Ablag vs San Diego Case Digest GR 773 ; December 17, 1946 ; 77 Phil 730

Ablag vs San Diego Case Digest 

G.R. No. 773 ; December 17, 1946 ; 77 Phil. 730

PRINCIPLE/S:

1) GR: Limited Liability Rule

Exception: Workmen’s Compensation Act

Reason: Such compensation has nothing to do with the provisions of the Code of Commerce regarding maritime commerce.

2) Real and Hypothecary Nature

"The real and hypothecary nature of the liability of the shipowner or agent embodied in the provisions of the Maritime Law, Book III, Code of Commerce, had its origin in the prevailing conditions of the maritime trade and sea voyages during the medieval ages, attended by innumerable hazards and perils. To offset against these adverse conditions and to encourage shipbuilding and maritime commerce, it was deemed necessary to confine the liability of the owner or agent arising from the operation of a ship to the vessel, equipment, and freight, or insurance, if any, so that if the shipowner or agent abandoned the ship, equipment, and freight, his liability was extinguished."

3) Coastwise and interisland trade includes ships engaged in fishing

Coastwise and interisland trade meaning = Ships engaged in carriage for hire of passengers and/or merchandise on vessels between ports and places in the Philippines and in fishing expeditions.

Reason why fishing is included: “xxx While fishing is an industry, if the catch is brought to a port for sale, it is at the same time a trade xxx”

FACTS: The M/S San Diego II and the M/S Bartolome, while engaged in fishing operations were caught by a typhoon and as a consequence of which they were sunk and totally lost. The husbands of the plaintiffs, while acting in their capacities, perished in the shipwreck. 

Counsel for the appellant cite article 587 of the Code of Commerce which provides that if the vessel together with all her tackle and freight money earned during the voyage are abandoned, the agent's liability to third persons for tortious acts of the captain in the care of the goods which the ship carried is extinguished (Yangco vs. Laserna, 73 Phil., 330); article 837 of the same code which provides that in cases of collision, the ship owners' liability is limited to the value of the vessel with all her equipment and freight earned during the voyage (Philippine Shipping company vs. Garcia, 6 Phil., 281), and article 643 of the same Code which provides that if the vessel and freight are totally lost, the agent's liability for wages of the crew is extinguished. From these premises counsel draw the conclusion that appellant's liability, as owner of the two motor ships lost or sunk as a result of the typhoon was extinguished.

ISSUES: 

1)WON the liability of the shipowner is extinguished by the total loss of the ship? 

2) WON a ship engaged in fishing expedition is considered coastwise and interisland trade?

HELD: 

1) NO. The provisions of the Code of Commerce invoked by appellant have no room in the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act which seeks to improve, and aims at the amelioration of, the condition of laborers and employees. Such compensation has nothing to do with the provisions of the Code of Commerce regarding maritime commerce. It is an item in the cost of production which must be included in the budget of any well-managed industry. It has been repeatedly stated that the Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted to abrogate the common law and our Civil Code upon culpable acts and omissions, and that the employer need not be guilty of neglect or fault, in order that responsibility may attach to him and that shipowner was liable to pay compensation provided for in the Workmen's Compensation Act, notwithstanding the fact that the motorboat was totally lost.

2) YES. term "coastwise and interisland trade" includes carriage for hire of passengers and/or merchandise on vessels between ports and places in the Philippines and fishing expeditions because if the catch is brought to a port for sale it is a trade. Even if fishing was not considered as "coastwise and interisland trade" the deceased were still considered industrial employees within the purview of section 39, paragraph (d) of Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, for industrial employment "includes all employment or work at a trade, occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain."