Yu Con vs.

Ipil | Araullo (1916)

FACTS

Respondent, Yu Con (Yu Con), chartered the banca Maria

owned by petitioner Narciso Lauron (Lauron) with Gilcerio Ipil
(Ipil) as its master and Juto Solamo (Solamo) as it supercargo to
transport certain merchandise and money from the port of Cebu to
Catmon.

Yu Con loaded the merchandise and delivered the money,

placed in a trunk, to Ipil and Solamo.

Allegedly because there was no more room for Yu Cons trunk, Ipil and
Solamo transferred the money to their own trunk in the stateroom.

Before the ship could sail, the trunk and the money placed therein
disappeared.
ISSUES/HELD

Are the petitioners liable for the loss? YES.

RATIONALE

It is therefore beyond all doubt that the loss of the money

occurred through the manifest fault and negligence of Ipil and
Solamo.
o They failed to take the necessary precautions in order that the
stateroom containing the trunk in which they kept the money
should be properly guarded by members of the crew and they also
did not expressly station some person inside the stateroom for the
guarding and safe-keeping of the trunk.
o All of these circumstances, together with that of its having been
impossible to know who took the trunk and the money, make the
conduct of Ipil, Solamo, and the other crew members eminently
supicious and prevent our holding that the disappearance or loss of
the money was due to a fortuitous event, to force majeure.

Ipil and Solamo were depositaries of the sum in question and, having
failed to exercise the diligence required by the nature of the obligation
of safe-keeping assumed by them and by the circumstances of the time
and the place, it is evident that they are liable for its loss or
misplacement and must restore it.

With respect to Lauron, he is also liable in accordance with the

provisions of the Code of Commerce in force because, as the
proprietor and owner of the vessel who executed a contract of
carriage with Yu Con, there occurred the loss, theft, or robbery of the
P450 that belonged to Yu Con through the negligence of Ipil and
Solamo and which theft does not appear to have been committed by a
person not belonging to the craft.

The old Code of Commerce absolved the shipowner from

liability for the negligence of the captain and its crew but, in
the light of the principles of modern law, this doctrine on the

non-liability of the shipowner for the unlawful acts, crimes or

quasi crimes, committed by the captain and the crew can no
longer be maintained in its absolute and categorical terms.
o In maritime commerce, the shippers and passengers in making
contracts with the captain do so through the confidence they have
in the shipowner who appointed him; they presume that the owner
made a most careful investigation before appointing him, and,
above all, they themselves are unable to make such an
investigation, and even though they should do so, they could not
obtain complete security, inasmuch as the shipowner can,
whenever he sees fit, appoint another captain instead.
o Thus, it is only proper that the shipowner should be made liable.
Coastwise Lighterage Corporation vs. Court of Appeals | Francisco
(1995)
FACTS

Pag-asa Sales Inc. (Pag-asa) contracted with petitioner,

Coastwise Lighterage Corporation (Coastwise), to transport molasses
from Negros Occidental to Manila.

Upon arriving in Manila Bay, one of the barges used struck a

sunken object which caused water to leak in through a hole.

The molasses was contaminated and rendered unfit for the use it
was intended.

Pag-asa filed a claim with and was paid by respondent,

Philippine General Insurance Company (Philgen).

Philgen then filed an action before the RTC; the latter ruled in
favor of Philgen and this decision was affirmed by the CA.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES/HELD

Was Coastwise transformed to a private carrier by virtue of the contract

of affreightment? NO.

Did Coastwise exercise the necessary diligence? NO.

Was Philgen subrogated to the rights of Pag-asa? YES.

