Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Doctrine:
Ingeneral,salvagemaybedefinedasaservicewhichone
personrenderstotheownerofashipwhichtheownerorthose
entrustedwiththeareunabletoprotectandsecure.
IntheErlanger&Galingercase,itwasheldthatthreeelements
arenecessarytoavalidsalvageclaim,namely,(1)amarine
peril,(2)servicevoluntarilyrenderedwhennotrequiredasan
existingdutyorfromaspecialcontract,and(3)successinwhole
orinpart,orthattheservicerenderedcontributedtosuch
success.
Facts:
The Mindoro proceeded to the Nippon and
removed the balance of the baggage of the officers
and crew, which was found upon the deck.
On5August1913,Erlanger&Galingerbrought
anactionagainsttheinsurancecompaniesand
underwriters,whorepresentedthecargosalvedfromthe
Nippon,tohavetheamountofsalvage,towhichErlanger
&Galingerwereentitled,determined.Thecasecameon
fortrialbeforetheHonorableA.S.Crossfield.The
OelwerkeTeutonia,acorporation,appearedasclaimantof
thecopra.TheNewZealandInsuranceCompanyappeared
asinsurerandassigneeof1,000caseofbeanoilandtwo
casesofbamboolacquerwork;andTheThamesand
MerseyMarineInsuranceCompanyappearedasareinsurer
totheextentofP6,500onthecargoofcopra.Thecourt
adjudgedthecaseinfavorofErlanger&Galingerforof
thenetproceedsofsalesamountingtoP74,298.36andof
theinterestaccruingthereon,andagainstCarlMaecklerfor
thesumofP925,andagainsttheNewZealandInsurance
Company(Ltd.)fortheofP2,800,andagainstwhomever
thetwocasesmarkedRW,Copenhagen,weredelivered
to,andforthesumofP2,370.68,outoftheproceedsofthe
saleof1,000casesofvegetableoil,andinfavorofthe
OelwerkeTeutoniaforthesumofP71,328.53,now
depositedwiththeHongkong&ShanghaiBanking
Corporation,togetherwithoftheinterestthereon.No
costsweretaxed.
TheOelwerkeTeutonia,TheNewZealand
InsuranceCompany(Ltd.).andErlanger&Galinger
appealedfromthedecision.
ISSUE:
WON it is salvage
HELD:
CS ROBINSON v THE SHIP ALTA
Facts:
thesailingvesselAltawaswreckedandstrandeduponthecoast
of
CaviteProvince.Thecertainoftheshipremovedthecargoand
after
workingtenortwelvedaysinattemptstofloatthe
shipmadea
contract,inwriting,withtheplaintiffs,whichisasfollows:
MANILA,November1,1905.
Mr.CHARLESS.ROBINSON,Manila.
DEARSIR:Referringtoyourofferof31stultimo,retheraising
ofthe
shipAltaviz,toputherintoCaviteandinsuchconditionthat
itwill
admitofherbeingsailedtoHongkongorotherport,subjectto
being
passedbyLloyds'surveyorforthesumoffifteenthousand
pesos
(P15,000),Philippinecurrency,Iacceptthesameandshall
esteemit
afavorifyouwillcommencetheworkwiththeleastpossible
delay.
Shouldyounotbesuccessful,itisdistinctly
understoodthatno
moneywhateveristobepaidforanyworkdoneorappliances
used.
Yours,faithfully,(Sgd.)W.THONAGEL
Theplaintiffswenttoworkimmediatelyuponthevessel,raised
it,andtowedittoCaviteonthe10thdayofDecember,1905.It
wasatonce
decidedtoputherintothedrydockorslipthereforthepurpose
of
examiningherhullandascertainingtheextentofthedamages
Theplaintiffs,onthe30thdayofDecember,1905,werepaidby
the
defendantsthesumof3,000pesosonaccountofthecontract.
They
broughtthisactionagainsttheshipandhermasteronthe27th
dayof
February,1906,claimingtorecoverthereasonableworthand
value
oftheservicesperformedbythem,whichtheyfixedat15,000
pesos.
Issue:WONtheplaintiffssalvorareentitledto
compensationby
salvagingtheship?
Held:NO,
Thecontractinthiscase,beingcontingentuponsuccess,their
claim
isthattheyarenotboundbyit.
