G.R. No. L-9534. September 29, 1956

This case was begun in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga  (Civil  Case No. 170)   by Insa  Abdulhaman against  the Manila  Steamship  Co., owner  of  the  M/S “Bowline  Knot”, and Lim  Hong To, owner  of the  M/L “Consuelo V”,  to  recover damages  for the death  of his (plaintiff’s)  five children and loss  of personal  properties on board the M/L “Consuelo V” as a result of a maritime collision between said vessel and the M/S “Bowline Knot” on May 4, 1948, a few kilometers distant from San Ramon Beach, Zamboanga City.

On appeal, the  Court of Appeals found the  following facts to  have been established: 

“From 7:00 to 8:00 o’clock in the evening of May 4, 1948, the M/L “Consuelo V”,  laden with cargoes and passengers  left the port of Zamboanga City  bound for Siokon under the command of Faustino Macrohon.  She was then towing a  kumpit, named  “Sta. Maria Bay”. The weather  was good and fair.  Among her passengers were the plaintiff Insa Abdulhaman, his wife Carimla  Mora and their  five children already  mentioned. The plaintiff  and his wife paid  their fare  before the voyage started. 

On that same night the  M/S  “Bowline Knot” was  navigating from Maribojoc towards Zamboanga. 

Between  9:30 to 10:00 in the  evening the dark  clouds  bloated with rain  began to fall and the gushing strong wind began to blow steadily harder,  lashing the waves into a choppy and roaring sea.  Such weather lasted for about  an hour and then it  became fair although it was showering and the visibility was good enough. 

When some of the passengers of the  M/L “Consuelo V”  were then sleeping and some  were lying  down awake,  all of a sudden they felt the shocking collision  of the M/L  “Consiuelo  V” and a big motorship, which later on was identified as  the M/V “Bowline Knot”. 

Because the: M/L  “Consuelo  V”  capsized, her crew and  passengers,  before realizing  what  had happened,  found  themselves swimming and floating on the  crest  of the waves and as a result of which nine (9)  passengers wege  dead and missing and all the cargoes carried on said boat,  including those of the plaintiff as appear in the list, Exhibit “A”, were also lost. 

Among the dead  passengers found were  Maria, Amlasa, Bidoaya and Bidaila, aH surnamed Inasa, while the body of the child Abdula Inasa of 6 years of age was never recovered. Before the collision, none of the  passengers were warned or informed of the impending danger as the collision was  so sudden and unexpected. AH those rescued at sea were brought by the  M/V “Bowline Knot” to Zamboanga City/’  (Decision of C. A., pp. 5-6).

As  the  cause of the  collision, the  Court  of Appeals affirmed  the findings of  the Board of Marine Inquiry, that the commanding officer  of the  colliding  vessels  had both been  negligent in operating their respective vessels. Wherefore, the  Court held  the owners  of both vessels v   solidarily liable  to plaintiff for  the damages  caused to him by the  collision, under Article  827  of the Code of Commerce; but exempted defendant Lim Hong To from liability by reason of  the sinking and total  loss  of his vessel, the M/L  “Consuelo  V”, while the other defendant, the Manila Steamship  Co., owner of the  M/S  “Bowline Knot”, was ordered to  pay  all of plaintiff’s  damages in the amount of P20,784.00 plus one-half of the  costs.   It is from this judgment that defendant Manila Steamship Co. had appealed to this Court.

Petitioner Manila Steamship  Co. pleads  that it is exempt from any  liability to plaintiff 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  Third Mate Simplicio  Ilagan, the officer in command ol its  vessels, the  M/S “Bowline Knot”, at the time of the  collision.  This  defense  is  untenable.   While it is true that plaintiff’s 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 Article 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 solidarity liable for the  damages occasioned  to their cargoes.  The characteristic language of the law in making the “vessels” solidarity liable for the  damages  due  to the  maritime collision  emphasizes the direct nature of the responsibilities on account of the collision  incurred  by the shipowner under maritime law, as distinguished from the civil law and mercantile law in general.  This direct responsibility is recognized in Article 618  of  the Code  of  Commerce  under  which  the captain shall be civilly liable to the ship agent, and the  latter is the one liable to third persons, as pointed out in the collision case of Yueng Sheng Exchange & Trading Co vs. Urrutia & Co., 12 Phil. 747,  753: 

“The responsibility  involved in the  present  action is that derived from the management of the vessel, which was defective on account of lack of skill, negligence, or fault, either  of the captain  or  of the crew, for which the captain is responsible to  the agent,’who in his turn is responsible to the third party prejudiced or damaged. (Article  618, Code of Commerce).”

