J. J. J. ADDENBROOKE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD, AS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR CEBU, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

STREET, J.:

The plaintiff, J. J. J. Addenbrooke, resident of
the city of Cebu, is the owner of a motor yacht, called the Cecilia, of
about 22 tons gross, which is operated exclusively for pleasure and
recreation, and is not engaged in carrying passengers or freight for
profit. Said yacht is propelled by an oil burning internal combustion
engine, and not by steam. Prior to the institution of this action, the
defendant, Joaquin Natividad, collector of customs of Cebu, had
required the plaintiff to place upon this boat, as master, a patron
licensed for the minor coastwise trade, in supposed conformity with
subsection (e) of section 1203 of the Administrative Code. In
order to test this question, the plaintiff thereupon instituted this
action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, asking for a perpetual
injunction to prevent the collector from taking any steps to enforce
said requirement. Judgment having been there entered favorably to the
contention of the plaintiff, the said collector of customs appealed.

The provision of law under which the defendant is
proceeding requires that “Every steam vessel of less than one hundred
gross tons shall have * * *: One patron in the minor coastwise trade,
who shall have charge of the vessel as master/’ etc.; and the concrete
question here presented is whether a yacht, propelled like the Cecilia by an internal combustion engine, should be considered a steam vessel within the meaning of the language above quoted.

Among provisions pertinent to be considered in this
connection we may refer to section 1419 of the Administrative Code,
where the word “vessel” is so defined as to include all sorts of
artificial contrivances used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation by water; to section 1167, where it is required that
every vessel of more thaii 3 tons gross used in Philippine waters, not
being of transient or foreign register, shall be registered in the
Bureau of Customs; and, finally, to section 1203, where provision is
made as to the complement of officers to be carried on registered
vessels. Upon examination of this section in its entirety it will be
seen that, according to the classification there made, registered
vessels are supposed to be either steam vessels (steamers) or sailing
vessels. No third category, as that of motor boats, is recognized. Yet
it is evident from the opening words of said section that it is
intended to apply to “Every vessel registered in the Philippine
Islands.” Why did the law make casus omissus of the motor
boat? In our opinion for the reason simply that the Legislature
supposed, and intended, that the motor boat is included under the term
“steam vessel.”

This classification of the motor boat as a steam
vessel may appear somewhat artificial, but’that such was the intention
of the Legislature is to be deduced not only from the form in which the
requirements as to the proper complement of officers for the different
sorts of vessels is expressed, but from the prior state of regulative
provisions of the Bureau of Customs relative to this subject Thus, we
find that in the Customs Marine Regulations which in the main were in
force when Act No. 2614 (from which section 1203, Administrative Code
is taken) was passed, the word “steam vessel” is defined as including
any vessel propelled by machinery, except as otherwise provided.

(Customs Marine Circular No. 53, Oct. 22, 1912.)

The idea thus expressed is not unfamiliar to marine
jurisprudence, as appears from the decision of one of the Federal
District Courts of the United States, where it was held that the word
“steam vessel” comprehends every vessel propelled by machinery. (The Nimrod,
173 Fed., 520.) The point arose in that case in connection with the
observance of the rules of navigation for the prevention of collisions
when vessels are passing; and while we would not consider it of
decisive weight, the doctrine of that case is relevant here, for the
reason that the requirements of our own law with reference to the
necessary complement of officers are directly intended to promote the
general safety in the navigation of the seas. In other words, the same
general considerations that would require a licensed patron for a
vessel propelled by steam would require such an officer on a vessel
propelled by motor.

We may add that we see no sufficient reason for
supposing that the Customs Marine Circular No. 53, was not in force
when Act No. 2614 and Act No. 2711 (Administrative Code) were passed;
and we believe that the provisions relative to the officers to be
carried on Philippine vessels contained in these Acts should be
interpreted, so far as practicable, consistently with the then existing
marine regulations.

It has been suggested that the requirement as to
the carrying of a licensed patron should not be understood as being
applicable to boats used exclusively for pleasure and recreation; and
in support of this suggestion the fact is pointed out that, by the
provision referred to, the patron required to be kept on vessels of
less than 100 tons Is a patron in the minor coastwise trade. We
consider, however, that the words “in the minor coastwise trade,” as
here used, have reference to the classification of the officer, and not
to the character of the service to which the boat is applied. This
seems to follow clearly from section 1200 of the Administrative Code,
which defines the kinds of certificates to be issued to the officers of
different types.

The conclusion to which we arrive is that there is no sufficient reason for excepting the Cecilia from the requirements of subsection (e)
of section 1203 of the Administrative Code. The judgment must therefore
be reversed, the injunction dissolved, and the defendant absolved from
the complaint. So ordered, without costs.

Araullo, Avancena, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., dissents.