Weareallofopinionthatthisquestionmustbe
answeredinthe
negative.Salvageservicesareeither(1)voluntarily,
whereinthe
compensationisdependentuponsuccess;(2)rendered
undera
contractforaperdiemorperhoramwage,payableatallevents;
or
(3)underacontractforacompensationpayableonly
incaseof
success.
Thefirstandmostancientclasscomprisescasesofpuresalvage.
ThesecondisthemostcommonupontheGreatLakes.Thethird
includestheoneunderconsideration.Obviouslywherethe
stipulated
compensationisdependentuponsuccess,and
particularlyof
successwithinalimitedtime,itmaybeverymuchlargerthana
mere
quantummeruit.Indeed,suchcontractswillnotbesetaside
unless
corruptlyenteredinto,ormadeunderfraudulentrepresentations,
a
clearmistakeorsuppressionofimportantfacts,inimmediate
danger
totheship,orunderothercircumstancesamountingto
compulsion,
orwhentheirenforcementwouldbecontrarytoequity
andgood
conscience.
Thejudgmentofthecourtbelowisreversedandjudgmentis
ordered
infavorofthedefendantsandagainsttheplaintiffs,absolving
the
defendantsfromthecomplaint,withthecostsofthefirst
instance.No
costswillbeallowedtoeitherpartyinthiscourt.Soordered.
THEMANILARAILROADCO.,plaintiffappellant,
vs.MACONDRAY
andCO.,defendantappellant.
plaintiff,theManilaRailroadCompany,uponFebruary24,
1916,in
theCourtofFirstInstanceofthecityofManilato
recoverofthe
defendant,MacondrayandCo.,thesumofP75,000,
thealleged
valueofsalvageservicerenderedonApril6,1915,bythe
steamer
Hondagua,ownedbytheplaintiff,tothesteamerSeward,which
was
ownedbythedefendant.Atthehearingjudgmentwasrendered
in
favoroftheplaintiffforthesumofP4,000.Fromthisjudgment
both
partieshaveappealed,theplaintiffinsistingthattheamount
allowed
bythelowercourtisinadequate,thedefendantthatitis
excessive.
SewardleftSaigonforthePhilippineIslands,
encounteringa
moderatelyhighsea.Theshipwasladenwithacargoofrice,the
weightofwhich,takeninconnectionwiththeconditionofthe
sea,
causedthevesseltospringaleak,andhermasterfeltcompelled
to
returntoSaigon.Atthisjuncturethesteamship
Hondaguawas
sighted,whereupontheSewardflewtheinternationalcode
signal"In
distress;wantimmediateassistance."TheHondaguachanged
her
courseandapproachedtheSeward,thelatterin
succession
displayingthefollowingsignals:"Ihavesprungaleak;""Iwish
tobe
takenintow;""Canyousparehawser;"and"Theleak
isgaining
rapidly."InresponsetosignalsfromtheHondaguatheSeward
sent
herownboattotheHondaguaforaheavingline,bymeansof
which
ahawserwaspassedfromtheHondaguatotheSewardand
the
former,withthelatterintow,thenproceededathalfspeed
towards
Saigon.
ISSUE:(1)Istheplaintiffentitledtorecoverfromtheownerof
the
Seward,inthisaction,remunerationforsavingthecargoaswell
as
forsavingtheship?(2)Whatisthereasonablecompensation
which
shouldbeallowedinthisaction?
