ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10019  March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO. <br /><br />034 Phil 511

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10019. March 29, 1916. ]

    THOMAS A. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUJALTE & CO. and MIGUEL PUJALTE, Defendants-Appellees.

    Rohde & Wright for Appellant.

    Sanz, Opisso & Luzuriaga for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. SALVAGE; ABANDONED VESSELS. — A schooner on the high seas which has been capsized in a storm and is lying on her sails unfurled and under water, deserted by her captain and crew with no intention on their part to return, and floating at the mercy of wind and wave, a menace to navigation, is a derelict.

    2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF VESSEL. — Persons taking possession of and towing such vessel into port of purpose of salving it are salvors and are entitled to the possession of the vessel until the work of salvage is completed, unless the owner thereof or other person having an interest therein demands possession thereof and pays the reasonable expenses incurred up to the time of the demand together with the salvage to which the salvors are entitled.

    3. ID.; RIGHT TO COMPENSATION; EXPENSES. — The expenses incurred in such salvage must be shown to be necessary and reasonable in amount before they will be allowed to the salvors.

    4. ID.; RECOVERY OF POSSESSION BY OWNERS; CONDITIONAL OFFER TO PAY EXPENSES. — A demand made on the salvors for possession of such vessel together with an offer to pay all expenses and the salvage earned up to the time of the demand, to which a condition is attached with which it is impossible to comply, produces no legal result.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is an action of replevin begun by the owner to recover possession of a schooner called the Kodiak which had been deserted by its captain and crew by reason of its having been capsized by a gale and which had been found, taken possession of and towed into port by defendants Miguel Pujalte and Miguel Ossorio who, at the time the action was begun, were engaged in completing the salvage of the vessel. The defendants Miguel Pujalte and Miguel Ossorio set up their rights on the vessel as salvors and contend that they were entitled to the possession of the vessel until the salvage operations were completed and that, if possession were taken from them before that time, they were entitled to the same compensation as they would been if the plaintiff had allowed them to complete the work.

    There is little dispute about the important facts of the case. It appears that on the 4th day of August, 1913, the schooner Kodiak was lost off the coast of Mindoro, having been blown on her side by heavy winds. She was deserted by the officers and crew. In this condition she was floating at the mercy of the elements for three or four days. On or about the 7th of August, the report of her loss reached the Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands who steamers and vessel plying in Philippine water, declaring the Kodiak a derelict and a danger to navigation. As soon as the circular letter was received by defendants Miguel Pujalte and Miguel Ossorio they chartered the coast guard cutter Mindoro and proceeded to search for the lost schooner. On the 8th of August they left the port of Manila carrying on board Captain Jose Muñoz and some men, who were to take charge of, and direct, the salvage operations. Two days later the Kodiak was located, floating abandoned on her side, with all her sails unfurled and under water. Immediately a boat, with Captain Jose Muñoz and his men, was lowered from the coast guard cutter and, in the midst of a heavy sea and strong wind, they succeeded in making fast a rope to the stern of the Kodiak. They towed her into the port of Pola, reaching that port a day or two later, they being obliged to proceed very slowly not only on account of the heavy sea but also by reason of the fact that the Kodiak was full of water. Once in Pola Bay men were left in charge of the vessel while Captain Jose Muñoz went back to Manila on the Mindoro, and reported to his employers. They immediately chartered the steamer Lakandula to carry workmen and to tow a lighter called the Paquita with salvage materials and implements to Pola Bay. They also dispatched the steamer Maria Luisa Y. to assist in the salvage work.

    On the 12th day of August 1913 plaintiff’s agent delivered to Miguel Pujalte the following letter:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We have been informed that the schooner Kodiak has been towed into the port of Pola, Mindoro, by the cutter Mindoro belonging to the Government which was chartered for that purpose by you. The Kodiak belongs to Captain Thomas A. Wallace, of Binaluan (Palawan) and we are the persons to whom the vessel and cargo were consigned. On behalf of the owner of the Kodiak we offer to pay you for the services rendered in salving the vessel up to the present time, and we offer to take possession of the Kodiak where it now is on the beach of Mindoro. As representatives of the owner we shall refuse to pay any expense which you may incur from now on.

    "Please furnish us with the amount of compensation to which you believe you are entitled.

    "In case you ask more than we regard as reasonable we will pay you the amount decided upon by a board of arbitration to be selected by the officers of the Maritime Association; and if this is not agreeable to you will pay you whatever a court of justice will adjudge.

    "If you require it we will give a bond to carry the above offer into effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The appellant contends that Lakandula sailed form Manila for Pola on the 13th of August, basing that claim on the testimony of Captain Muñoz, one of the witnesses for the defendants, to the effect that "we arrived here (Manila) on the 12th and on 13th we left with the Lakandula towing the lighter Paquita." The defendants contend that all the arrangements for the salvage of the Kodiak had been made before the receipt of the letter written by plaintiff’s agent and that the larger part of the expenses for the salvage of the Kodiak had already been incurred at that time; that they therefore proceeded with the salvage and about to finish their work successfully when the complaint was filed in this case and the possession of the schooner given to the owner by virtue of an order of the Court of First Instance of the 1st day of September 1913. They also claim that the defendants were at all times ready to finish the work of salvage which they had begun and would have done so but for the intervention of the order of the Court of First Instance referred to.

