Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > March 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

006 Phil 49:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1922. March 31, 1906. ]

THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO GAMBE, Defendant-Appellant.

Coudert Brothers, for Appellant.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PILOTS; ACCIDENTS TO SHIPS; DAMAGES. — The pilot who was in command and had complete control of a vessel, and not the owners, held responsible for an accident which was solely the result of the mistake of the pilot in not giving proper orders, and which did not result from the failure of the owners to equip the vessels with the most modern and improved machinery.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The testimony in this case is conflicting and contradictory to a degree, but upon a careful examination of the whole record we are of opinion that the findings in the judgment of the trial court are sustained by the weight of the evidence.

Accepting the facts set out therein as correct, there can be no doubt that the defendant, Francisco Gambe, the pilot who was in command and had complete control of the steamer Alfred at the time of the accident, and not the owners of the boat, must be held responsible for the damages resulting therefrom. It was contended that the owners should be held responsible because the Alfred was not equipped from the bridge to the engine room, including a speaking tube. But the lack of the speaking tube can not be held as in any wise contributing to the accident, which was solely the result of the mistake on the part of the pilot in giving the others "forward" and "full speed forward" when he should have given the order "astern" or full speed astern."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is contended further that the record fails to show the actual damage suffered by the bridge, and therefore furnishes no basis for a judgment in damages, but we think that the testimony of Major Case, the city engineer of Manila, and A. W. Ayres, inspector of the port, is conclusive upon this point, and no evidence in rebuttal having been introduced by the defense, we must sustain the finding of the trial court as to the actual damages inflicted upon the bridge.

The judgment appealed from should be, and is hereby, affirmed, with cost against the Appellant. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.

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

Separate Opinions


WILLARD, J. :


I do not concur as to the amount of damages.

Judgment affirmed.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1904 March 3, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ QUIROS v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    005 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 2763 March 3, 1906 - W.L. WRIGHT v. ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL.

    005 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1451 March 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AURELIO TOLENTINO

    005 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 2500 March 8, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MARIANO TUASON, ET AL.

    005 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 2645 March 8, 1906 - FRANCISCA CABREROS v. VICTORINO PROSPERO

    005 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 2434 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO BOAC

    005 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 1974 March 15, 1906 - CATHOLIC CHURCH v. A. W. HASTINGS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 2020 March 15, 1906 - GERMANN & CO. v. LUIS R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 2452 March 15, 1906 - MATILDE BALLESTER v. GONZALO LEGASPI

    005 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 2600 March 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    005 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 3139 March 15, 1906 - ALEJANDRO SANTOS v. CELESTINO VILLAFUERTE

    005 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

    005 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2327 March 17, 1906 - LUIS PEREZ SAMANILLO v. W.A. WHALEY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 2457 March 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO DADACAY

    006 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 2575 March 17, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO

    006 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 2570 March 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO ASUNCION

    006 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 2292 March 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO

    006 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 2721 March 22, 1906 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    006 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 2603 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    006 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 2695 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO YSIP

    006 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 2733 March 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    006 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 1458 March 29, 1906 - MAX L. FORNOW v. J. C. HOFFMEISTER

    006 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 2735 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO REYES

    006 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 2969 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO J. REYES

    006 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. 1009 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SANTA MARIA

    006 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

    006 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    006 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 2336 March 31, 1906 - JOAQUIN PELLICENA CAMACHO v. LEONCIO GONZALEZ LIQUETE

    006 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 2676 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO HORCA

    006 Phil 52