HELD:YESBOTH
salvageallowanceshouldbeapportionedbetweenthe
shipand
cargointheproportionoftheirrespectivevalues,thesameasin
a
caseofgeneralaverage;andneitherisliableforthesalvage
duefromtheother
Infixingtheamountofcompensationtobeawardedforsalvage
service,ithasbeendeclaredbytheSupremeCourtofthe
United
Statesthattheprincipalcircumstancestobetakeninto
consideration
are:(1)Thelaborexpendedbythesalvorsinrenderingthe
salvage
service;(2)Thepromptitude,skill,andenergydisplayedin
rendering
theserviceandsavingtheproperty;(3)Thevalueofthe
property
employedbythesalvorsinrenderingtheservice,andthedanger
to
whichsuchpropertywasexposed;(4)Theriskincurredbythe
salvorsinrescuingthepropertyfromtheimpendingperil;(5)
The
valueofthepropertysalved;and(6)Thedegreeofdangerfrom
whichthepropertywasrescued
Inapplyingthesecriteriatothecasenowbeforeus,the
following
circumstances,notalreadynoted,arepertinent,namely:
the
Hondaguawasdelayedinhervoyageaboutninehours,during
fiveof
whichshewasengagedintowingtheSeward.Thisdelaycaused
her
toenteratIloilo,theportofherarrivalinsteadofthelate
afternoonof
thepreviousday;buttheunloadingofhercargowasnot
thereby
retarded.Consideredonthebasisofcharterparty
contractunder
whichshewasoperating,theHondaguawasearningaboutP300
per
day,whichwasconsideredreasonablecompensationfor
heruse,
includingtheservicesoffofficersandcrew.Theservice
rendereddid
notinvolveanyfurtherexpenditureoflaboronthepartofthe
salvors
thansuchaswascommonlyincidenttoworkingtheship.No
unusual
displayofskillandenergyontheirpartwasrequired;
andthe
conditionoftheseawasnotsuchastoinvolveanyspecialrisk
either
totheHondaguaorhercrew.Finally,thedanger
fromwhichthe
Sewardwasrescuedwasreal,astheshipwhentakenintowwas
confrontedbyaseriousperil.Thevalueofthevesselwhen
saved
was,wethink,properlyfixedbythetrialcourtatP20,000.
Indeterminingtheamountoftheawardtobeallowedincasesof
this
kindtheaimshouldbetoholdouttoseafaringmenafair
inducement
totheperformanceofsalvageserviceswithoutfixingascaleof
compensationsohighastocausevesselinneedofsuchservices
to
hesitateanddeclinetoreceivethembecauseoftheruinouscost.
Thatthesalvorisentitled,asofbounty,tosomethingmorethan
mere
remunerationforhisownworkandtheriskincurredbyhim
BARIOSVGOTHONG
FACTS:
Petitioner Honorio Barrios, captain and/or master of the
MV Henry I, received or otherwise intercepted an S.O.S.
distress signal by blinkers from the MV Alfredo, owned
and/or operated by respondent Carlos Go Thong &
Company. Thereafter, he altered the course of said vessel,
and steered and headed towards the beckoning MV Don
Alfredo, which Barrios found to be in trouble, due to
engine failure and the loss of her propeller. Upon getting
close to the MV Don Alfreco, with the consent and
knowledge of the captain and/or master of the MV Don
Alfredo, Barrios caused the latter vessel to be tied to, or
relationship created in the case, i.e. that of a quasicontract of towage where the crew is not entitled to
compensation separate from that of the vessel, there is no
occasion to resort to equitable considerations.
URRUTIA v PASOG STEAMER
UnderdateofMay19,1909,counselforG.Urrutiaand
Company
filedawrittencomplaintagainstThePasigSteamerandLighter
Co.,
whereinitwasallegedthattheplaintiffcompanywastheowner
ofthe
steamerNuestraSeoradelPilar,inscribedinthemarine
registryof
theportofManila;thatthesaidvesselswasprovidedwiththe
proper
licensetonavigateandtradeinthewatersofthePhilippines,
was
worthP80,000incash,and,onthedatesmentionedinthe
complaint,
wascarryingacargovaluedatP45,000;thatthedefendant
company
wastheownerofthesteamerSanJuan,inscribedinthe
marine
registryoftheportofManila;thatonoraboutDecember6,
1908,
whileastormwasraging,thesteamerNuestraSeora
delPilar,
belongingtotheplaintiff,wasnavigatinginthedirectionofthe
portof
Legaspiand,aftertwentyhoursandthirtyminutes,descried,
toward
MalAbrigo,asteamshipwhichhadsignalflagshoisted,
wherefore
theNuestraSeoradelPilardirecteditscoursetowards
thesaid
vessel,whichprovedtobetheSanJuandisplayingthesignalsM
Y
andLD,whichmean:"Amunabletonavigate.Willyoutowme
toa
safeanchorage?"thatonthatoccasion,thesteamerNuestra
Seora
delPilar,withgreatrisktoitself,renderedsalvageservicetothe
San
Juanbytakingittoasafeport,andthat,haditnotbeenfor
the
opportune,promptandefficaciousaidlentbytheNuestra
Seoradel
Pilar,theSanJuananditscargowouldcertainlyhavebeen
totally
lost;thatthesalvedsteamer,togetherwithitscargo,wasworth
on
thedatesofthesalvageandthecomplaintP100,000,atatrue
cash
valuation;thatthejustandadequateremunerationforthe
salvage
servicerenderedbytheNuestraSeoradelPilartotheSan
Juan
amountedtothesumofP40,000;andthat;notwithstandingthat
the
plaintiffcompanyhaddemandedofthedefendant
concernthe
paymentofthesaidsumforthesalvageservicereferred
to,and
sincethe15thofJanuary,thedefendant,without
objectingtothe
amountoftheplaintiff'sclaim,hadnotpaidthesameandhad
been
delayingthepaymentthereofunderfutilepretexts:
wherefore,the
plaintiffprayedthatjudgmentberenderedinitsbehalf,to
enableitto
collectfromthedefendantthesumofP40,000,withlegal
interest
thereonfromJanuary15,andthecosts.
