorcha Nevada, in the
sum of P49,000.
Judgment was rendered sentencing the defendants, Behn, Meyer & Co.,
to pay the plaintiff herein the sum of P9,000.

ISSUES/HELD
WON the captain of Kudat is liable? YES.

RATIONALE
The captain who commanded the steamer Kudat failed to comply with
the contract for towage and acted for contravention of what had been
stipulated therein between the owner of the lorcha in tow and the
agents who represented the owners of the steamer, and when
abandoning the lorcha in mid-ocean with the full knowledge that it
would disappear and become a loss, he acted with marked negligence
and a perfect knowledge of the loss and damage he was about to cause
the owner. Therefore, pursuant to 1101 and 1601 of the CC, the owner
of the lorcha must be indemnified, the contract of towage involving the
obligation to use due diligence the omission of which would imply fault
or negligence on the part of the obligee, because the
lorcha Nevada was abandoned with the intent of casting her adrift to
become a total loss.
Article 624 of the Code of Commerce imposes on a captain, in case he
has been wrecked or the cargo of his vessel damaged, the duty of
making the corresponding protest before the proper authority at the
first port where the vessel touches, within the twenty four-hours
following his arrival.
The captain of the Kudat did not make any protest before any officer or
competent authority at Iloilo stating the reasons which compelled him
to abandon the lorcha. On the other hand, the master or patron of the
lost lorcha complied with this duty imposed by law and appeared
before the collector of customs of Iloilo and set forth his protest.
Based on Articles 586 and 567 of the Code of Commerce, therefore, the
aforesaid firm is the only party bound to indemnify the owner of
the Nevada in the amount of the damages sustained by him through
the loss of the lorcha.
Page 7 of 7

You might also like