RATIONALE
1ST ISSUE

Although a charter party may transform a common carrier into

a private one, the same however is not true in a contract of
affreightment on account of the distinctions between the two.
o Under the demise or bareboat charter of the vessel, the
charterer will generally be regarded as the owner for the
voyage or service stipulated but to create a demise, the
owner of a vessel must completely and exclusively
relinquish possession, command and navigation thereof to
the charterer, anything short of such a complete transfer is a
Page 1 of 7


2ND

3RD

contract of affreightment (time or voyage charter party) or not a

charter party at all.
o On the other hand, a contract of affreightment is one in which
the owner of the vessel leases part or all of its space to
haul goods for others and under such contract the general
owner retains the possession, command and navigation of
the ship, the charterer or freighter merely having use of the
space in the vessel in return for his payment of the charter
hire.
The nature of the contract as an affreightment is apparent and this is
bolstered by the admission that Coastwise has made; as such, it has
not been transformed into a private carrier.
ISSUE
Being a common carrier, Coastwise failed to exercise extraordinary
diligence.
Coastwise violated Art. 6091 of the Code of Commerce, which
subsidiarily governs common carriers, by embarking on a
voyage with an unlicensed patron, Jesus R. Constatntino.
o It cannot safely claim to have exercised extraordinary
diligence, by placing a person whose navigational skills are
questionable, at the helm of the vessel which eventually
met the fateful accident.
o It may also logically, follow that a person without license to
navigate, lacks not just the skill to do so, but also the utmost
familiarity with the usual and safe routes taken by seasoned and
legally authorized ones.
ISSUE
Upon payment by PhilGen to Pag-asa, the former was
subrogated into all the rights which Pag-asa may have had
against the carrier, Coastwise.
o If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or
negligence of a party other than the assured, then the insurer,
upon payment to the assured will be subrogated to the rights of the
assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the
insurer has been obligated to pay.
o Payment by the insurer to the assured operated as an
equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which
the latter may have against the third party whose
negligence or wrongful act caused the loss.

Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC | Feliciano (1994)

RATIO DECIDENDI
1

Art. 609. Captains, masters, or patrons of vessels must be Filipinos, have legal capacity to
contract in accordance with this code, and prove the skill capacity and qualifications necessary to
command and direct the vessel, as established by marine and navigation laws, ordinances or
regulations, and must not be disqualified according to the same for the discharge of the duties of
the position.

A ships captain must be accorded a reasonable measure of

discretionary authority to decide what the safety of the ship and of
its crew and cargo specifically requires on a stipulated ocean
voyage.
FACTS

Captain Tayong was hired by Trenda World Shipping and Sea Horse Ship
Management through Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises for a period of 1
year.

He took command of Inter-Orients vessel in Hong Kong.

o He was instructed to replenish bunker and diesel fuel, to sail
forthwith to Richard Bay, South Africa, and there to load 120, 000
metric tons of coal.

Since a storm would hit Hong Kong, precautionary measures were taken
to secure the vessels safety considering that the turbo-charger was
leaking and the vessel was 14 years old.

Captain Tayong followed-up the requisition by the former Captain for

supplies of oxygen and acetylene, necessary for the welding-repair of
the turbo-charger and economizer.

The vessel sailed to Singapore.

o On the way to Singapore, the vessel stopped in the middle of the
ocean for 6 hours and 45 minutes due to a leaking economizer.
o He was instructed to shut down the economizer and use the
auxiliary boiler instead.

When the vessel arrived in Singapore, the Chief Engineer reminded

Captain Tayong that the oxygen and acetylene supplies had not been
delivered.
o Upon inquiry, the Captain was informed that the supplies could only
be delivered on Aug. 1 as the stores had closed.

Captain Tayong called the shipowner, Seahorse Ship Management and

informed them that the departure of the vessel for South Africa may be
affected because of the delay in the delivery of the supplies.
o He was advised to contact Mr. Clark, the Technical Director.
o According to Mr. Clark, after being informed that the ship cannot
travel without the supplies, Captain Tayong agreed with him when
he said by shutting off the water to the turbo chargers and using
the auxiliary boilers, there should be no further problem.
o According to Captain Tayong, he was informed by Sea Horse to wait
for the supplies.