Issue:Whetherornotthereissalvage?
Held:YES
Whensoimportantaserviceisrenderedasthatofsalvinga
vessel
withitscrewandthecargoitcarries,fromapositivedangerto
which
itisexposed,exposed,strictjusticedemandsthatwhoever
effectsso
meritoriousaserviceshouldreceiveadequateremuneration
therefor,
notonlyonaccountofactperformedinbehalfoftheshipowner
and
thecrew,butalsobecauseofthedangerrunbythevesselwhich
madethesalvage,duetothecircumstancesthatexistedatthe
time
suchservicewasrendered.
TheprinciplehasbeenestablishedbythecourtsoftheUnited
States
thatwhenavesselhasbeendisabledbythebreakingofitsshaft
at
seaandthehoistsignalsaskingforaid,andanothervesselgoes
to
itsreliefandtakesitintow,suchservicerenderedisoneof
salvage,
andnotmerelyoftowage.
Thetowageofavesselinperiltosomeplaceofsecurity,whenit
is
unablebyitselftoreachthesame,isaserviceofsalvage.
Thetowageofavesselwhichhasthelostuseofits
engineby
accident,thoughitiscompleteinitshullandmasts,isaservice
of
salvage,anditisnotnecessarythatthesaidlossbeinevitable
since,
inviewoftheperil,thevesselcouldnotbesalvedinanyother
way;
foritissufficientthatatthemomenttheservicewasrendered
there
wasaprobable,threateningdangerandreasonablefearthatit
might
strike.
Henceitisnothereaquestionofasimpleserviceof
towagein
ordinaryandnormalwhether,butofanextraordinaryactof
salvage
performedinbehalfofthesteamerSanJuan,in
exceptional
circumstancesandwhileacyclonewasragingoverthepartof
the
seawherethesalvedvesselthenwas,which,inthemidstof
such
peril,wasunabletogovernitsmovementsthroughits
engineon
accountoftheinserviceabilityofitspropeller.
CompensationinsuchcasesasthatwhichoccurredtotheSan
Juan,
deservestobeconsideredasarewardfortheservicerendered
by
theNuestraSeoradelPilarinthemidstofaperil
towhichtherescuedaswellasthesalvingsteamerwas
exposed,anditisproper
thatsuchrewardshouldbemade,notonlybecauseofthe
salvageof
thevesselandofthegoodscarriedandtherescueofthecrew,
but
alsoinorderthatitmayserveasanincentivetorenderprompt
and
efficientaidinsuchcaseswhenrequestedbythosewhointhe
midst
ofsuchunfortunatecircumstancesareurgentlyinneed
thereof.It
shouldalsobeborneinmindthattheNuestraSeoradelPilar
isa
merchantvesselandassuchshouldwithmorereasonbefavored
for
theservicewhichitrenderedtotheSanJuan,which
perhaps
otherwisemighthavebeenlostwithallitscargoandcrew.
ATLANTICGULFvUCHIDA
onthe21stdayofOctober,1918,whilethesteampshipKyodo
Maru
wasdischargingacargoofcoal,thepropertyofthe
defendant
VicenteMadrigal,intheharborofManila,insidethe
breakwater,one
ofthelightersalongsidesaidvesselsank.Inswingingwiththe
tide,
theKyodoMarucameviolentlyincontactwiththissubmerged
lighter,
theresultbeingthatherhullwasperforated.
Thesaidsteamerbegantosinkduringthemorningof
October
22dandtouchedthebottomoftheharborat10o'clockofthe
same
morning.Shecontinuedtosinkdeeperintothemuduntil,on
October
23d,theforwardhalfofthevesselwasentirelysubmerged,
whilethe
sternhalfwasstillafloat.
