URQUIJO, ZULUAGA & ESCUBI, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA AND ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The purpose of the present action was to recover damages for the loss of the
sailing vessel Carmencita, the property of the plaintiffs, and her
cargo which was lost at high sea in a collision with the steamship Taculin
which belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the said
Carmencita was lost at sea through the negligence of the agents and
representatives of the defendants in managing and operating the said steamship
Taculin. It is alleged that on or about midnight of the 27th day of
April, 1914, the said Carmencita was sailing south from the city of
Cebu and, at the time of the collision, was just east of the Island of Guimaras
between the point Culasi of the Island of Guimaras and Pulupandan, a part of the
municipality of Valladolid of the province of Occidental Negros; that the
steamship Taculin was sailing north and had come from the said port of
Pulupandan; and that at that point a collision took place between the said two
ships, caused by the negligence of the captain and crew of the said
Taculin; and that as a result of said collision the sailing vessel
Carmencita was totally destroyed together with her cargo as well as the
life of one of the passengers, the daughter of the captain; that the value of
the cargo was P225; and that the value of the said sailing vessel was
P5,500.

The defendants filed a general denial. Upon the issue presented by the
petition and the answer the case was brought on for trial. After hearing the
evidence, the Honorable J. S. Powell, judge, found that a preponderance of the
evidence showed that the defendants, through their agents and representatives,
in managing the steamship Taculin negligently destroyed the sailing
vessel Carmencita together with her cargo, and rendered a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the sum of P5,225 with
interest from the 22d day of October, 1914, until paid, and the costs. From that
judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

In their first assignment of error the appellants alleged that the lower
court committed an error in finding that the said sailing ship Carmencita
carried lights at the time of the collision. Upon that question the captain of
the Carmencita and several members of her crew swore positively that
the said ship was lighted in accordance with the requirements of navigation. She
had a green light upon the starboard and a red light upon the larboard side of
the boat as well as other lights. The statements of the captain and his crew
were also supported by the captain of another boat, the Estrella, who
passed the Carmencita a short time before the collision took place.
That captain swore that the Carmencita had the usual lights; that he
passed near by the said Carmencita on the night in question. The
captain of the Taculin swore that he did not see any lights upon the
Carmencita at the time of or immediately before the collision took
place. Upon the first assignment of error there seems to be a large
preponderance of evidence in favor of the finding of the lower court.

The appellants in their second assignment of error alleged that the court
erred in finding that the captain of the Taculin was guilty of
negligence. The captain of the Taculin swore that he did not see the
Carmencita until he was right upon her; that he was within twenty
brazas before he saw her. The captain of the Carmencita swore that he
saw the Taculin approaching; that he first saw the red light of the
Taculin; that almost immediately he saw the green light of the
Taculin; and that then the collision occurred. If it be true that the
captain of the Carmencita first saw the red light of the
Taculin and then very shortly saw the green light that fact is proof
positive that the Taculin had changed her course; for if she had continued in
the direction in which she was going at the time the captain of the
Carmencita saw the red light, she would have passed upon the port side
of the Carmencita. To have changed her course, which the captain of the
Taculin admitted so as to display the green light upon the starboard
side is proof positive that such a change in course brought the Taculin
in a direction which would cross the path of the Carmencita. The proof
shows that the Taculin collided with the Carmencita upon the
port side which was the natural result of the change of course of the
Taculin; and it was the change of the course, as above indicated, by
the Taculin which enabled the captain of the Carmencita to see
the green light of the Taculin after he had first seen the red light.
It will be remembered that the red lights are always put upon the port side,
while the green lights are always put upon the starboard side of a ship at sea.
As further proof of the negligence of the captain of the Taculin we have the
declaration of captain Echevaria. He testified that had the Taculin
been properly managed, the collision might have been avoided after the time when
the captain of the Taculin first saw the Carmencita at a
distance of twenty brazas or about 120 feet. Captain Echevaria testified that
even in a shorter distance that 120 feet the collision might have been
avoided.

In considering the question of negligence we must not overlook the fact that
the Carmencita was a sailing vessel while the Taculin was a
ship operated by steam, nor the International Rules (article 20) for the
Prevention of Collisions at Sea that; “If two ships, one of which is a sailing
ship and the other a steamship, are proceedings in such directions as to involve
risk of collision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing
ship.”

Article 21 of the International Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea
provides that; “Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of
the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.”

The proof shows that the captain of the Taculin changed the course
of his ship in a way that brought it cross the path of the Carmencita.
We are of the opinion that a large preponderance of the proof supports the
conclusion of the lower court that the captain of the Taculin was
negligent in the management of his ship, which directly caused the loss of the
said Carmencita.

In their third assignment of error the appellants alleged that the lower
court committed an error in rendering a judgment against them for the sum of
P5,225. It is admitted that the cargo was valued at P225. Several witnesses
testified that the Carmencita was worth more than P5,000. Some of the
witnesses testified that she was worth, at least P5,500. There is sufficient
proof in the record to justify the conclusion of the lower court that the
Carmencita was worth, at least P5,000. Valuing the ship at P5,000 and
the cargo at P225 a judgment was rendered for the sum of P5,225. We think that
part of the judgment of the lower court is fully sustained by a preponderance of
the proof.

After a careful examination of the evidence we find no reasons for altering
or modifying the judgment of the lower court. The same is, therefore, hereby
affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ.,
concur.