Captain Tayong immediately sailed for South Africa upon the delivery of
the supplies.

Upon reaching South Africa, Captain Tayong was instructed to turn-over

his post to the new captain. He was thereafter repatriated to the
Philippines.
o He was not informed of the charges against him.

He then instated a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Page 2 of 7

ISSUES/HELD
WoN Captain Tayong was illegally dismissed? YES.
RATIONALE

Confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed

at any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an
appropriate investigation.
o They are also entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of
employment and the protection of labor laws.

The captain of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee.

A captain commonly performs 3 distinct roles: (1) he is a general agent

of the shipowner; (2) he is also commander and technical director of
the vessel; and (3) he is a representative of the country under whose
flag he navigates.
o The most important is the role performed by the captain as the
commander of the vessel. Such a role analogous to that of Chief
Executive Officer of a present-day corporate enterprise.

A ships captain must be accorded a reasonable measure of

discretionary authority to decide what the safety of the ship and of its
crew and cargo specifically requires on a stipulated ocean voyage.
o The captain is held responsible for such safety.

The captain has control of all departments of service in the vessel, and
reasonable discretion as to its navigation.

It is the right and duty of the captain, in the exercise of sound

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
necessary for the protection and preservation of the interests under his
charge.
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
judgment.
o The requirements of safe navigation compel us to reject any
suggestion that the judgment and discretion of the captain of a
vessel may be confined within a straight jacket.

The master is entitled to delay for such a period as may be reasonable

under the circumstances.

Captain Tayong had reasonable grounds to believe that the safety of

the vessel and crew required him to wait for the delivery of the supplies
needed.
o The vessel had stopped mid-ocean for 6 hours and 45 minutes on
its way to Singapore because of its leaking economizer.
o Captain Tayong did not maliciously and arbitrarily delay the voyage
to South Africa.

The decision of Captain Tayong did not constitute a legal basis for his
summary dismissal.

FACTS
On March 12, 1920, 2K cases of petroleum and 8,473 cases of
gasoline were loaded in the motor boat Alfonso
o The loading was done without the permission from the customs
authorities
o The cases were loaded by means of straps supporting 10-12
cases at a time
o The cases were placed in the hold of the ship, which is 14ft
from the boiler of the main engine and 4ft from the boiler of the
smaller engine
On March 13, the smaller engine was in operation preparatory to the
departure
Subsequently, a fire broke out with an explosion on board Alfonso
followed by a violent expulsion of gasoline and petroleum
Due to the magnitude of the fire and the inflammability of the materials
and the proximity of the steamer Y. Sontua, the fire spread to the said
steamer
Sontua brought this action to recover from Ossorio, the owner of
Alfonso, alleging that the damages were due to the negligence of the
agents and employees of Ossorio
Ossorio contended that the damages were caused by a fortuitous event
and
are
not
imputable
to
his
or
any
of
his
agents/employees/mandataries negligence
CFI ruled in favor of Sontua and held that:
o The explosion was due to the negligence of the persons in charge
of Alfonso
o Ossorio is liable for the negligence of his agents and employees
ISSUES/HELD

WoN the explosion was due to the negligence of the persons in charge
of Alfonso? YES.

WoN Ossorio, the owner of the motorboat, was liable for the negligence
of his agents and employees? YES.
RATIONALE
Issue #1
Expert testimony introduced by Sontua shows the explosion and fire,
which caused the damages, are imputable to the negligence of the
persons having charge of Alfonso at that time. It was shown that:
o Due to the manner by which the cases were loaded, the cases
would receive bumps resulting in damage to the cans and
consequent leakage (use of straps)
o The gases formed by the volatilization are apt to accumulate in a
compartment without sufficient ventilation (hold of a ship)