OntheafternoonofOctober23d,theplaintiffs,attherequestof
the
captainandagentsoftheship,tookpossessionofthesinking
vessel
assalvorsandcommencedsalvageoperationatonce.Atthat
time
theyhadsubmittedtwopropositionstothecaptainandagentsof
the
shipastocompensationforthesalvageservicestobe
performed:
OneforP150,000incaseofsuccessand
reimbursementof
expensesincaseoffailure,andanotherforP300,000"nocure
no
pay."Theplaintiffswereinformedthatthepropositions
wouldbe
transmittedtotheownersofthevesselinJapanforacceptance
or
rejection,buttheywererequestedtocontinueworkinthe
meantime,
upontheunderstandingthatifnospecialcontractshouldbe
made
theywouldbecompensatedassalvors.
ThevesselwasfloatedonOctober30thandthesalvage
operationsendedthefollowingday.OntheafternoonofOctober
30th
theplaintiffswereinformedinwritingthattheheadofficeofthe
steamshipcompanyinJapanhad,bycable,rejectedbothofthe
abovementionedpropositions,andthatitwasproposedtosettle
with
themonthebasisofthereasonablevalueoftheirservicesas
salvors.
ISSUE:(1)withregardtotheamountofcompensationtobe
awarded
totheplaintiffsforthesalvageoftheshipinquestion,and(2)
whether
ornotthedefendantappelleeVicenteMadrigal,asownerofthe
cargo,isliableforanycontributiontosuchcompensation.
HELD:
1.Thisquestionofcompensationinvolvestwoelements:(a)The
actualexpensesincurredinthesalvageoperation,and(b)the
reward
forservicesrenderedbytheplaintiffsassalvors.
(a)wearepersuadedthatmostofthechargesforexpensesmade
by
theplaintiffsarereallyexorbitant.Consideringallofthefacts
and
circumstancesofthiscase,andspeciallytheinflatedwarprices
of
materialsatthetimethesalvageinquestionwasperformed,we
are
oftheopinionthatthesumofP50,000wouldbeavery
reasonable
allowancetotheplaintiffsfortheircashoutlayandtherental
valueof
theirequipment.
(b)Withregardtotherewardforsalvageservices,defendants
appellantsmaintainthatthesumofP35,000wouldbealiberal
net
awardtothesalvors
wearepersuadedthatthesumofP50,000wouldbeanequitably
liberalnetcompensationtotheplaintiffsassalvorsof
theKyodo
Maru.ThistogetherwiththesumofP50,000whichwehave
found
shouldbeallowedthemfortheirexpensesandthereasonable
rental
valueoftheirequipment,makesatotalawardtotheplaintiffsof
the
sumofP100,000.Wearepersuadedthatthisamountisa
sufficient
compensationfortheoutlayandeffortofthesalvorsinthe
present
case,andthatthesameisliberalenoughtoconstitutean
inducement
tootherstorenderlikeservicesinsimilaremergenciesinthe
future.
2.YES,wecannotagreewithhimthat"suchremovaldidnot
operate
inanywaytobenefitthecargo,norsaveitfromanyriskor
damage.'
Hadthevesselcompletelysunkandlisted,extremedifficulty
would
nodoubthavebeenencounteredinremovingthecoalin
question
fromherhold,thusoccasioningconsiderableexpenseandlossto
this
defendant.Itisalsoundeniablethatpartoftheplaintiffs
expenses
whichwehaveallowedagainstdefendantsappellantswere
incurred
incarryingsuchcoaltotheshore.Itisbutjust,then,that
defendant
appelleeshouldshareaproportionateamountoftheaward.
WALLACEvPUJALTE
Facts:
Thisisanactionofreplevinbegunbytheownerto
recover
possessionofaschoonercalledtheKodiakwhichhadbeen
deserted
byitscaptainandcrewbyreasonofitshavingbeencapsizedby
a
galeandwhichhadbeenfound,takenpossessionofandtowed
into
portbythedefendantsMiguelPujalteandMiguelOssoriowho,
atthe
timetheactionwasbegun,wereengagedincompletingthe
salvage
ofthevessel.ThedefendantsMiguelPujalteandMiguelOssorio
set
uptheirrightsonthevesselassalvorsandcontendthatthey
were
entitledtothepossessionofthevesseluntilthesalvage
operations
werecompletedandthat,ifpossessionweretakenfromthem
before
thattime,theywereentitledtothesamecompensationasthey
would
havebeeniftheplaintiffhadallowedthemtocompletethe
work.
