vessels and the cargos were not jettisoned to

save some of the cargos and the vessel.

It did not inure to the benefit of the everyone.
Who shall bear the expenses in a gross
The Supreme Court in another case also ruled in
average?
Compana de Commercio et al. vs Hamburg
America which was German Vessel that also
took refuge in Manila during the WW1. The
shipper in this case was French who loaded the
Cargo in the place of departure which is in
Saigon and this place was a French port. After
the loading of the cargo the vessel left Saigon to
seek refuge in Manila at the outbreak of the
war. The Supreme Court here ruled that there
was no general average because the French
cargo absolutely secured from the danger of
seizure of confiscation as long as it remained in
the port of Saigon and there can be no question
that the flight of the vessel was a measure of
precaution adopted solely for the purpose for
the preservation of the vessel from the danger
of seizure and capture.

The expenses for the refuge in Manila cannot be

considered as a general average but only a
simple and particular average because it inured
only to the benefit of the shipowner. It follows
therefore that there can be no general average
if there is no danger at all. There is also no
common danger if the measure was undertaken
against a distant peril (distant meaning it is not
yet imminent) again it will not apply if the
danger is not yet imminent. Even if there is a
common peril the same may not justify a
voluntary sacrifice if the same can easily be
avoided by the ship without such sacrifice.

If it can be avoided that there will be no

sacrifice then it cannot be considered as a
general average contribution.

In the case of National Development company

vs CA the Supreme Court held here that the law
on averages will not apply in collision cases
where the collision was caused by the
negligence of the captains of the colliding