G.R. No. 18957. January 16, 1923

In this action the Government of the Philippine Islands seeks to recover the
sum of P14,648.25, the alleged value of 911 sacks of rice which were lost at sea
on February 11, 1920, as a result of a collision between the steamer
Antipolo, owned by the defendant company, and the vessel
Isabel, upon which said rice was embarked. In the Court of First
Instance judgment was entered for the recovery by the plaintiff from the
Philippine Steamship Company, Inc., of the full amount claimed, with interest
from the date of the filing of the complaint. From this judgment said company
appealed.

It appears in evidence that at about 10 o’clock at night on February 10,
1920, the coastwise vessel Isabel, equipped with motor and sails, left
the port of Manila with primary destination to Balayan, Batangas, carrying,
among its cargo, 911 sacks of rice belonging to the plaintiff and consigned to
points in the south. After the boat had been under weigh for about four hours,
and had passed the San Nicolas Light near the entrance into Manila Bay, the
watch and the mate on the bridge of the Isabel discerned the light of
another vessel, which proved to be the Antipolo, also a coastwise
vessel, on its way to Manila and coming towards the Isabel. At about
the same time both the watch and mate on the bridge of the Antipolo
also saw the Isabel, the two vessels being then about one mile and a
half or two miles apart. Each vessel was going approximately at the speed of 6
miles an hour, and in about ten minutes they had together traversed the
intervening space and were in close proximity to each other.

When the mate of the Antipolo, who was then at the wheel, awoke to
the danger of the situation and saw the Isabel “almost on top of him,”
to use the words of the committee on marine accidents reporting the incident, he
put his helm hard to the starboard.

This maneuver was correct, and if the helmsman of the Isabel had
done likewise, all would apparently have been well, as in that event the two
vessels should have passed near to each other on the port side without
colliding. As chance would have it, however, the mate on the Isabel at
this critical juncture lost his wits and, in disregard of the regulations and of
common prudence, at once placed his own helm hard to port, with the result that
his boat veered around directly in the path of the other vessel and a collision
became inevitable. Upon this the mate on the Antipolo fortunately
stopped his engines, but the Isabel continued with full speed ahead,
and the two vessels came together near the bows. The Isabel immediately
sank, with total loss of vessel and cargo, though the members of her crew were
picked up from the water and saved.

The trial judge was in our opinion entirely right in finding that negligence
was imputable to both vessels, though differing somewhat in character and degree
with respect to each. The mate of the Antipolo was clearly negligent in
having permitted that vessel to approach directly towards the Isabel
until the two were in dangerous proximity. For this there was no excuse
whatever, since the navigable sea at this point is wide and the incoming steamer
could easily have given the outgoing vessel a wide berth. On the other hand it
is not clear that the Isabel was chargeable with negligence in keeping
on its course; for this boat had its jib sail hoisted, and may for that reason
be considered to have had the right of way. (G. Urrutia & Co. vs.
Baco River Plantation Co., 26 Phil., 632.)

Negligence shortly preceding the moment of collision is, however, undoubtedly
chargeable to the Isabel, for the incorrect and incompetent way in
which this vessel was then handled. The explanation of this may perhaps be found
in the fact that the mate on the Isabel had been on continuous duty
during the whole preceding day and night; and being almost absolutely exhausted,
he probably was either dozing or inattentive to duty at the time the other
vessel approached.

It results, as already stated, that both vessels were at fault; and although
the negligence on the part of the mate of the incoming vessel preceded the
negligence on the part of the mate of the outgoing vessel by an appreciable
interval of time, the first vessel cannot on that account be absolved from
responsibility. Indeed, in G. Urrutia & Co. vs. Baco River
Plantation Co., supra, this court found reason for holding that the
responsibility rested exclusively on a steamer which had allowed dangerous
proximity to a sailing vessel to be brought about under somewhat similar
conditions.

We are of the opinion therefore that his Honor, the trial judge, committed no
error in holding that both vessels were to blame and in applying article 827 of
the Code of Commerce to the situation before him. It is there declared that
where both vessels are to blame, both shall be solidarily responsible for the
damage occasioned to their cargoes. As the Isabel was a total loss and
cannot sustain any part of this liability, the burden of responding to the
Government of the Philippine Islands, as owner of the rice embarked on the
Isabel, must fall wholly upon the owner of the other ship, that is,
upon the defendant, the Philippine Steamship Company, Inc.

Only one observation will be added, in response to one of the contentions of
the appellant’s attorneys, which is, that the application of article 827 of the
Code of Commerce is not limited by article 828 to the case where it cannot be
determined which of the two vessels was the cause of the collision. On the
contrary article 828 must be considered as an extension of article 827 to an
additional case. In other words, under the two articles combined the rule of
liability announced in article 827 is applicable not only to the case where both
vessels may be shown to be actually blameworthy but also to the case where it is
obvious that only one was at fault but the proof does not show which.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed; and it is so ordered with costs
against the appellant.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña,
Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.