Thereislittledisputeabouttheimportantfactsofthecase.It
appears
thatonthe4thdayofAugust,1913,theschoonerKodiakwas
lostoff
thecoastofMindoro,havingbeenblownonhersidebyheavy
winds.
Shewasfloatingatthemercyoftheelementsofthreeorfour
days.
Onorabout7thofAugust,thereportofherlossreachedthe
CollectorofCustomsofthePhilippineIslandswhoimmediately
issuedacircularlettertothemastersofallsteamersandvessels
plyinginPhilippinewaters,declaringtheKodiakaderelictand
a
dangertonavigation.Assoonasthecircularletterwasreceived
by
defendantsMiguelPujalteandMiguelOssoriotheychartered
the
coastguardcutterMindoroandproceededtosearchforthelost
schooner.Onthe8thdayofAugusttheylefttheportofManila
carryingonboardCaptainJoseMuozandsomemen,whowere
to
takechargeof,anddirect,thesalvageoperations.Twodayslater
the
Kodiakwaslocated,floatingabandonedonherside,withallher
sails
unfurledandunderwater.Immediatelyaboat,withCaptainJose
Muozandhismen,wasloweredfromthecoastguardcutter
and,in
themidstofaheavyseaandstrongwind,theysucceededin
making
fastaropetothesternoftheKodiak.Theytowedherintothe
portof
Pola,reachingthatportadayortwolater,theybeingobligedto
proceedveryslowlynotonlyonaccountoftheheavyseabut
alsobyreasonofthefactthattheKodiakwasfullofwater.
OnceinPolaBay
menwereleftinchargeofthevesselwhileCaptainJoseMuoz
went
backtoManilaontheMindoro,andreportedtohisemployers.
They
immediatelycharteredthesteamerLakandulatocarryworkmen
and
totowalightercalledthePaquitawithsalvagematerialsand
implementstoPolaBay.TheyalsodispatchedthesteamerMaria
LuisaY.toassistinthesalvagework.
Onthe12thdayofAugust1913plaintiff'sagentdeliveredto
Miguel
Pujaltethefollowingletter:
WehavebeeninformedthattheschoonerKodiakhasbeen
towed
intotheportofPola,Mindoro,bythecutterMindorobelonging
tothe
Governmentwhichwascharteredforthatpurposeby
you.The
KodiakbelongstoCaptainThomasA.Wallace,ofBinaluan
(Palawan)
andwearethepersonstowhomthevesseland
cargowere
consigned.OnbehalfoftheowneroftheKodiakweoffertopay
you
fortheservicesrenderedinsalvingthevesseluptothepresent
time,
andweoffertotakepossessionoftheKodiakwhereitnowison
the
beachofMindoro.Asrepresentativesoftheownerweshall
refuseto
payanyexpensewhichyoumayincurfromnowon.
Pleasefurnishuswiththeamountofcompensationto
whichyou
believeyouareentitled
Incaseyouaskmorethanweregardasreasonablewewillpay
you
theamountdecideduponbyaboardofarbitrationtobeselected
by
theofficersoftheMaritimeAssociation;andifthisisnot
agreeableto
youwewillpayyouwhateveracourtofjusticewilladjudge.
Ifyourequireitwewillgiveabondtocarrytheaboveofferinto
effect.
Thedefendantscontendthatallthearrangementsforthesalvage
of
theKodiakhasbeenmadebeforethereceiptoftheletterwritten
by
plaintiff'sagentandthatthelargerpartoftheexpensesforthe
salvageoftheKodiakhadalreadybeenincurredatthattime;
that
theythereforeproceededwiththesalvageandwereaboutto
finish
theirworksuccessfullywhenthecomplaintwasfiledinthiscase
and
thepossessionoftheschooner
Issue:WONthereisavalidsalvage?Anddoesthesalvors
entitledto
compensation?
