YU CON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLICERIO IPIL, NARCISO LAURON, and JUSTO SOLAMO, defendants-appellants.

G.R. No. L-10195 December 29, 1916

YU CON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLICERIO IPIL, NARCISO LAURON, and JUSTO SOLAMO, defendants-appellants.

Felix Sevilla y Macam for appellants. Juan Singson and Dionisio Jakosalem for appellee.

ARAULLO, J.:

Facts:

Yu Con, a merchant and a resident of the town of San Nicolas, of the city of Cebu, engaged in the sale of cloth and domestic articles and having a share in a shop, or small store, situated in the town of Catmon, of said province, had several times chartered from Narciso Lauron, a banca named Maria belonging to the latter, of which Glicerio Ipil was master and Justo Solamo, supercargo, for the transportation of certain merchandise and some money to and from the said town and the port of Cebu. On 17 October, 1911 Yu Con chartered the said banca from Lauron for the transportation of various merchandise from the port of Cebu to Catmon, at the price of P45 for the round trip, which merchandise was loaded on board the said craft which was then at anchor in front of one of the graded fills of the wharf of said port. In the afternoon of the following day, he delivered to the other two defendants, Ipil, and Solamo, master and supercargo, respectively, of the banca, the sum of P450, which was in a trunk belonging to Yu Con and was taken charge of by Ipil and Solamo, who received this money from Yu Con, for the purpose of its delivery to the latter’s shop in Catmon for the purchase of corn in this town. While the money was still in said trunk aboard the vessel, on the night of 18 October, the time scheduled for the departure of the Maria from the port of Cebu, said master and said supercargo transferred the P450 from Yu Con’s trunk, where it was, to theirs, which was in a stateroom of the banca, from which stateroom both the trunk and the money disappeared during that same night, and that the investigations, made to ascertain their whereabouts, produced no result.

Yu Con brought action to enable him to recover from Ipil, Lauron, and Solamo in solidum the sum of P450 lost. Yu Con based his action on the charge that the disappearance of said sum was due to the abandonment, negligence, or voluntary breach, on the part of the defendants, of the duty they had with respect to the safe-keeping of said sum.

At the termination of the trial, the court, held that the sole cause of the disappearance of the money from the said banca was the negligence of the master and the supercargo, Ipil and Solamo, respectively, and that Lauron was responsible for that negligence, as owner of the banca, pursuant to articles 586, 587, and 618 of the Code of Commerce, Yu Con therefore being entitled to recover the amount lost. Judgment was rendered on 20 April 1914, in favor of Yu Con and against Ipil, et. al. jointly and severally for the sum of P450, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, 24 October 1911, with costs.

Issue:

Whether or not the banca may be considered as a vessel and whether or not Glicerio Ipil ,as a master, may be considered as the captain in the determination of liability.

Held:

Yes.

For legal purposes, that is, for the determination of the nature and effect of the relations created between the plaintiff, as owner of the merchandise laden on said craft and of the money that was delivered to the master, Ipil, and the defendant Lauron, as owner of the craft, the latter was a vessel, according to the meaning and construction given to the word vessel in the Mercantile Code, in treating of maritime commerce, under Title 1, Book 3.

The word vessel serves to designate every kind of craft by whatever particular or technical name it may now be known or which nautical advancements may give it in the future.

According to the Dictionary of Legislation and Jurisprudence by Escriche, a vessel is any kind of craft, considering solely the hull.

Blanco, the commentator on mercantile law, in referring to the grammatical meaning of the word "ship" and "vessels," says, in his work aforecited, that these terms designate every kind of craft, large or small, whether belonging to the merchant marine or to the navy. And referring to their juridical meaning, he adds: "This does not differ essentially from the grammatical meaning; the words "ship" and "vessel" also designate every craft, large or small, so long as it is not an accessory of another, such as the small boat of a vessel, of greater or less tonnage. This definition comprises both the craft intended for ocean or for coastwise navigation, as well as the floating docks, mud lighters, dredges, dump scows or any other floating apparatus used in the service of an industry or in that of maritime commerce. . . ."

According to the foregoing definitions, then, we should that the banca called Maria, chartered by the plaintiff Yu Con from the defendant Narciso Lauron, was a "vessel", pursuant to the meaning this word has in mercantile law, that is, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce in force.

Glicerio Ipil, the master of the said banca Maria, must also be considered as its captain, in the legal acceptation of this word.

The same Code of Commerce in force in these Islands compares, in its article 609, masters with captains.

Commenting on said article, the aforementioned General Review of Legislation and Jurisprudence says:

The name of captain or master is given, according to the kind of vessel, to the person in charge of it.

The first denomination is applied to those who govern vessels that navigate the high seas or ships of large dimensions and importance, although they are engaged in the coastwise trade.

Masters are those who command smaller ships engaged exclusively in the coastwise trade.

For the purposes of maritime commerce, the words "captain" and "master" have the same meaning; both being the chiefs or commanders of ships.

Article 587 of the Code of Commerce in force provides:

The agent shall 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 trip.

Article 618 of the same Code also prescribes:

The captain shall be civilly liable to the agent and the latter to the third persons who may have made contracts with the former —

1. For all the damages suffered by the vessel and its cargo by reason of want of skill or negligence on his part, if a misdemeanor or crime has been committed he shall be liable in accordance with the Penal Code.

2. For all the thefts committed by the crew, reserving his right of action against the guilty parties.

It is therefore evident that, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce in force, which are applicable to the instance case, the defendant Narciso Lauron, as the proprietor and owner of the craft of which Glicerio Ipil was the master and in which, through the fault and negligence of the latter and of the supercago Justo Solamo, there occurred the loss, theft, or robbery of the P450 that belonged to the plaintiff and were delivered to said master and supercargo, a theft which, on the other hand, as shown by the evidence, does not appear to have been committed by a person not belonging to the craft, should, for said loss or theft, be held civilly liable to the plaintiff, who executed with said defendant Lauron the contract for the transportation of the merchandise and money aforementioned between the port of Cebu and the town of Catmon, by means of the said craft.