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

Page 3 of 7

This accumulation will cause the gases to ignite upon comin gin
contact with a spark or upon temperature being sufficiently
raised (smaller engine was in operation)
Issue #2
The rule is that where the vessel is one of freight, a public
concern or public utility, it owner or agent is liable for the
tortuous acts of his agents
The Code of Commerce further provides that the general liability of a
vessel owner extends to losses by fire arising from other than a natural
or other excepted cause, whether occurring on the ship, or
communicated from other vessel, or from the shore. This means that
losses by fire are not within the exceptions (act of God or peril
of the sea except by local custom) UNLESS proximately caused
by one of the exceptions
Re: allegation that obligations under Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce
are inherent in the master, the SC said that although such duties are
inherent to the master, it does not
Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC | Romero (1996)
FACTS

Private respondent Macatuno was hired by Wallem Shipmanagement

Limited thru its local manning agent, Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., as
a seaman on board the M/T Fortuna

While the vessel was berthed at the port of Kawasaki, Japan, an

altercation took place between Macatuno and a fellow Filipino,
Gurimbao on the one hand, and a cadet/apprentice officer of the same
nationality as the captain of the vessel on the other hand.

when both were on duty, the apprentice approached them and told
Gurimbao to drain the water mixed with oil and dirt w/c had
accumulated at the upper deck of the vessel, using a shovel. Gurimbao
told him that throwing oil and water was prohibited by Japans laws but
the apprentice got mad and ordered Gurimbao to use a hose to siphon
off the water. Gurimbao did as he was told to avoid trouble. Gurimbao
complained to Macatuno about the improper and unauthorized act of
the apprentice. They reminded the apprentice that he wasnt an officer
of the vessel and thus, he had no right to order any member of the
crew. The apprentice reacted violently. Macatuno pushed twice the
apprentices chest whil Gurimbao mildly hit his arm. The apprentice ran
to the captain who witnessed the incident from his window

The master entered the incident in the tankers logbook

As a result, Macatuno and Gurimbao were repatriated to the Philippines

where they immediately filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal
with the POEA

Petitioners alleged that the incident wasnt the first infraction

committed by the two. The logbook showed that while the vessel was
docked in Batangas, they left it during working hours w/o permission.

Also, while the vessel was achored in Kawasaki, Japan, they assaulted
the officer on watch for the day. When the vessel was about to sail that
day, the two went ashore despite the warning given them. They were
arrested by Japanese authorities.
POEA ruled that the dismissal was without just and valid cause. It didnt
give much weight to the Certified true copy of the official logbook
because the alleged entries were only handpicked and copied from the
official logbook. Theres no way to verify the truth of the entries.
NLRC affirmed POEAs decision

ISSUES/HELD
WON Macatuno was validly dismissed based on the entries in the logbook?
NO.
RATIONALE

An employer may dismiss or lay off an employee only for the just and
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
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
an official entry in the logbook is legally binding and serves as an
exception to the hearsay rule.

An employer may dismiss or lay off an employee only for the just and
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
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
an official entry in the logbook is legally binding and serves as an
exception to the hearsay rule.

However, the Haverton Shipping ruling does not apply in this case. In
Haverton Shipping, there was an investigation of the incident which led
to the seamans dismissal before he was dismissed. Thus, the facts in
the logbook were supported by facts from the investigation. In this
case, there was no investigation conducted by the ship captain before
the repatriation so the contents of the logbook have to be duly
indentified and authenticated lest an injustice result from the blind
adoption of such contents which just serve as prima facie evidence of
the incident.

In Haverton Shipping, what was presented was a copy of the official

entry from the logbook itself. In this case, petitioners didnt submit as
evidence to the POEA the logbook itself or even authenticated copies of
the relevant pages which could have been easily photocopied. What
was offered in evidence was just a typewritten collation of excerpts
from what COULD be the logbook because by their format, they could
have been lifted from other records kept in the vessel in accordance
with Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce.

