EN
BANC
THE
GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 18957
January
16, 1923
-versus-
PHILIPPINE
STEAMSHIP
CO., INC.,
AND
FERNANDEZ
HERMANOS,
Defendants
PHILIPPINE
STEAMSHIP
CO., INC.,
Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
STREET,
J :
In
this action, the Government
of the Philippine Islands seeks to recover the sum of P14,648.25, the
alleged
value of 911 sacks of rice which were lost at sea on February 11, 1920,
as a result of a collision between the steamer, Antipolo, owned by the
defendant company, and the vessel, Isabel, upon which said rice was
embarked.
In the Court of First Instance, judgment was entered for the recovery
by
the plaintiff from the Philippine Steamship Company, Inc., of the full
amount claimed, with interest from the date of filing of the complaint.
From this judgment said company appealed.
It appears in evidence
that at about 10 o'clock at night on February 10, 1920, the coastwise
vessel
Isabel, equipped with motor and sails, left the port of Manila with
primary
destination to Balayan, Batangas, carrying, among its cargo, 911 sacks
of rice belonging to the plaintiff and consigned to points in the
south.
After the boat had been under weigh for about four hours, and had
passed
the San Nicolas Light near the entrance into Manila Bay, the watch and
the mate on the bridge of the Isabel discerned the light of another
vessel,
which proved to be the Antipolo, also a coastwise vessel, on its way to
Manila and coming towards the Isabel. At about the same time both the
watch
and mate on the bridge of the Antipolo also saw the Isabel, the two
vessels
being then about one mile and a half or two miles apart. Each vessel
was
going approximately at the speed of 6 miles an hour, and in about ten
minutes
they had together traversed the intervening space and were in close
proximity
to each other.
When the mate of the
Antipolo, who was then at the wheel, awoke to the danger of the
situation
and saw the Isabel "almost on top of him," to use the words of the
committee
on marine accidents reporting the incident, he put his helm hard to the
starboard.
This maneuver was
correct,
and if the helmsman of the Isabel had done likewise, all would
apparently
have been well, as in that event the two vessels should have passed
near
to each other on the port side without colliding. As chance would have
it, however, the mate on the Isabel at this critical juncture lost his
wits and, in disregard of the regulations and of common prudence, at
once
placed his own helm hard to port, with the result that his boat veered
around directly in the path of the other vessel and a collision became
inevitable. Upon this the mate on the Antipolo fortunately stopped his
engines, but the Isabel continued with full speed ahead, and the two
vessels
came together near the bows. The Isabel immediately sank, with total
loss
of vessel and cargo, though the members of her crew were picked up from
the water and saved.
The trial judge was
in Our opinion entirely right in finding that negligence was imputable
to both vessels, though differing somewhat in character and degree with
respect to each. The mate of the Antipolo was clearly negligent in
having
permitted that vessel to approach directly towards the Isabel until the
two were in dangerous proximity. For this, there was no excuse
whatever,
since the navigable sea at this point is wide and the incoming steamer
could easily have given the outgoing vessel a wide berth. On the other
hand, it is not clear that the Isabel was chargeable with negligence in
keeping on its course; for this boat had its jib sail hoisted, and may
for that reason be considered to have had the right of way. [G. Urrutia
& Co. vs. Baco River Plantation Co., 26 Phil., 632].
Negligence shortly
preceding the moment of collision is, however, undoubtedly chargeable
to
the Isabel, for the incorrect and incompetent way in which this vessel
was then handled. The explanation of this may perhaps be found in the
fact
that the mate on the Isabel had been on continuous duty during the
whole
preceding day and night; and being almost absolutely exhausted, he
probably
was either dozing or inattentive to duty at the time the other vessel
approached.
It results, as already
stated, that both vessels were at fault; and although the negligence on
the part of the mate of the incoming vessel preceded the negligence on
the part of the mate of the outgoing vessel by an appreciable interval
of time, the first vessel cannot on that account be absolved from
responsibility.
Indeed, in G. Urrutia & Co. vs. Baco River Plantation Co., supra,
this
court found reason for holding that the responsibility rested
exclusively
on a steamer which had allowed dangerous proximity to a sailing vessel
to be brought about under somewhat similar conditions.
We are of the opinion,
therefore, that his Honor, the trial judge, committed no error in
holding
that both vessels were to blame and in applying Article 827 of the Code
of Commerce to the situation before him. It is there declared that
where
both vessels are to blame, both shall be solidarily responsible for the
damage occasioned to their cargoes. As the Isabel was a total loss and
cannot sustain any part of this liability, the burden of responding to
the Government of the Philippine Islands, as owner of the rice embarked
on the Isabel, must fall wholly upon the owner of the other ship, that
is, upon the defendant, the Philippine Steamship Company, Inc.
Only one observation
will be added, in response to one of the contentions of the appellant's
attorneys, which is, that the application of Article 827 of the Code of
Commerce is not limited by Article 828 to the case where it cannot be
determined
which of the two vessels was the cause of the collision. On the
contrary,
Article 828 must be considered as an extension of Article 827 to an
additional
case. In other words, under the two articles combined the rule of
liability
announced in Article 827 is applicable not only to the case where both
vessels may be shown to be actually blameworthy but also to the case
where
it is obvious that only one was at fault but the proof does not show
which.
The judgment appealed
from must be affirmed; and it is so ordered with costs against the
appellant.
Araullo, C.J.,
Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and
Romualdez,
JJ., concur. |