Manila Steamship vs Abdulhanan Case Digest GR 9534 September 29, 1956 100 Phil 32

Manila Steamship vs Abdulhanan Case Digest

G.R. No. 9534 ; September 29, 1956 ; 100 Phil. 32

PRINCIPLE/S:

1.  GR: Limited Liability Rule

Exception: Injury or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of the ship owner, or to the concurring negligence of the ship owner and the captain (NOTE: There are other exceptions aside from the one stated in this case)

2. Civil tort is different from maritime tort resulting in a collision at sea.

CIVIL TORT	MARITIME TORT
Governed by the Civil Code	Governed by Articles 826-939 of the Code of Commerce
Effect: ER may escape liability if s/he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessel’s officers and crew	Effect: The shipowner is directly and primarily responsible in tort resulting in a collision at sea, and it may not escape liability on the ground that s/he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessel’s officers and crew

FACTS:  Abdulhaman together with his family boarded M/L Consuelo V. The master and the engineer of the motor launch of the said vessel were not duly licensed. In the evening of May 4, 1948, the said ship collided with M/S Bowline Knot. M/L Consuelo V capsized that resulted to the death of 9 passengers, including Abdulhaman’s 5 children, and the loss of all the cargoes on board. 

Abdulhaman then filed a case against Manila Steamship Co., owner of the M/S “Bowline Knot”, and Lim Hong To, owner of the M/L “Consuelo V”, to recover damages for the death of his children and loss of personal properties on board the M/L “Consuelo V” as a result of the said maritime collision.

CA held that it affirmed the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry which held the owners of both vessels solidarily liable to plaintiff for damages caused to the latter under Article 827 of the Code of Commerce but exempted defendant Lim Hong To from liability due to the sinking and total loss of his vessel. Manila Steamship, owner of the Bowline Knot, was ordered to pay all of plaintiff’s damages. 

Petitioner Manila Steamship Co. then pleads to this court  that it is exempt from any liability under Article 1903 of the Civil Code because it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees, particularly the officer in command of the M/S Bowline Knot. 

ISSUE: 

1) WON petitioner Manila Steamship Co. is exempt from any liability under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code? 

2) WON Lim Hong To is exempt from any liability?

HELD: 

1) NO. While it is true that plaintiff’s action against petitioner is based on a tort or quasi delict, the tort in question is not a civil tort under the Civil Code but a maritime tort resulting in a collision at sea, governed by Articles 826-939 of the Code of Commerce. Under Art. 827 of the Code of Commerce, in case of collision between two vessels imputable to both of them, each vessel shall suffer her own damage and both shall be solidarily liable for the damages occasioned to their cargoes. The shipowner is directly and primarily responsible in tort resulting in a collision at sea, and it may not escape liability on the ground that s/he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessel’s officers and crew.

This direct responsibility is recognized in Article 618 of the Code of Commerce under which the captain shall be civilly liable to the ship agent, and the latter is the one liable to third persons. The direct nature of the responsibilities on account of the collision incurred by the shipowner under maritime law is distinguished from the civil law and mercantile law in general.

2)  NO. The legal limitation of a shipowner’s liability does not apply to cases where the injury or the average is due to shipowner’s own fault. In the instant case, the fact that the master and the engineer of the motor launch “Consuelo V” were not duly licensed deliberately increased the risk to which the passengers and shippers of cargo aboard the “Consuelo V” would be subjected and willfully augmented the dangers and hazards to his vessel’s unwarry passengers. Hence Lim Hong To is liable since he cannot invoke the limited liability rule since it was through his own fault that injury was caused to his passengers.