HELD:YES
ThereisnodoubtaboutthefactthattheKodiakcapsizedoffthe
coastofMindoroduringastormandthatshewasdesertedby
her
officersandcrewandleftfloatingonhersidewithsailsunfurled
and
underwater.NoristherequestionaboutthefactthattheBureau
of
NavigationofthePhilippineIslandsdeclaredthevessela
derelictand
dangeroustonavigation
thataconsiderableportionoftheexpenseswereincurredafter
the
ownerdeliveredtheletterofAugust12notifyingthedefendants
that
hewouldpaytheexpensesincurreduptothetimethenotice
was
servedtogetherwiththecompensationtowhichtheywere
entitled,
andthattheywouldpaynothingfromthattimeforwardeitheras
expensesorascompensation
Whatevermightbesaidwithregardtotheeffectofthisletteron
the
relationsbetweenthepartiesifitstoodaloneintherecorditis
unnecessarytosay.Itisnotademandforthepossessionofthe
Kodiakinthesenseinwhichthatwordisgenerallyused.Itis
merely
anoffertodocertainthings.Wedonotcaretodeterminethe
precise
effectofthisofferfromalegalpointofviewsinceitappears
thatthe
circumstances
Whatevereffectthenoticeinquestionmighthaveproducedwas
nullifiedbytheattitudeoftheplaintiff'sagentwhosignedand
served
thenoticetheyrequiringthatthedefendantscomplyonthespot
with
theprovisionsthereof,particularlythoserelatingtofurnishinga
statementoftheexpensesandthevalueoftheserviceswhich
had
beenrendereduptothetimeoftheserviceofthenotice.The
fulfill
thisrequirementwasatthetimeclearlyimpossibleandthe
defendantscannotbeheldresponsiblefortheirnotdoingso.
Itappearsfromallthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethat
the
defendantsactedingoodfaith;thattheykepttheexpenses
within
reasonablebound;thattheyactedwithdispatchandperformed
their
work,generallyspeaking,inaworkmanlikemannerAstothe
amountofcompensationwecannotsaythatitisexcessive.
FERNANDEZvTHOMPSON
theBritishsteamerBengloeownedbyW.Thompson&co.,
whileenroutefromManila
toEuropeanports,strandedontheMayoneshoalintheSulusea
sometwentyfivemiles
fromBrook'sPointontheIslandofPalawan.
BengloeabandonedlastThursdayeighteendaysonCorralReef
noassistancewhatever
tohandshipdangerouspositionsettlingdownforwardandlisted
heavilytoPortCargoin
aftholdspossibletosalve.Crewallsafe.
JoseFernandez,O.N.Holmsen,andM.A.Macleod,now
plaintiffs,wereresidentsof
Palawan.OnlearningoftheabandonmentoftheBengloebyher
crew,thesegentlemen
formedapartnership,withacapitalofP1,500,forthepurposeof
salvingthevesseland
cargo.TheyhiredthelaunchFlorenceofbetweenthirtyand
fortytonscapacityfromthe
provincialauthoritiesofPuertoPrincesa,andwithanumberof
laborersproceededtothe
wrecktoascertainitscondition
theLondonSalvageAssociationactingintheinterestofthe
underwritersoftheshipand
thecargo,andwiththeconsentoftheship'sagents,engagedKer
&Co.totakecharge
ofthesalvageoperations.Thelatterfirminitsturnemployed
WilliamSwan,anengineer
andmarinesurveyor,toconductthework.SwanleftManilaon
theCoastGuardCutter
PolilloonOctober6forthesceneofthewreck.
Swan,thecaptainoftheBengloe,andtheirassistantsarrivedat
thewreckonOctober9,
thatis,twodaysafterthearrivalofFernandez,Holmsen,and
Macleod,andafterthe
copraandothereffectshadbeenremoved.Macleodandthetwo
laborersfoundon
boardwereshownscanthospitalitybythesecondparty,and
werepointedlygivento
understandthattheirpresencewasnotdesired.
WhentheotherplaintiffsHolmsenandFernandez,returnedon
thelaunch,theywere
preventedfromtakinganyfurtherpartinthesalvageoperations.
Fernandez,Holmsen,andMacleodbeganactionintheCourtof
FirstInstanceofthecity
ofManilatorecoverfromtheownersoftheBengloeandother
partiesthesumof
P179,780,claimedtobedueascompensationforthesalvageof
merchandiseand
effectsofthevalueofP2,500fromthesteamshipBengloeand
asdamagesbecauseof
havingbeenforciblydeprivedofthepossessionofthesteamship
andtherebyprevented
fromprosecutingsalvageoperations.