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

employment, the offense falls under insubordination which may
constitute assaulting a superior officer. An apprentice officer cannot be
considered a superior officer since he is bound in the form of law to a
master. He is just a learner or a trainee.
The entry in the logbook is also so sketchy that, unsupported by other
evidence, it leaves so many questions unanswered. In the absence of a
more detailed narration in the logbook entry of the circumstances
surrounding the alleged assault, the termination of Macatuno cannot be
held justified.

Wildvalley Shipping Co., LTD. vs. Court of Appeals | Buena (2000)

FACTS

Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by respondent Philippine President

Lines, Inc. (PPL), arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore

Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez, an official pilot of Venezuela, was
designated by the harbor authorities in Puerto Ordaz to navigate the
vessel through the Orinoco River

The master (captain) of the vessel, was at the bridge together with the
pilot (Vasquez), the officer on watch, and a helsman when the vessel
left the bridge when the vessel was under way

Vessel experience some vibrations when it entered the San Roque

Channel

Vessel proceeded on its way, with the pilot assuring the watch officer
that the vibration was a result of the shallowness of the channel

Vessel again experienced some vibrations, watch officer called the

master to the bridge

Master checked the position of the vessel and verified that it was in
the center of the channel, went to confirm or set down the position of
the vessel, and ordered the Chief Officer of the vessel to check all the
double tanks

Then the vessel ran aground in the Orinoco River, obstructing the
ingress and egress of vessels

As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by

petitioner Wildvalley, was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day

Wildvalley filed suit against PPL and Pioneer insurance (insurer of the
vessel) for damages in the form of unearned profits and interest
thereon

RTC held in favor of Wildvalley, finding negligence of the Master

CA reversed the decision hence the appeal

ISSUES/HELD
Is PPL liable for damages because of negligence of its Master? NO.
RATIONALE

Since there is no contractual obligation, herein respondent is obliged to

give only the diligence required of a good father of a family in
accordance with article 1173 of the NCC
The respondent exercised such diligence when:
o The vessel sailed only after the main engine, machineries, and
other auxiliaries were checked and found to be in good running
condition
o The Master left a competent officer to watch on the bridge with a
pilot who is experienced in navigating the Orinoco River
o The Master ordered the inspection of the vessels double bottom
tanks when the vibrations occurred anew
According to sections 11 and 32 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing Pilotage Services as well as Art. 612 of the Code of
Commerce, the master remains the overall commander of the vessel
even when there is a pilot on board. He remains in control of the ship
as he can still perform the duties conferred upon him by law despite
the presence of a pilot who is temporarily in charge of the vessel. It is
not required of him to be on the bridge while the vessel is being
navigated by a pilot
HOWEVER, Section 8 of Philippine Ports Authority Administrative Order
No. 03-85 provides:
o For entering a harbor and anchoring thereat, or passing through
rivers or straits within a pilotage district, as well as docking and
undocking at any pier/wharf, or shifting from one berth or another,
every vessel engaged in coastwise and foreign trade shall be under
compulsory pilotage
Orinoco River being a compulsory pilotage channel necessitated the
engaging of a pilot who was presumed to be knowledgeable of every
shoal, bank deep, and shallow ends of the river
Pilot Vasquez testified that he:
o Is an official pilot in the Harbor at Port Ordaz, Venezuela
o Had been a pilot for 12 years
o Had experience in navigating the waters of the Orinoco River
o Is very familiar with the configuration of the river as wel as the
course headings
o Does not even refer to river charts when navigating the Orinoco
River
The law does provide that the master can countermand or overrule the
order or command of the Harbor Pilot on board but the Master deemed
it best not to order the pilot to stop th vessel because the latter had
assured him that they were navigating normally before the grounding
of the vessel
Licensed pilots, enjoying the emoluments of compulsory pilotage are
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
their licenses extend superior to that of the master
The grounding of the vessel is attributable to the pilot
Page 5 of 7

