05 Yu Con v Ipil

No. 10195. December 29, 1916.

Araullo, J. / kam

Subject Matter: Admiralty and Maritime Commerce > Persons Participating in Maritime Commerce >
Responsibilities and Liabilities of Shipowners & Shipagents

Summary: Yu Con chartered banca “Maria” owned by Lauron to ship certain merchandise and money (P450).
The night of departure, the trunk containing the shipment disappeared. Ipil, as master and Solamo, as
supercargo, along with banca owner Lauron were held by CFI to be jointly and severally liable to Yu Con for
the amount of money lost. SC affirmed the CFI judgment, holding that defendants failed to exercise the
diligence required by the nature of the obligation of safe-keeping assumed by them and by the circumstances
of the time and the place

Doctrine: The shipowner is liable for the acts of the captain and the crew based on Arts. 587 and 618 of the
Code of Commerce. The liability of the shipowner stems from his capability to appoint the crew and the
captain and from the rule under the Partidas that he who derives benefit from a particular activity must also
be liable for losses occasioned by such activity.

Petitioner & appellee Yu Con

Defendants & appellants Glicerio Ipil, Narciso Lauron, and Justo Solamo

Facts:
1. Characters & roles:
Yu Con – merchant engaged in the sale of cloth and domestic articles; resident of San Nicolas, Cebu
Cabin-boys: 1) Juan Quiamco
Glicerio Ipil – master 2) Gabriel Basang
Justo Solamo – supercargo 3) Simeon Solamo
Narciso Lauron – owner of banca Maria 4) Eulalio Quiamco

2. Yu Con chartered the banca “Maria” from owner Lauron to transport certain merchandise and money
from the port of Cebu to Catmon (Cebu). He had chartered said banca several times before already.
Rate for this charter is P45 for the roundtrip.
3. Yu Con loaded the merchandise and delivered the money (P450), placed in a trunk, to Ipil and
Solamo, to be delivered to Yu Con’s shop in Catmon for the purchase of corn. Allegedly because there
was no more room for Yu Con’s trunk, Ipil and Solamo transferred the money to their own trunk in
the stateroom.
4. Ipil assured the Yu Con that there was no danger of the money being lost; and during the night in
question, both the master and the supercargo and four cabin-boys were aboard the banca.
5. On the night of the departure of Maria, the trunk and the money placed therein disappeared.

Before the provincial fiscal of Cebu:

1. Master Ipil, supercargo Solamo, and cabin-boys Juan and Gabriel testified that they all knew of the
existence of the money inside the trunk in the stateroom and and that no person not belonging to the
vessel knew that the money was in the trunk inside said stateroom.
2. Ipil said he slept outside the stateroom that night but Gabriel slept inside but such fact was not
proven. Master and supercargo also testified that Simeon was on guard that night but Simeon’s
affidavit stated otherwise, saying that the day after the night in question, all agreed that he should
say that he was on guard, though it was not true that he was.
3. It was testified that the small window of the stateroom had been broken, but it was not sufficiently
proven that it was possible for the trunk to be passed through said small window. Also, the six crew
members slept soundly that night, and nobody heard of the noise when the window was allegedly
broken.
4. Therefore, it was not proven, nor is there any circumstantial evidence to show, that the robbery in
question was committed by persons not belonging to the craft.
CFI Cebu – Favored Yu Con. Ordered defendants to pay Yu Con jointly and severally for the sum of P450, w/
interest at 6% per annum.
- The sole cause of the disappearance of the money from the said banca was the negligence of the
master and the supercargo, the defendants Ipil and Solamo, respectively, and that the defendant
Narciso Lauron was responsible for that negligence, as owner of the banca.
- Thus, this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE (HELD): WON defendants (shipowner, master, and supercargo) are liable for the loss of the shipment?
(YES)

RATIO:

Liability of the master and supercargo:

 It is therefore beyond all doubt that the loss of the money occurred through the manifest fault and
negligence of Ipil and Solamo.
o They failed to take the necessary precautions in order that the stateroom containing the trunk in
which they kept the money should be properly guarded by members of the crew and they also did
not expressly station some person inside the stateroom for the guarding and safe-keeping of the
trunk.
o All of these circumstances, together with that of its having been impossible to know who took the
trunk and the money, make the conduct of Ipil, Solamo, and the other crew members eminently
suspicious and prevent our holding that the disappearance or loss of the money was due to a
fortuitous event, to force majeure.
 Ipil and Solamo were depositaries of the sum in question and, having failed to exercise the diligence
required by the nature of the obligation of safe-keeping assumed by them and by the circumstances of the
time and the place, it is evident that they are liable for its loss or misplacement and must restore it.

Liability of the owner of the vessel:

 There was a brief discussion of the SC as to WON “Maria”, a banca, is a vessel as contemplated in
mercantile law. "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."
(Commentary by Jose Reus y Garcia)
 SC held 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.

 With respect to Lauron, he is also liable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce in
force because, as the proprietor and owner of the vessel who executed a contract of carriage with
Yu Con, there occurred the loss, theft, or robbery of the P450 that belonged to Yu Con through the
negligence of Ipil and Solamo and which theft does not appear to have been committed by a person not
belonging to the craft.
 The old Code of Commerce absolved the shipowner from liability for the negligence of the captain
and its crew but, in the light of the principles of modern law, this doctrine on the non-liability of
the shipowner for the unlawful acts, crimes or quasi crimes, committed by the captain and the
crew can no longer be maintained in its absolute and categorical terms.
o In maritime commerce, the shippers and passengers in making contracts with the captain do so
through the confidence they have in the shipowner who appointed him; they presume that the owner
made a most careful investigation before appointing him, and, above all, they themselves are unable
to make such an investigation, and even though they should do so, they could not obtain complete
security, inasmuch as the shipowner can, whenever he sees fit, appoint another captain instead.
o If the shipowner derives profits from the results of the choice of the captain and the crew, when the
choice turns out successful, it is also just that he should suffer the consequences of an unsuccessful
appointment, by application of the rule of natural law contained in the Partidas, viz., that he who
enjoys the benefits derived from a thing must likewise suffer the losses that ensue therefrom.
o Thus, it is only proper that the shipowner should be made liable.

DISPOSITIVE: CFI judgment AFFIRMED.