In fact,  it is a  general principle, well established maritime law and custom, that shipowners and ship agents are  civilly liable  for the acts  of the  captain (Code of Commerce, Article 586) and for the indemnities due the third persons (Article  587); so that injured parties may. immediately look for reimbursement to the  owner of the ship, it being universally  recognized that the  ship master or captain is primarily the representative of the owner (Standard  Oil Co. vs.  Lopez Castelo, 42 Phil. 256, 260). This direct liability, moderated and limited by the owner’s right of abandonment of the vessel and earned freight (Article 587), has been declared to exist, not only in  case of breached contracts, but also in cases  of tortious  negligence (Yu Biao Sontua vs. Osorio, 43 Phil. 511, 515): 

“In the  Second assignment of error, the  appellant contends that the defendant ought not to be held liable for the negligence of his agents and employees. 

It  is proven that the agents and employees, through whose negligence the explosion and fire in question occurred, were agents, employees and mandataries of the defendant.  Where the vessel is one Of freight, a public concern or public utility, its owner or agents is liable for  the tortious  acts of his  agents  (Articles 587, 613, and 618 Code of Commerce; and Article 1902, 1903, 1908, Civil Code). This principle has been repeatedly upheld  in various decisions of this  court. 

The  doctrines cited by  the appellant in support of  his theory have  reference to the ‘relations  between  principal  and agent in general, but not to the relations between ship agent and his agents and employees; for this reason they cannot be applied in the present case”

It  is  easy  to see that to admit the defense  of due diligence of a bonus paterfamilias (in  the  selection and vigilance of the officers and crew)  as exempting the ship-owner from any  liability for  their  faults, would render nugatory the  solidary  liability established by  Article 827 of the  Code of Commerce  for  the greater  protection  of injured  parties.  Ship owners would be  able to escape liability in practically every case, considering that the qualifications and  licensing of ship masters  and  officers are determined  by the State,  and that vigilance is practically impossible to  exercise  over  officers and  crew of vessels at sea.  To compel  the parties prejudiced to  look to the crew for indemnity and redress  would  be  an  illusory remedy  for  almost always its members  are, from captains down, mere wage  earners.

We, therefore,  find  no reversible  error in  the refusal of the  Court  of Appeals to consider the defense of the Manila Steamship Co.,  that  it is exempt from  liability for the collision with the  M/L “Consuelo V” due to  absence of negligence on its parts in the  selection and supervision of the officers and crew of  the  M/S “Bowline Knot”.

The case  of  Walter  S.  Smith & Co. vs  Cadwallader Gibson  Lumber Co.,  55 Phil. 517, invoked by petitioner, is not the point.  Said case treated of a civil tort, in that the vessel of the defendant, allegedly negligently managed by  its captain  in the course of its maneuvers to  moor at plaintiff’s  wharf,  struck  the  same and partially  demolished it, causing damage to plaintiff.   Because the tart allegedly committed  was civil, the  provisions  of  Article 1903 of the Civil Code were correctly applied.  The present case, on the other  hand, involves  tortious conduct resulting in a maritime collision; wherefore, the liability of the shipowner is,  as  already  stated,  governed by  the provisions  of the Code of Commerce and not by the Civil Code.

We agree, however, with petitioner-appellant, that  the Court of Appeals was in error in declaring the respondent Lim Hong To, owner of the M/L “Consuelo V”, exempt  from  liability to  the original plaintiff,  Abdulhaman, in view  of the  total loss of his own  vessel, that sank as a result of the collision.  It is to be  noted  that both  the  master  and the engineer of  the  motor  launch “Consuelo  V” were not duly licensed as such (Exh.  2).  In applying for permission  to  operate,  despite  the lack of properly trained  and experienced, crew, respondent  Lim Hong To gave  as a  reason— 

“that the income  derived from  the vessel is  insufficient to  pay licensed officers who demand high salaries”,

and expressly declared: 

“That  in case of any  accident, damage  or loss, I shall assume full  risk  and  responsibility  for  all  the  consequences thereof.”  (Exhibit  2).

His permit to operate, in fact, stipulated— 

“that in case of any accident, damage  or loss, the  registered owner thereof shall assume full risk and responsibility for all the consequences thereof, and that  said vessel shall be held answerable for any negligence, disregard or violation of any of the conditions herein imposed  and for any  consequence arising from such neglicence, disregard or violations.”  (Exhibit 3.)

