Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

027 Phil 68:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8325. March 10, 1914. ]

C. B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEODORO R. YANGCO, Defendant-Appellant.

William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for plaintiff.

Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher for defendant.

SYLLABUS


1. COLLISION DUE TO NEGLIGENCE; LIABILITY OF OWNERS. — The steamer Subic collided with the launch Euclid in the Bay of Manila, as a result of which the Euclid went to the bottom. The findings of record disclosed that the officers on both boats were negligent in the performance of their duties at the time of the accident, and that both vessels were to blame for the disaster. Held, That the owner of the launch Euclid has no cause of action against the owner of the steamer Subic.

2. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES. — The rule of liability for damages resulting from maritime collisions in this jurisdiction is to be found in the provisions of section 3, title 4, book III of the Code of Commerce, article 827 of which is as follows: "If both vessels may be blamed for the collision, each one shall be liable for its own damages, and both shall be jointly responsible for the loss and damage, suffered by their cargoes."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — Without deciding whether in any case the doctrine of "the last clear chance" should be recognized in this jurisdiction: Held, That upon the facts disclosed by the record in this case, defendant could not be held liable for the loss of the Euclid, under the well-recognized rules limiting the application of that doctrine in cases of collisions at sea.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The steamer Subic, owned by the defendant, collided with the launch Euclid owned by the plaintiff, in the Bay of Manila at an early hour on the morning of January 9, 1911, and the Euclid sank five minutes thereafter. This action was brought to recover the value of the Euclid.

The court below held from the evidence submitted that the Euclid was worth at a fair valuation P10,000; that both vessels were responsible for the collision; and that the loss should be divided equally between the respective owners, P5,000 to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, and P5,000 to be borne by the plaintiff himself. From this judgment both defendant and plaintiff appealed.

After a careful review of all the evidence of record we are all agreed with the trial judge in his holding that the responsible officers on both vessels were negligent in the performance of their duties at the time when the accident occurred, and that both vessels were to blame for the collision. We do not deem it necessary to review the conflicting testimony of the witnesses called by both parties, the trial judge having inserted in his opinion a careful and critical summary and analysis of the testimony submitted to him, which, to our minds, fully and satisfactorily disposes of the facts in the case. His conclusions of fact based upon all the evidence are set forth in the following language (translated):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the negligence of which the patron Millionario (of defendant’s vessel) has been guilty as well as that imputable to the patron of the launch Euclid, both contributed in a decided manner and beyond all doubt to the occurrence of the accident and the consequent damage resulting therefrom in the loss of the launch Euclid.

"With a little diligence which either of the two patrons might have practiced under the circumstances existing at the time of the collision, if both had not been so distracted and so negligent in the fulfillment of their respective duties, the disaster could have been easily avoided, since the sea was free of obstacles and the night one which permitted the patron Millionario to distinguish the hull of the launch twenty minutes before the latter entered upon his path . . .

"There is proven, therefore, the negligence of which the patron of the Euclid has been guilty.

"If the negligence by which the patron of the launch Euclid has contributed to the cause of the accident and to the resulting damages is patent, none the less so is the negligence of the patron of the steamer Subic, Hilarion Millionario by name, as may be seen from his own testimony which is here copied for the better appreciation thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be seen that the trial judge was of opinion that the vessels were jointly responsible for the collision and should be held jointly liable for the loss resulting from the sinking of the launch. But actions for damages resulting from maritime collisions are governed in this jurisdiction by the provisions of section 3, title 4, Book III of the Code of Commerce, and among these provisions we find the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 827. If both vessels may be blamed for the collision, each one shall be liable for its own damages, and both shall be jointly responsible for the loss and damage suffered by their cargoes."cralaw virtua1aw library

In disposing of this case the trial judge apparently had in mind that portion of the section which treats of the joint liability of both vessels for loss or damage suffered by their cargoes. In the case at bar, however, the only loss incurred was that of the launch Euclid itself, which went to the bottom soon after the collision. Manifestly, under the plain terms of the statute, since the evidence of record clearly discloses, as found by the trial judge, that "both vessels may be blamed for the collision," each one must be held liable for its own damages, and the owner of neither one can recover from the other in an action for damages to his vessel.

Counsel for the plaintiff, basing his contentions upon the theory of the facts as contended for by him, insists that under the doctrine of "the last clear chance," the defendant should be held liable because, as he insists, even if the officers on board the plaintiff’s launch were negligent in failing to exhibit proper lights and in failing to take the proper steps to keep out of the path of the defendant’s vessel, nevertheless the officers on defendant’s vessel, by the exercise of due precautions might have avoided the collision by a very simple maneuver. But it is sufficient answer to this contention to point out that the rule of liability in this jurisdiction for maritime accidents such as that now under consideration is clearly, definitely, and unequivocally laid down in the above-cited article 827 of the Code of Commerce; and under the rule, the evidence disclosing that both vessels were blameworthy, the owners of neither can successfully maintain an action against the other for the loss or injury of his vessel.

In cases of a disaster arising from mutual negligence of two parties, the party who has a last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered wholly responsible for it under the common-law rule of liability as applied in the courts of common law in the United States. But this rule (which is not recognized in the courts of admiralty in the United States, wherein the loss is divided in cases of mutual and concurring negligence, as also where the error of one vessel has exposed her to danger of collision which was consummated by the negligence of the other), is limited in its application by the further rule, that where the previous act of negligence of one vessel has created a position of danger, the other vessel is not necessarily liable for the mere failure to recognize the perilous situation; and it is only when in fact it does discover it in time to avoid the casualty by the use of ordinary care, that it becomes liable for the failure to make use of this last clear opportunity to avoid the accident. (See cases cited in Notes, 7 Cyc., pp. 311, 312, 313.) So, under the English rule which conforms very nearly to the common-law rule as applied in the American courts, it has been held that the fault of the first vessel in failing to exhibit proper lights or to take the proper side of the channel will relieve from liability one who negligently runs into such vessel before he sees it; although it will not be a defense to one who, having timely warning of the danger of collision, fails to use proper care to avoid it. (Pollock on Torts, 374.) In the case at bar, the most that can be said in support of plaintiff’s contention is that there was negligence on the part of the officers on defendant’s vessel in failing to recognize the perilous situation created by the negligence of those in charge of plaintiff’s launch, and that had they recognized it in time, they might have avoided the accident. But since it does not appear from the evidence that they did, in fact, discover the perilous situation of the launch in time to avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care, it is very clear that under the above set out limitation to the rule, the plaintiff cannot escape the legal consequences of the contributory negligence of his launch, even were we to hold that the doctrine is applicable in this jurisdiction, upon which point we expressly reserve our decision at this time.

The judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant should be reversed, and the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without day, without costs to either party in this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447