Yangco vs Laserna

Facts:

S.S. Negros, belonging to petitioner, Teodoro Yangco, left the port of Romblon
on its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was
duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel
set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below
the surface of the water. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the
vessel's capacity being limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat
encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara. As the
sea became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return
to port, but in the maneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to
capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap. The respondents instituted
separate civil actions against petitioner here to recover damages for the death of the
passengers. The court was in favour of respondents. After the rendition of the judgment to
this effect, petitioner, by a verified pleading, sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in
the three cases, together with all its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The
abandonment having been denied, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the
judgments were affirmed.

Issue:
May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of
the negligence of its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its
passengers?

Held:
The petitioner is not liable.
We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is controlled by the provision of
article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
"The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from
the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself
therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during
the voyage."
The provision accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary
implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the
vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." If the
shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death of
passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or shipwrecks, his
liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results
in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, the fact is not ignored that the ill-fated S. S.
Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common carrier, and that the relationship
between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of
carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage, the
exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates to limit such liability to the
value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear
that the vessel was insured.
Marine Trading Company vs Government of the Philippine Islands

Facts:
Marine Trading Company owned a launch named Active and defendant owned a launch
named Bohol. Both launches were in use upon the Pasig River in the city of Manila. On Aug 10,
1955, in the Pasig River, the launch Bohol was towing up the river two rudderless scows or
lighters, one behind the other. The scow nearest the launch was about 5 meters behind, was
empty, and was high in the water. The second lighter was tied to the rear of the first one, with
a distance of about 2 meters intervening, was loaded, and was lower in the water. The Active
was coming down the river from Pandacan toward Manila Bay. The patron of the Active blew
one blast of his whistle, and the patron of the Bohol answered with one whistle, which indicated
that the Active had a clear way and should pass to starboard. When under the bridge of Spain,
the Active passed the Bohol and the first scow towed by it. But when the Active was about to
pass the second scow, the latter swerved to the left, and its forward left end corner struck the
Active on the port side between the cabin and the bow with such force and impact that the
launch sank immediately. The Active was in good condition and state of operation before the
collision occurred. The launch was so seriously damaged by the collision and the sinking that it
took the sum of P9,677 to repair it.

Issue:
whether or not the accident occurred through the negligence of the Bohol only, or
whether both launches can be blamed for the collision.
Whether or not the state is liable for interests

Held:
The trial court was clearly of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the
patron of the Bohol in operating his launch and the scow in such a way as to endanger the
Active and its occupants. The court was further of the opinion that there was no negligence on
the part of the patron of the Active. Negligence on the part of the Bohol is demonstrated by the
following:
a. The patron of the Bohol gave the whistle which indicated that the Active had a clear
way and should pass to the starboard, and did not give four blasts of the whistle in
quick succession in order to denote danger.
b. The two scows in tow by the Bohol were apparently not properly fastened together,
as required by Section 197 of the Philippine Marine Regulations
c. The two launches passed each other under the bridge of Spain, and the Bohol,
instead of steering so as to avoid danger of a collision between theActive and its
scows, kept its course and crowded the Active almost against a buoy.

It is the undoubted law that the State (in this jurisdiction, the Government of the
Philippine Islands) never pays interest unless it expressly engages to do so. This is especially
true in case the claim is an unliquidated one. The rule is equally well established that the State
is not liable for costs unless the statute expressly makes it so. Here, Act No. 2630 only
authorized the court to fix the damages if any, and to enter judgment accordingly. Unless
damages can be interpreted to include interest and costs, plaintiff cannot recover the same.
This appearing to be a strained interpretation, we believe we should hold to the view that since
the government has not stipulated to pay interest or costs, the courts should not include these
items in the judgment.
Yangco vs Laserna

Facts:

S.S. Negros, belonging to petitioner, Teodoro Yangco, left the port of Romblon
on its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was
duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel
set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below
the surface of the water. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the
vessel's capacity being limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat
encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara. As the
sea became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return
to port, but in the maneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to
capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap. The respondents instituted
separate civil actions against petitioner here to recover damages for the death of the
passengers. The court was in favour of respondents. After the rendition of the judgment to
this effect, petitioner, by a verified pleading, sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in
the three cases, together with all its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The
abandonment having been denied, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the
judgments were affirmed.

Issue:
May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of
the negligence of its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its
passengers?

Held:
The petitioner is not liable.
We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is controlled by the provision of
article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
"The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from
the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself
therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during
the voyage."
The provision accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary
implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the
vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." If the
shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death of
passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or shipwrecks, his
liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results
in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, the fact is not ignored that the ill-fated S. S.
Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common carrier, and that the relationship
between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of
carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage, the
exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates to limit such liability to the
value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear
that the vessel was insured.
Marine Trading Company vs Government of the Philippine Islands

Facts:
Marine Trading Company owned a launch named Active and defendant owned a launch
named Bohol. Both launches were in use upon the Pasig River in the city of Manila. On Aug 10,
1955, in the Pasig River, the launch Bohol was towing up the river two rudderless scows or
lighters, one behind the other. The scow nearest the launch was about 5 meters behind, was
empty, and was high in the water. The second lighter was tied to the rear of the first one, with
a distance of about 2 meters intervening, was loaded, and was lower in the water. The Active
was coming down the river from Pandacan toward Manila Bay. The patron of the Active blew
one blast of his whistle, and the patron of the Bohol answered with one whistle, which indicated
that the Active had a clear way and should pass to starboard. When under the bridge of Spain,
the Active passed the Bohol and the first scow towed by it. But when the Active was about to
pass the second scow, the latter swerved to the left, and its forward left end corner struck the
Active on the port side between the cabin and the bow with such force and impact that the
launch sank immediately. The Active was in good condition and state of operation before the
collision occurred. The launch was so seriously damaged by the collision and the sinking that it
took the sum of P9,677 to repair it.

Issue:
whether or not the accident occurred through the negligence of the Bohol only, or
whether both launches can be blamed for the collision.
Whether or not the state is liable for interests

Held:
The trial court was clearly of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the
patron of the Bohol in operating his launch and the scow in such a way as to endanger the
Active and its occupants. The court was further of the opinion that there was no negligence on
the part of the patron of the Active. Negligence on the part of the Bohol is demonstrated by the
following:
a. The patron of the Bohol gave the whistle which indicated that the Active had a clear
way and should pass to the starboard, and did not give four blasts of the whistle in
quick succession in order to denote danger.
b. The two scows in tow by the Bohol were apparently not properly fastened together,
as required by Section 197 of the Philippine Marine Regulations
c. The two launches passed each other under the bridge of Spain, and the Bohol,
instead of steering so as to avoid danger of a collision between theActive and its
scows, kept its course and crowded the Active almost against a buoy.

It is the undoubted law that the State (in this jurisdiction, the Government of the
Philippine Islands) never pays interest unless it expressly engages to do so. This is especially
true in case the claim is an unliquidated one. The rule is equally well established that the State
is not liable for costs unless the statute expressly makes it so. Here, Act No. 2630 only
authorized the court to fix the damages if any, and to enter judgment accordingly. Unless
damages can be interpreted to include interest and costs, plaintiff cannot recover the same.
This appearing to be a strained interpretation, we believe we should hold to the view that since
the government has not stipulated to pay interest or costs, the courts should not include these
items in the judgment.
Yangco vs Laserna

Facts:

S.S. Negros, belonging to petitioner, Teodoro Yangco, left the port of Romblon
on its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was
duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel
set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below
the surface of the water. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the
vessel's capacity being limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat
encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara. As the
sea became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return
to port, but in the maneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to
capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap. The respondents instituted
separate civil actions against petitioner here to recover damages for the death of the
passengers. The court was in favour of respondents. After the rendition of the judgment to
this effect, petitioner, by a verified pleading, sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in
the three cases, together with all its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The
abandonment having been denied, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the
judgments were affirmed.

Issue:
May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of
the negligence of its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its
passengers?

Held:
The petitioner is not liable.
We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is controlled by the provision of
article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
"The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from
the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself
therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during
the voyage."
The provision accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary
implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the
vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." If the
shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death of
passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or shipwrecks, his
liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results
in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, the fact is not ignored that the ill-fated S. S.
Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common carrier, and that the relationship
between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of
carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage, the
exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates to limit such liability to the
value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear
that the vessel was insured.
Marine Trading Company vs Government of the Philippine Islands

Facts:
Marine Trading Company owned a launch named Active and defendant owned a launch
named Bohol. Both launches were in use upon the Pasig River in the city of Manila. On Aug 10,
1955, in the Pasig River, the launch Bohol was towing up the river two rudderless scows or
lighters, one behind the other. The scow nearest the launch was about 5 meters behind, was
empty, and was high in the water. The second lighter was tied to the rear of the first one, with
a distance of about 2 meters intervening, was loaded, and was lower in the water. The Active
was coming down the river from Pandacan toward Manila Bay. The patron of the Active blew
one blast of his whistle, and the patron of the Bohol answered with one whistle, which indicated
that the Active had a clear way and should pass to starboard. When under the bridge of Spain,
the Active passed the Bohol and the first scow towed by it. But when the Active was about to
pass the second scow, the latter swerved to the left, and its forward left end corner struck the
Active on the port side between the cabin and the bow with such force and impact that the
launch sank immediately. The Active was in good condition and state of operation before the
collision occurred. The launch was so seriously damaged by the collision and the sinking that it
took the sum of P9,677 to repair it.

Issue:
whether or not the accident occurred through the negligence of the Bohol only, or
whether both launches can be blamed for the collision.
Whether or not the state is liable for interests

Held:
The trial court was clearly of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the
patron of the Bohol in operating his launch and the scow in such a way as to endanger the
Active and its occupants. The court was further of the opinion that there was no negligence on
the part of the patron of the Active. Negligence on the part of the Bohol is demonstrated by the
following:
a. The patron of the Bohol gave the whistle which indicated that the Active had a clear
way and should pass to the starboard, and did not give four blasts of the whistle in
quick succession in order to denote danger.
b. The two scows in tow by the Bohol were apparently not properly fastened together,
as required by Section 197 of the Philippine Marine Regulations
c. The two launches passed each other under the bridge of Spain, and the Bohol,
instead of steering so as to avoid danger of a collision between theActive and its
scows, kept its course and crowded the Active almost against a buoy.

It is the undoubted law that the State (in this jurisdiction, the Government of the
Philippine Islands) never pays interest unless it expressly engages to do so. This is especially
true in case the claim is an unliquidated one. The rule is equally well established that the State
is not liable for costs unless the statute expressly makes it so. Here, Act No. 2630 only
authorized the court to fix the damages if any, and to enter judgment accordingly. Unless
damages can be interpreted to include interest and costs, plaintiff cannot recover the same.
This appearing to be a strained interpretation, we believe we should hold to the view that since
the government has not stipulated to pay interest or costs, the courts should not include these
items in the judgment.