    On the evidence the trial court ordered the vessel delivered to the plaintiff, but as a condition of such delivery the plaintiff was required to pay the defendants Miguel Pujalte and Miguel Ossorio the sum of P5,500 "on or before the first day of April, 1914, and in case payment thereof is not made as stated the defendants shall have judgment for the possession of the vessel for the purpose of disposing of it to satisfy their lien for salvage upon it." From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

    There is no doubt about the fact that the Kodiak capsized off the coast of Mindoro during a storm and that she was deserted by her officers and crew and left floating on her side with sails unfurled and under water. Nor is there question about the fact that the Bureau of Navigation of the Philippine Islands declared the vessel a derelict and dangerous to navigation and notified the public of the coast that she was floating as a derelict somewhere off the coast of Mindoro. There is no dispute over the expenditures which were incurred by Pujalte and Ossorio in their attempt to salve the vessel. They allege in their answer that at the time the answer was filed the had spent P4,452.35 which, together with certain bills outstanding but not paid until after answer was filed, amounted to P4,970.49. The contention of the appellant is that the defendants were not acting in good faith in making these expenditures; that they padded the expenses and made them unnecessarily heavy hoping thereby to destroy a competitor, the owner of the Kodiak; that a considerable portion of the expenses were incurred after the owner delivered the letter of August 12 notifying the defendants that he would pay the expenses incurred up to the time the notice was served together with the compensation to which they were entitled, and that they would pay nothing from that time forward either as expenses or as compensation; that the services rendered were incompetently performed; and that the amount alleged as compensation and expenses and found by the court below is excessive.

    There is a preliminary question relative to the parties defendant. Pujalte & Co. filed an answer saying that it had nothing to do with the salvage operations and has taken no part therein, and that it had no interest whatever in the litigation. Miguel Pujalte filed an answer setting out the facts and asking that the defendants be allowed proper compensation and the expenses incurred in the salvage of the Kodiak he acted jointly with one Miguel Ossorio who was interested equally with himself and asked that he be made a party defendant. While there appears in the bill of exceptions no order making Miguel Ossorio a party and there is in the record no answer filed by him, it is evident that he was considered a party defendant, inasmuch as the court all through the decision speaks of Miguel Pujalte and Miguel Ossorio as the defendants and renders a judgment in their favor jointly. While, as we have stated, it does not appear in the record before us that a written order was made and entered making Ossorio a party defendant we must assume that at least a verbal order to that effect was made and that the answer of Miguel Pujalte served also as the answer of Miguel Ossorio. This assumption is necessary in view of the attitude of the trial court which throughout the case treats Ossorio as a party defendant equally with Pujalte.

    It would appear to us that the trial court was correct in finding that the vessel in question was a derelict. It had capsized and was lying on its side, its mast and sails submerged and with every indication that it might founder at any moment; it had been deserted by its officers and crew with no intention on their part to return; it was a menage to navigation and in that condition furnished a proper subject for seizure by any person who desired to salve it or remove it from the routes of maritime traffic. It was taken possession of by the defendants under somewhat perilous circumstances and removed to a place of safety against a heavy sea. After its arrival at a place of safety but before it had been righted and floated the plaintiff’s agent served upon Pujalte and Co. the letter quoted above.

    Whatever might be said with regard to the effect of this letter on the relations between the parties if it stood alone in the record it is unnecessary to say. It is not a demand for the possession of the Kodiak in the sense in which that word is generally used. It is merely an offer to do certain things. We do not care to determine the precise effect of this offer from a legal point of view since it appears that the circumstances under which it was presented prevent it from producing any effect in the case. Miguel Pujalte testified that Martinez, who presented the offer to him, required an answer thereto at once or at most within 10 minutes. Pujalte informed him that it was impossible for him to make a statement to him at that time of the expenses which had been incurred as many of the bills had not been paid", and that it would be impossible to furnish him the information which the letter required within the time specified by Martinez. Pujalte stated to him that he would acknowledge receipt of the letter but he could not furnish the information which Martinez demanded within the time specified. This testimony is not denied by Martinez although he was a witness for the plaintiff and testified in the case. Whatever effect the notice in question might have produced was nullified by the attitude of the plaintiff’s agent who signed and served the notice they requiring that the defendants comply on the spot with the provisions thereof, particularly those relating to furnishing a statement of the expenses and the value of the services which had been rendered up to the time of the service of the notice. To fulfill this requirement was at the time clearly impossible and the defendants cannot be held responsible for their not doing so. It is clear that the attitude of Martinez was in effect a declaration either that if the defendant did not immediately comply with the terms thereof the offer would be withdrawn or that the delivery thereof to Pujalte was on condition that the comply with Martinez’s verbal request. At the very least the attitude of Martinez was such as to leave us in doubt as to just what happened.

    As to the claim that the expenses incurred by the defendants in salving the Kodiak were excessive and made intentionally so by the defendants is not sustained by the record in a manner which requires or would justify us in disturbing the judgment of the trial court in that respect. While there is some evidence tending to show that some of the expenses were unnecessary there is other evidence to the contrary and we are satisfied that under all the circumstances of the case the judgment of the trial court is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. That the services were incompetently rendered is also a disputed question in the case; and while there is evidence from which such an inference could be drawn we do not believe that the trial court could be said to be in error in drawing the opposite conclusion. It appears from all the facts and circumstances of the case that the defendants acted in good faith; that they kept the expenses within reasonable bound; that they acted with dispatch and performed their work, generally speaking, in a workmanlike manner.

    As to the amount of compensation we cannot say that it is excessive. The ship was in a bad way and would very probably have been lost but for the prompt action by the defendants or the equally prompt action some other salvor. Taking into consideration the expenses which the salvors incurred which amounted to nearly P5,000 we do not believe that the allowance of the amount of P5,500 is excessive as, according to the statement of the plaintiff, the ship was worth P10,000, while other witnesses placed the value from P11,000 to P12,000.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Johnson, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 10019  March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO. <br /><br />034 Phil 511




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED