Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

005 Phil 85:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1876. September 30, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Pillsbury & Sutro, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ADMIRALTY; ACTION FOR DAMAGES AS RESULT OF COLLISION. — An action for the recovery of loss and damages arising from the collision of boats engaged in traffic upon the waters of the Philippine Archipelago, can not be admitted if a sworn statement or declaration is not presented within twenty-four hours to competent authority of the point where the collision took place or of the first port of arrival of the vessel. (Art. 835, Commercial Code.) This statutory rules applies even though the injury was done to a boat operated by the Government.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, brought in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, to recover the sum of $1,600, United States currency, for damages occasioned to the Navy boat Barcelo on the 6th day of November, 1902, at about 11 o’clock, p.m., on the said day, near the mouth of the Pasig River, by a collision with a casco that was then and there being towed by the launch Alexandra. The launch Alexandra is the property of the defendant.

The inferior court found that the defendant had not complied with the rules of navigation in Manila Bay, in that it failed to display lights in accordance with such regulations, and that, by reason of such failure, the collision and consequent damages occurred. This findings of fact by the court below, there being no motion for a new trial, is conclusive.

The defendant, in the court below, claimed that the plaintiff could and recover in the action, for the reason that it had not complied with the provisions of the Code of Commerce, relying particularly upon article 835 of the same. Article 835 provides: "The action for the recovery of loss and damages arising from collisions can not be admitted if a sworn statement or declaration is not presented within twenty-four hours to competent authority of the point where the collision took place, or that of the first port of arrival of the vessel."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff claimed that this provision of the Commercial Code did not apply to it. We are all of the opinion that the quoted provision of the Commercial Code applies to all persons engaged in traffic upon the waters of the Philippine Archipelago; that the defendant has as much right to insist upon compliance with this provision of the code where the damages were done to a boat operated by the Government as if such boat had been operated by a private individual or company. This provision of the Commercial Code, requiring protest to be made and presented to the proper authority within twenty-four hours after the collision, or after the arrival of the injured boat in port, is a prerequisite to the bringing of an action for damages. By having failed to comply with this provisions of the Commercial Code it can not maintain this action for damages.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the decision of the inferior court be affirmed, and that the defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs in this action, and at the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the cause remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.

Willard, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





September-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. WIFE AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO

    004 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL

    004 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

    004 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN QUIROS v. D. M. CARMAN

    004 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906

    JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG

    004 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    004 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ARCEO

    004 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD AGUILAR v. PLACIDO LAZARO

    004 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION INFANTE v. MANUEL T. FIGUERAS

    004 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENAVENTURA v. JUANA URBANO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL v. DONALDSON SIM & CO.

    005 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A. SANTOS v. ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 2122 September 13, 1905 - PEDRO T. ACOSTA v. DAVID FLOR

    005 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 2028 September 16, 1905 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. HENRY M. JONES

    005 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 2036 September 18, 1905 - MARIA MANONA v. DIONISIO OBLERO

    005 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA

    005 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 2045 September 20, 1905 - ADRIANO MORTIGA v. VICENTE SERRA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 1746 September 21, 1905 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. JOSE GORORDO

    005 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 2275 September 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO DALASAY

    005 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 1890 September 22, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    005 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 2126 September 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SY VINCO

    005 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 2879 September 25, 1905 - EDWIN CASE v. METROPOLE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 1698 September 26, 1905 - JULIAN BORROMEO v. JOSE F. FRANCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 862 September 27, 1905 - JOSE VASQUEZ v. BENITO SANCHEZ

    005 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 2288 September 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX GARCIA

    005 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 2805 September 27, 1905 - MARIANO ANDRES v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 2781 September 28, 1905 - VICTOR LOPEZ v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 1913 September 29, 1905 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2086 September 29, 1905 - P. ELADIO ALONSO v. MUNICIPALITY OF PLACER

    005 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2366 September 29, 1905 - PATRICIA ABOLENCIA v. GUILLERMO MAAÑO

    005 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

    005 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 - FELIX BARCELONA v. DAVID J. BAKER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 87