CASE DIGEST - Verzosa v. Lim: GR No. 20145 J. Street; 15 November 1923

 

LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL FOR THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE CAPTAIN AND PILOT IN CHARGE

 

Verzosa v. Lim: GR No. 20145

J. Street; 15 November 1923

DOCTRINE: Article 826 of the Code of Commerce declared that the owner of any vessel shall be liable for the indemnity due to any other vessel injured by the fault, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain of the first.

FACTS:

The coastwise steamer Ban Yek left the port of Naga on the Bicol River, in the Province of Camarines Sur, with destination to the City of Manila.  At the time of her departure from said port the sea was approaching to high tide but the current was still running in through the Bicol River, with the result that the Ban Yek had the current against her.

As the ship approached the Malbong bend of the Bicol River, in the municipality of Gainza, another vessel, the Perla, was sighted coming up the river on the way to Naga. While the boats were yet more than a kilometer apart, the Ban Yek gave two blasts with her whistle, thus indicating an intention to pass on the left, or to her own port side.

Then, Perla gave a single blast, thereby indicating that she disagreed with the signal given by the Ban Yek and would maintain her position on the right, that is, would keep to the starboard. The Ban Yek made no reply to this signal.

As the Perla was navigating with the current, then running in from the sea, this vessel, under paragraph 163 of Customs Marine Circular No. 53, had the right of way over the Ban Yek, and the officers of the Perla interpreted the action of the Ban Yek in not replying to the Perla's signal as an indication of acquiescene of the officers of the Ban Yek in the determination of the Perla to keep to the starboard.

The river at this point is about two hundred and fifty feet wide, and the courses thus being respectively pursued by the two vessels necessarily tended to bring them into a head-on collision. When the danger of such an occurrence became imminent, Captain Garrido of the Perla, seeing that he was shut off by the Ban Yek from passing to the right, put his vessel to port, intending to avoid collision or minimize its impact by getting farther out into the stream.

An additional reason for this maneuver, as stated by Captain Carrido, is that the captain of the Ban Yek waived his hand to Garrido, indicating that the latter should turn his vessel towards the middle of the stream.

At about the same time that the Perla was thus deflected from her course the engine on the Ban Yek was reversed and three blasts were given by this vessel to indicate that she was backing. Vicente Versoza and Ruiz, Rementeria y Compania, as owners of the coastwise vessel Perla filed instituted a case against Silvino Lim and Siy Cong Bieng & Company, Inc., as owner and agent, respectively, of the vessel Ban Yek. The purpose of which is to recover the sum of money alleged to be the damages resulting to the plaintiffs from the said collision.

ISSUE:

Whether the owner of the vessel is liable for the indemnity due to any other vessel injured by the fault, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain of the first.

RULING:

Yes. The owner of the vessel is liable.

The trial judge, was in error in not awarding damages to the Perla; but no error was committed in absolving the plaintiffs from the defendants' cross-complaint.

Upon the point of responsibility for the collision we have no hesitancy in finding that the fault is to be attributed exclusively to the negligence and inattention of the captain and pilot in charge of the Ban Yek.

The Perla undoubtedly had the right of way, since this vessel was navigating with the current, and the officers in charge of the Perla were correct in assuming, from the failure of the Ban Yek to respond to the single blast of the Perla, that the officers in charge of the Ban Yek recognized that the Perla had a right of way and acquiesced in her resolution to keep to the right.

Moreover, it is said to be the practice of ships in navigating this stream to keep nearer the outside than to the inside of the bend. These suggestions are by no means convincing. It appears in evidence that the river bottom here is composed of mud and silt, and as the tide at the time of this incident was nearly at its flood, there was ample depth of water to have accommodated the Ban Yek if she had kept to that part of the stream which it was proper for her to occupy.

We may further observe that the disparity in the size of the vessels was not such as to dominate the situation and deprive the Perla of the right of way under the conditions stated. Blame for the collision must therefore, as already stated, be attributed to the Ban Yek.

We note further that in Article 826 of the Code of Commerce it is declared that the owner of any vessel shall be liable for the indemnity due to any other vessel injured by the fault, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain of the first.

We say "owner," which is the word used in the current translation of this article in the Spanish Code of Commerce. It is to be observed, however, that the Spanish text itself uses the word naviero; and there is some ambiguity in the use of said word in this article, owing to the fact that naviero in Spanish has several meanings.

That naviero, as used in the Spanish text of article 826, means owner is further to be inferred from article 837, which limits the civil liability expressed in article 826 to the value of the vessel with all her appurtenances and all the freight earned during the voyage. There would have been no propriety in limiting liability to the value of the vessel unless the owner were understood to be the person liable. It is therefore clear that by special provision of the Code of Commerce the owner is made responsible for the damage caused by an accident of the kind under consideration in this case; and in more than one case this court has held the owner liable, when sued alone.

But while it is thus demonstrated that Silvino Lim is liable for these damages in the character of owner, it does not necessarily follows that Siy Cong Bieng & Co., as character or agent (casa naviera), is exempt from liability; and we are of the opinion that both the owner and agent can be held responsible where both are impleaded together. In Philippine Shipping Co., vs. Garcia Vergara (6 Phil., 281), it seems to have been accepted as a matter of course that both owner and agent of the offending vessel are liable for the damage done; and this must, we think, be true.

The liability of the naviero, in the sense of charterer or agent, if not expressed in article 826 of the Code of Commerce, is clearly deducible from the general doctrine of jurisprudence stated in article 1902 of the Civil Code, and it is also recognized, but more especially as regards contractual obligations, in article 586 of the Code of Commerce. Moreover, we are of the opinion that both the owner and agent (naviero) should be declared to be jointly and severally liable, since the obligation which is the subject of this action had its origin in a tortious act and did not arise from contract. Article 1137 of the Civil Code, declaring that joint obligations shall be apportionable unless otherwise provided, has no application to obligation arising from tort.