G. R. No. 41503. August 17, 1934
E. M. MASTERSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
IMPERIAL, J.:
The plaintiff brought this action to recover from
the defendant, a domestic corporation, three distinct sums of money
which were the subject matter of another three separate causes of
action. At the trial, the plaintiff asked for the dismissal of his third
cause of action, the debt involved therein having been paid, and the
defendant, in turn, made a confession of judgment with respect to the
first and second causes of action and consented to have judgment entered
against it for the sums of money claimed thereunder. The trial
proceeded for the purpose of passing upon the defendant’s counterclaim
seeking judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of P15,549.82.
The court rendered judgment ordering the defendant
to pay the sum of P1,000 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum
from November 3, 1931, until fully paid, with costs, and dismissing the
counterclaim. The defendant appealed from the last part, of the
judgment.
Upon instituting his action the plaintiff secured an
order of attachment on the defendant’s vessel Ethel Conklin, alleging
as his ground that said defendant had sold and was about to sell its
property with intent to defraud him and the other creditors. It
appeared, however, that the defendant could not dispose of either one of
the two vessels it was operating because they were mortgaged to the
Philippine Trust Company, which acted as trustee by virtue of a public
instrument signed with others, by the plaintiff himself. It is true that
the defendant had sold a car to Fernandez Hermanos, but the sale could
not have been fraudulent on the ground that it had been made by the
board of directors of the defendant of which the plaintiff was a member.
The plaintiff approved the sale and the same was consummated with his
consent.
It is clear, therefore, that the order of attachment
was issued without any justifiable motive and that the plaintiff is
liable for the damages caused by him. The question that now arises
relates to the extent of said damages. The defendant claims the sum of
P16,334.05 in the following concept:
| For loss of revenue on outward freightage…………………………. |
P1,075.00
|
|
| For loss on account of the delay of 6 days attachment with |
||
| guard on board the S. S. Ethel Conklin at P200 a day…. |
1,200.00
|
|
| Losses for two (2) days delay in unloading with standby |
||
| stevedores …………………………………………………………. |
84.23
|
|
| Losses to shippers caused by delay and charged to Smith |
||
| Navigation Company……………………………………………. |
374.82
|
|
| Eighteen days delay for ordering shaft for Ethel Edwards |
||
| because of lack of financial assistance due to illegal at- | ||
| tachment at P200 a day…………………………………………. |
3,600.00′
|
|
| Damages to good name…………………………………………………… |
10,000.00
|
|
| __________ | ||
|
Total…………………………………………………………………
|
16,334.05
|
|
|
=========
|
||
The second and fourth items represent damages
properly imputable to the plaintiff. The vessel was attached and tied up
for six days and loading and unloading was delayed by reason thereof.
The vouchers presented by the defendant justify everything that it was
compelled to pay to the owners of the cargoes and lighters which
remained by the vessel’s side. This court believes that the other items
have not been satisfactorily proven and that the last two, particularly,
are based on alleged damages which are very remote and problematical.
We are of the opinion that the defendant is entitled to recover from the
plaintiff only the sum of P1,574.82.
The appealed judgment is hereby modified and it is
ordered that the plaintiff pay to the defendant, on its counterclaim,
the sum of 71,574.82, without costs of this instance. So ordered.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard,
JJ., concur.