The Court of Appeals held that neither the letter  (Exhibit 2j nor the permit (Exhibit 3)  contained any waiver Of the  right  of respondent  Lint Hong  To to limit his liability to the value of his motor launch and that he did not lose the statutory right to limit his liability by abandonment of the vessel,  as  conferred by Article 587 of the Code  of Commerce..

We find the ruling untenable.   Disregarding the question whether, mere inability to meet the salary demands of duly licensed masters  and engineers  constitutes  non-availability thereof that would excuse noncompliance with the law and authorize operation without licensed  officers under Act 3553, the  fact  remains that by operating with an unlicensed master, Lim Hong To  deliberately increased the risk to which the  passengers and shippers of cargo aboard the “Consuelo V”  would be subjected.   In  his desire to reap greater  benefits  in the maritime trade, Lim Hong To  willfully augmented the dangers and hazards to his ‘vessel’s unwarry passengers,  who would normally assume that the launch officers  possessed the necessary skill and experience to evade the perils of the  sea.  Hence, the liability of said respondent can not be  the identical  to that of a  shipowner Who bears in mind the  safety of the passengers and  cargo by employing duly licensed officers. To hold, as the Court of Appeals has done, that  Lim Hong To may limit  his liability  to the value of  his vessels,  is to erase all difference between compliance with law and the deliberate disregard thereof.  To such proposition we can not assent.

The international rule is to the effect  that the right of abandonment  of vessels, as a legal  limitation of a ship-owner’s liability, does not apply to cases  where  the injury or the average is due to shipowner’s own fault.   Farifia (Derecho  Comercial  Maritimo,  Vol.  I,  pp. 122-123), on the authority of judicial precedents from various nations,  sets the rule to be as follows: 

“Esta generalmente admitido que el propietario del buque no  tiene derecho  a la Hmitacion legal  de resppnsibilidad si  los  danos o averias que  dan  origen  a la  limitacidn provienen de sus propias culpas.  El  Convenio de  Bruselas de  25  de agosto de 1924 tambien invalida la limitacion en el caso de culpa personal en los accidentes o averias sobrevenidos (Art. 2°).”

To the same effect, a noted French author states: 

“La limitacion  de la responsabilidad maritima ha sido admitida para proteger a  los armadores contra  los actos  abusivos de sus encargados  y no dejar  su  patrimonio entero  a la  discrecion del personal de  sus buques, porque  este  personal cumple sus obligaciones en condiciones especiales; pero  los armadores no  tienen por sobre  los demds derecho a  ser  amparados contra ellos  mismos ni a ser  protegidos contra  sus propios actos.”‘

(Danjon,  Derecho Maritimo, Vol. 2, p. 332).  (Italics suuplied.)

That Lim  Hong To  understood that  he would incur greater liability than that normally borne by shipowners, is clear  from his assumption of “full”  risk and responsibility for all  the  consequences’” of  the operation of the M/L  “Consuelo V”; a responsibility expressly assumed  in his letter  Exhibit 2, and  imposed in his  special permit, in  addition to the  vessel  itself being  held  answerable. This  express assumption of “full risk and. responsibility” would be meaningless unless intended to broaden the liability  of respondent  Lim  Hong  To beyond the  value of his vessel.

In  resume, we hold:

(1)  Thatlhe Manila Steamship  Co., owner of the M/S “Bowline Knot”,  is directly and primarily responsible  in tort for the injuries caused to the plaintiff by the collision of said vessel with the launch “Consuelo V”, through the negligence  of the crews of  both vessels,  and it  may not escape liability  on the ground that it  exercised due  diligence in the selection and  supervision  of the officers and crew of the “Bowline Knot”;

(2)  That Lim Hong To, as owner of the motor launch “Consuelo  V”,  having caused  the same to sail without licensed officers, is  liable for the injuries  caused by  the collision over and beyond the value of said launch;

(3)  That  both vessels being at fault, the  liability of Lim Hong To and Manila  Steamship Co. to the plaintiff herein is in solidum, as prescribed by  Article 827 of  the Code of Commerce.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals is modified, and that of the Court of  First  Instance affirmed, in  the sense of  declaring  both original defendants solidarity liable to  plaintiff Insa Abdulhaman in the sum of  P20,784.00  and the cost of the litigation, without prejudice to the  right of the one who should pay the  judgment in full  to  demand  contribution  from  his co-defendant.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.