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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45070   November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA<br /><br />066 Phil 608

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45070. November 28, 1938.]

    CHIN GUAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, Defendant-Appellant.

    Ernesto Zaragoza, for Appellant.

    Isidro Vamenta, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MARITIME LAW; COLLISION OF VESSELS; DAMAGES. — Under the provisions of articles 837 and 826 of the Code of Commerce, the shipowner is not liable in damages when the ship responsible for the collision has been totally lost. In such case, the amount of the insurance substitutes for the value of the ship and should be applied to the payment of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. If the ship was not insured, then the freights earned shall answer for the civil liability of the shipowner.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    The steamship Corregidor was sunk as a result of a collision. An action was instituted by Chin Guan against the Compañia Maritima, owner of the steamship Cebú, which caused the collision, to recover the value of sixty sacks of flour loaded on the Corregidor. Judgment having been rendered against the defendant in the amount of P181 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, it now appeals to this court to have said judgment reversed.

    Appellant, in its brief, says that "no question of fact is involved in this case. The appeal has been interposed because we honestly believe and maintain that a rule of law has been violated. This being so, its cognizance lies within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with clause 6 of section 138 of Commonwealth Act No. 3."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The statement of facts in the decision appealed from which appellant admits as correct and sufficient, is an follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . On July 3, 1933 the agent consignee of plaintiff in the City of Manila, Ong Ang Chuan, loaded on the steamship Corregidor for the port of Calivo, Province of Capiz, sixty (60) sacks of ’Anchor’ flour valued at P181, belonging to plaintiff and consigned to him. On the 5th of the same month, the steamship Corregidor, under the command of its captain, defendant Arcadio Castisima, left the port of Manila for that of Calivo, Province of Capiz, and other southern ports, bringing on board, with other cargo, the sixty (60) sacks of flour aforementioned. On the night of July 5, 1933, while the Corregidor was navigating in the waters of Manila Bay, it collided with the steamship Cebu, which is also owned by the defendant company. As a result of the collision, the Corregidor sank with all its cargo, including the sixty (60) sacks of flour belonging to plaintiff. Defendants Compañia Maritima and Arcadio Castisima refused to pay plaintiff the value of the aforesaid sixty (60) sacks of flour in spite of plaintiff’s demands.

    "By reason of the collision between the steamships Cebu and Corregidor, the Bureau of Customs conducted an investigation which resulted in said office finding the officers of both ships responsible for the collision. Later, the Department of Finance to which the resolution of the Bureau of Customs was appealed, modified it in the sense of exonerating, as it did exonerate, the captain of the steamship Cebu."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Appellant contends that even on the theory that the total loss of the steamship Corregidor with all its cargo was due to the fault of the captain, still it is not responsible for the loss of the sacks of flour belonging to plaintiff for the reason that according to article 837 of the Code of Commerce "the civil liability contracted by the shipowners in the cases prescribed in this section, shall be understood as limited to the value of the vessel with all her appurtenances and all the freight earned." (Emphasis ours.) And the Corregidor having been totally lost, the appellant’s liability has been extinguished.

    However, in accordance with the foregoing legal provision, it was held in the case of G. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co. (26 Phil., 632, 646), that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "While it was held in the case of Philippine Shipping Co. v. Vergara (6 Phil. Rep., 281), that, in accordance with articles 837 and 826 of the Code of Commerce, the defendant in an action such as the one at bar cannot be held responsible in damages when the ship causing the injury was wholly lost by reason of the accident, we do not apply it in this case for the reason that the vessel lost was insured and that the defendant collected the insurance. That being the case, the insurance money substitutes the vessel and must be used, so far as necessary, to pay the judgment rendered in this case." (Emphasis ours.)

    Appellee, nevertheless, contends that even granting but without admitting the theory of appellant that its liability has been extinguished by reason of the sinking of the steamship Corregidor, it remains bound to pay the claim of appellee from the freights earned by said ship on its voyage.

    The decision of this court in the case of G. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Company, aforecited, does not in any way sustain the pretension of appellee. In that case it was held that in accordance with the provisions of article 837 and 826 of the Code of Commerce, the shipowner is not liable in damages when the ship responsible for the collision has been totally lost. In such case, the amount of the insurance substitutes for the value of the ship and should be applied to the payment of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. If the ship was not insured, then the freights earned shall answer for the civil liability of the shipowner according to article 837.

    The judgment appealed from is reversed without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to obtain payment of the value of the sixty (60) sacks of flour with legal interest from the amount of the insurance of the Corregidor, if it was insured; otherwise, from the freights earned during the voyage. Without pronouncement as to costs.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45070   November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA<br /><br />066 Phil 608


    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