JOSE NEGRE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal
taken by José Negre from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu in Civil Case No. R-7150 dismissing his complaint against the
Cabahug Shipping & Co., on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject-matter.

On August 14, 1961, appellant herein
filed his complaint against appellee, a common carrier engaged in the
business of transporting persons and goods for a price within
Philippine waters, to recover the sum of P3,774.90, representing the
value of a cargo of dried fish belonging to him which was loaded on the
latter’s vessel, the JACOBA, at the port of Santa Fe, and which was
totally destroyed on board thereof, before it could be transported to
its place of destination, due to the gross negligence of the officers
and members of the crew of said vessel, and to recover the additional
amount of P500.00 as attorney’s fees.

As
appellee’s answer admitted liability for the loss of said cargo, but
only up to the amount of P3,733.78, appellant moved for a judgment on
the pleadings. In replying thereto, however, appellee moved to dismiss
the case on the ground that the amount of the claim did not fall within
the jurisdiction of the court. Resolving this motion, the court
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to
the right of appellant to file the same with the corresponding
municipal court.

Appellant maintains in this appeal that his
action is one in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 44 of the Judiciary Act, as amended, falls
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the courts of first
instance, irrespective of the amount or the value of the goods involved.

Appellant’s contention is meritorious.

The complaint filed in the lower court contains the following fundamental allegations:

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

“2—That
defendant is a public utility, engaged in the business of
transportation of passengers and cargo for hire in the seas of the
Philippines; and as such public utility, it is the owner and operator
of a motorboat named ‘JACOBA’ plying between the ports of Hagnaya,
Santa Fe, and Cebu City, all in the province of Cebu;

“3—That
on or about March 24, 1961, plaintiff and defendant entered into a
contract of transportation under which the former caused to be loaded
on said motorboat 211 cases of dried fish worth P3,774.90 in Santa Fe,
Cebu and the latter bound itself to transport same safely to its
destination, for a certain consideration;

“4—That on said
date March 24, 1961, while said motorboat was still docked at the
wharf, of the port of Santa Fe, Cebu, and despite the fact that the
weather was very calm, it became flooded with sea water due to the
inexcusable fault and gross negligence of its officers and members of
the crew, as a result of which the said cargo of dried fish was totally
destroyed;

“5—That in a communication dated May 22, 1961,
defendant admits that the loss or destruction of said cargo was due to
the inexcusable fault or gross negligence of its employees in said
motorboat, and accepts liability therefor to plaintiff in the amount of
P3,774.90;”

It is therefore beyond question
that the action was based upon an oral contract for the transportation
of goods by water. It has been held that, to give admiralty
jurisdiction over a contract, the same must relate to the trade and
business of the sea (The James T. Furber 129 Fed. 808, cited in 66 LRA
212). Admiralty jurisdiction, it has also been held, extends to all
maritime torts (Allen vs. Newberry, 21 How. (U.S.) 244, 16 L. Ed. 110).

Moreover,
the allegations of the complaint clearly show: first, that the contract
entered into between the parties had already been partially performed
with the loading of the goods subject-matter thereof on board
appellee’s vessel and the acceptance thereof by said appellee, and
second, that the maritime contract binding the parties was breached by
the carrier because through his fault and that of his agents and
representatives the cargo became a total loss.

All the
foregoing shows, in our opinion, that the action was one in admiralty
and was therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
lower court.

Wherefore, the order appealed
from is hereby reversed and the case is remanded to the court of origin
for proper proceedings in accordance with this decision. With costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.