In his experience as a pilot, he should have been aware of the

portions which are shallow and which are not, and his failure to
determine the depth of the said river and his decision to plod on his
set course, in all probability, caused damage to the vessel
In the case of Homer Ramsdell Transportation Company vs. La
Compania Generale Transatlantique
o The master of a ship, and owner also, is liable for any injury done
by the negligence of the crew employed in the ship, the same
doctrine will apply to the case of a pilot employed by the master or
ownerbut if it is compulsive upon the master to take a
pilot, and, a fortiori, if he is bound to do so under penalty,
then, and in such case, neither he nor the owner will be
liable for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the pilot,
for in such a case the pilot cannot be deemed properly the servant
of the master or the owner
Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply since there was a temporary shift of
control over the ship from the master, the requisites of negligence and
control are absent
The vessel was not unseaworthy as evidenced by the Lloyds Register
of Shipping confirmed the same
o

Ohta Development Co. vs. Steamship Pompey | Avancena (1926)

FACTS

Ohta Development Co. was the owner of a pier in Davao. On this pier
were two groups of posts, three to a group, about 2 feet from the pier
itself, which served as a protection to the pier against the impact of
vessels.

The steamship Pompey, in command of Captain Galvez, in the name of

The National Coal Company, was carrying cargo consisting principally
of flour and rice for Ohta, docked alongside the said pier.

The ship docked with her bow facing towards the land; and fastened
her ropes to the posts on the pier. The evidence shows that, previously,
other ships docking alongside the said pier had the bow facing towards
the land and fastened a rope to a tree situated on the beach, a
precaution taken to avoid the ship from getting too close to the pier.

When the Pompey docked, she did not stretch a rope to the tree on the
shore, neither did she drop her bow anchors. After being thus docked
they proceeded to unload the flour and rice.

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
exclusively by laborers and the crew the ship.

There being only 15 or 20 laborers engaged in the hauling, a large

amount of cargo accumulated on the dock, with the result that the pier
sank with all the merchandise.

RTC: sentenced Steamship Pompey, Galvez, and the National Coal

Company, to pay Ohta Development damages suffered by the latter by

reason of the destruction of its pier and the loss of its merchandise
then stored on said pier.
ISSUES/HELD
WON respondents are liable. YES.
RATIONALE

There was a strong undercurrent in the direction from west to east;

Current forced ship towards the pier which impact resulted in its
sinking. This is due to the fact that the ship was not fastened with a
rope to a tree on shore and that the bow anchors had not been
dropped.

Appellants urge that, according to the bills of lading of the lost

merchandise, the defendant National Coal Company's liability ceased
when the said merchandise was unloaded and placed on the dock. This
contention is without merit. There is nothing in the bills of lading to
uphold it.
o Article 619 of the Code of Commerce provides that the captain shall
be answerable for the cargo from the moment that it is delivered to
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
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
cargo.

When the merchandise was lost on account of the sinking of the dock,
it had not yet been delivered and consequently it was under the
responsibility of the captain. The National Coal Company, as the
operator, is responsible for the indemnities arising from the lack of skill
or negligence of the captain. (Articles 587 and 618 of the Code of
Commerce.)

It cannot be said the liability of the other defendants is subsidiary and

limited to what the steamship Pompey may answer for. Such argument,
seemingly based upon article 587 of the Code of Commerce which
authorizes the shipowner to abandon the ship in order to answer for his
liability to third persons, is inapplicable, for the reason that there was
no abandonment of the ship. The Court does not believe that
Steamship Pompey, et.al. based their contention upon article 837 which
refers to collisions, because that is not the case here.
Guzman vs. William X | Torres (1907)
FACTS

Guzmans agent contracted with Behn, Meyer & Co., agents of steamer
Kudat, in the sum of P150, for the towing of the lorcha Nevada, owned
by Guzman, to the port of Iloilo. During the voyage, the port tow line
broke, and the captain of the Kudat ordered the crew of the Nevada to
come on board the Kudat and to abandon the lorcha; that as the
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