Thedefendantsoriginallyclaimedthesoleandexclusive
possessionofthewreckonthe
groundthattheyhadnotabandoneditbutonlylefttoseek
assistance.Thetrialcourt
however,foundthattheappearancesjustifiedtheconclusionthat
theBengloewas
abandonedbythedefendantsonOctober7,1914,andthatthe
plaintiffscommencedthe
salvageoperationsinentiregoodfaith.
ISSUE:hadtheplaintiffsadequateequipmenttoeffectthe
salvageoftheshipand
cargo?Hadplaintiffstherighttoinsistuponretaining
possessionoftheBengloeandher
cargoforthepurposeofsalvageasagainstthesalvorsemployed
bytheownersand
underwriters?WasP1,200adequatecompensationforthe
propertysavedbythe
plaintiff?
HELD:
BothNoThatsuchequipmentwasinadequateforthesalvageof
avesselvaluedat
P100,000,ladenwithsugar,copra,andbunkercoalofavalueof
P352,500,perilously
situated,seemsundeniable.Butplaintiffsalsomadefutile
efforts,presumablyingood
faith,toacquireadequatesalvageequipment.Wethushave
presentedthisunique
situation:Wellintentionedmenwithinadequateequipmentare
firstonthesceneofa
wreck,andwhileintechnicalpossession,aredrivenoffand
operationsbegunbya
secondsalvagepartyunderanexpertsuperintendentandwith
adequateequipment.
Theservicesrenderedbytheplaintiffscontributedimmediately
tothepreservationofa
smallamountofpropertyonthestrandedvessel,butasanactual
fact,theirfurther
exertions,howevermeritorioustheywereintendedtobewere
notsuccessfulinany
degreeandcannotbecompensatedindamages
CALTEXvSULPICIOLINES
December 19, 1987 8 pm: motor
tanker MT Vector owned and operated by
Vector Shipping Corporation carried 8,800
barrels of petroleum products of Caltex by
virtue of a charter contract
December 20, 1987 6:30 am: MV Doa
Paz passenger and cargo vessel owned and
operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. left the port of
Tacloban headed for Manila with 1,493
passengers indicated in the Coast Guard Clear
December 20, 1987: MT Vector collided
with MV Doa Paz in the open sea within the
vicinity of Dumali Point between Marinduque
and Oriental Mindoro, killing almost all the
passengers and crew members of both
ships except for 24 survivors
xxx
agent of shipowner.
On February 1977, NSB rendered a judgment by default
for failure of petitioners to appear during the initial hearing,
rendering the same to pay Candongo because there was
no sufficient or valid cause for the respondents to
terminate the service of the complainant.
Litonjuas defense:
Contends that the shipowner, nor the charterer, was the
employer of private respondent; and that liability for
damages cannot be imposed upon petitioner which was a
mere agent of the charterer.
ISSUE
Whether or not Litonjua may be held liable to the private
respondent on the contract of employment?
HELD
YES.
The first basis is the charter party which existed between
Mullion, the shipowner, and Fairwind, the charterer.
It is well settled that in a demise or bare boat charter, the
charterer is treated as owner pro hac vice of the vessel,
the charterer assuming in large measure the customary
rights and liabilities of the shipowner in relation to third
persons who have dealt with him or with the vessel. In
such case, the Master of the vessel is the agent of the
charterer and not of the shipowner. The charterer or owner
pro hac vice, and not the general owner of the vessel, is
held liable for the expenses of the voyage including the
wages of the seamen
Treating Fairwind as owner pro hac vice, petitioner
Litonjua having failed to show that it was not such, we
believe and so hold that petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine
agent of the charterer, may be held liable on the contract
of employment between the ship captain and the private
respondent.
There is a second and ethically more compelling basis for
holding petitioner Litonjua liable on the contract of
employment of private respondent. The charterer of the
vessel, Fairwind, clearly benefitted from the employment
of private respondent as Third Engineer of the Dufton Bay,
along with the ten (10) other Filipino crewmembers
recruited by Captain Ho in Cebu at the same occasion.
In so doing, petitioner Litonjua certainly in effect
represented that it was taking care of the crewing and
other requirements of a vessel chartered by its principal,
Fairwind.
Last, but certainly not least, there is the circumstance that
extreme hardship would result for the private respondent if
petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the charterer, is
not held liable to private respondent upon the contract of
employment.
COMPAGNIEvHAMBURG
FACTS: