[COLLISION]
17 G. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation
March 25, 1913 | Moreland, J. |
Petitioner/s: G. URRUTIA & COMPANY
Respondent/s: BACO RIVER PLANTATION CO, M. GARZA (intervener-appellant)
Doctrine:
There is a presumption in favor of a sailing vessel when it has collided with a
steamer.
In collisions between vessels, there are three divisions of time or zones:
First: the time up to the moment when the risk of collision may be said to
have begun
Second: the time between the moment when the risk of collision begins and
the moment when it has become a practical certainty
Third: the time between the moment when collision has become a practical
certainty and the moment of actual contact
Facts:
 Steamship Nuestra Señora del Pilar owned by G. Urrutia & Co. and schooner
Mangyan owned by Baco River Plantation Co. collided on April 8, 2010 in Verde
Island North Passage.
 Nuestra by seen by those on board Mangyan some time before the actual
collision, sailing erratically.
 Mangyan kept its course until just before the actual contact when its helmsman
threw its hard to part in an effort to avoid the collision. However, it was
unsuccessful and Mangyan rammed Nuestra on the starboard quarter.
 Nuestra sank and eight (8) people died.
 Mangyan was considerably injured.
 G. Urrutia filed an action against Baco to recover the value of the steamer and
damages, alleging that Mangyan was negligent.
o Baco denied the material allegations of the complaint and set
up a counterclaim for damages for the injuries sustained by
Mangyan, alleging that they were due to the gross negligence of
those handling Nuestra.
 M. Garza made an application to intervene, alleging that the Nuestra was
carrying for him several thousand pesos’ worth of merchandise as freight, which
was lost due to the collision.
 The trial court held that those managing Nuestra were guilty of gross
negligence, hence G. Urrutia cannot recover.
o The case turned upon the question of which of the vessels was
negligent in failing to conform to the International Rules for the
Prevention of Collisions at Sea (IRPCS).
o Mangyan had its light properly on.
o Nuestra, being bound to keep out of the course of Mangyan, and
suddenly seeing it very close, went over hard to port and crossed
its course.
o Mangyan, notwithstanding the erratic movements of Nuestra,
proceeded directly on its course regardless of consequences when
it could have easily manuevered to avoid the collision. Hence, it is
also not entitled to recover damages.
Ruling:
W/N Baco was negligent and is not entitled to recover damages – NO, Baco is
entitled to damages.
 Art. 20 of the IRPCS: “If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the
other a steam ship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of
collision, the steam ship shall keep out of the way, of the sailing ship.”
 Art. 21: “where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the
way, the other shall keep her course and speed.”
 In collisions between vessels, there are three divisions of time or zones:
o First: the time up to the moment when the risk of collision may be
said to have begun
o Second: the time between the moment when the risk of collision
begins and the moment when it has become a practical certainty
o Third: the time between the moment when collision has become a
practical certainty and the moment of actual contact
 It was during the third zone that Mangyan changed its course to port to
avoid the collision.
o It may be said that thi sact was done in extremis, and even if
wrong, Mangyan is not responsible for the result.
 But the question arises over Mangyan’s action in keeping her course through
the second zone.
 There is a presumption in favor of Mangyan in cases of this character.1
o Several authors state that a steamer should keep out of the way of
a sail vessel.
o It was also consistently held in several cases that the sailing vessel
has a right to keep her course and it is the duty of the steamer to
adopt measures to avoid the sailing vessel. (Note: check original
text for the cited cases.)
 Following the authorities and considering the facts of the case, Baco is
entitled to recover such damages as reasonably and naturally flowed from
the collision.
 It was proved upon the trial that it would require an expenditure of P3,525 to
put the sail vessel in the condition in which it was before the injury; that it
cost 245 to get the vessel to Manila after the injury; that the value of the
supplies lost was P240.99.
 The trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint of the intervener,
having no legal interest in the matter in litigation.
 The ruling in Philippine Shipping Co. v. Vergara, wherein it was held that a
defendant cannot be held liable for damages when the ship was wholly lost
because of the accident, is not applicable, for the reason that the vessel lost
was insured and the owner was able to collect the insurance.
Dispositive
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
1
Subject to the general rules of evidence in collision cases as to the burden of proof, in the case
of a collision between a steam vessel and a sail vessel, the presumption is against the steam
vessel, and she must show that she took the proper measures to avoid a collision.