TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION | B2015 CASE DIGESTS
Lopez vs. Duruelo Oct. 22, 1928 Street, J. Francis
SUMMARY: Lopez rode the small boat, Jison, for him to ride the interisland steamer, San Jacinto. But Jison came too too clos close e to San San Jaci Jacint nto o and and was was hit hit by the the latt latter’ er’s s propeller blades. Lopez was thrown off and was injured by the blades blades.. Lopez Lopez sued sued for damages damages arguin arguing g that that his inju injuri ries es were were caus caused ed by Durue Duruelo lo’s ’s,, Jiso Jison’ n’s s patro patron, n, negligence. Duruelo argues that Lopez did not file a protest required by Art. 835 of the Code of Commerce within 24 hours hours from from the collis collision ion which which renders renders his compla complaint int without cause of action. SC held that such provision only applies to merchant vessels. DOCTRINE: The mercantile laws, in making use of the word words s ship ship,, vess vessel els, s, boat boat,, emba embark rkat atio ion, n, etc. etc.,, refer refer excl exclus usiv ivel ely y to thos those e which hich are eng engaged aged in the the transportation of passengers and freight from one port to another or from one place to another, in other words, to merchant vessels and in no way can they or should they be unde unders rsto tood od as refe referr rrin ing g to plea pleasu sure re craf craft, t, yach yachts ts,, pontoons, health service and harbor police vessels, floating storeh storehous ouses, es, warshi warships ps or patrol patrol vessel vessels, s, coast coast guard guard vessels, fishing vessels, towboats, and other craft destined to other other uses, uses, such such as for instance instance coast and geodet geodetic ic surv survey ey,, thos those e enga engage ged d in scie scient ntif ific ic rese resear arch ch and and exploration, craft engaged in the loading and discharge of vessels from same to shore or docks, or in transhipment and those small craft which in harbors, harbors, along shore, bays, inlets, coves and anchorages are engaged in transporting passengers and baggage. FACTS: Augusto Lopez wanted to embark on the interisland steamer, San Jacinto, to go to Iloilo. This boat was in the anchor anchoring ing-gr -groun ound d of the port of Silay, Silay, some half half a mile mile distant from the port. Lopez rode, at the landing, the motor boat, Jison, which was engaged engaged in conveying passengers passengers
and luggage from the landing to boats at anchor, and which was owned and operated by Albino Jison, with Juan Duruelo as patron. The engineer (maquinista) (maquinista) aboard was Rodolin Duruelo, a boy,16 years of age, with no experience in the running of motor boats and on the day of the incident is said to have been the third day of his apprenticeship. Jison had 14 passengers while its capacity was only for eight or nine. As Jison approached San Jacinto in a perfectly quiet sea, it came too near to the stern of the ship, and as the propeller of the ship ship had not stoppe stopped, d, the blades blades of the propel propeller ler struck Jison and sank it. Lopez was thrown into the water and the revolving blades inflicted various injuries upon him, consisting of a bruise in the breast, two serious fractures of the bones of the left leg, and a compound fracture of the left femur which caused hospital confinement of 8 months. Lope Lopez z file filed d a comp compla lain intt for for dama damage ges s argu arguin ing g that that the the appr approa oach ch of Jiso Jison n to a dang dangero erous us prox proxim imit ity y with with the the propeller of the San Jacinto was due to the negligence of Juan Duruelo. Lopez seeks P120,000 damages. Duruelo and Jison filed a demurrer arguing the complaint does not allege that a protest had been presented by Lopez within 24 hours after the occurrence, to the competent authority at the port where the accident occurred required by article 835 of the Code of Commerce in order to show a good cause of action ISSUES: Whether or not a protest is required in this case for there to be a cause of action. RATIO: No. Protest is not required because Art. 835 only covers vessels and the term vessel does not cover a boat not engaged in maritime commerce such as the Jison. RULING: Article 835 of the Code of Commerce is found in the section dealing with collisions, and the context shows the collisions collisions intended are collisions collisions of sea-going sea-going vessels and cannot be applied to small boats engaged in river and bay traffic. The 3rd Book of the Code of Commerce, dealing with Maritime Commerce, of which the section of Collisions forms a part, was intended to define the law relative to
TRANSPORTATION | B2015 CASE DIGESTS
mechant vessels and marine shipping; and run by masters having special training, with the elaborate apparatus of crew and equipment indicated in the Code. The word "vessel" (Spanish "buque," "nave") was not intended to include minor craft engaged only in river and bay traffic. Other vessels of a minor nature not engaged in maritime commerce, such as river boats and those carrying passengers from ship to shore, must be governed, as to their liability to passengers, by the provisions of the Civil Code or other appropriate special provisions of law. This conclusion is substantiated by the writer Estasen who comments: “The mercantile laws, in making use of the words ship, vessels, boat, embarkation, etc., refer exclusively to those which are engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight from one port to another or from one place to another, in other words, to merchant vessels and in no way can they or should they be understood as referring to pleasure craft, yachts, pontoons, health service and harbor police vessels, floating storehouses, warships or patrol vessels, coast guard vessels, fishing vessels, towboats, and other craft destined to other uses, such as for instance coast and geodetic survey, those engaged in scientific research and exploration, craft engaged in the loading and discharge of vessels from same to shore or docks, or in transhipment and those small craft which in harbors, along shore, bays, inlets, coves and anchorages are engaged in transporting passengers and baggage.” In Yu Con vs. Ipil, the SC held that a small vessel used for the transportation of merchandise by sea and for the making of voyages from one port to another of these Islands, equipped and victualed for this purpose by its owner, is a vessel, within the purview of the Code of Commerce, for the determination of the character and effect of the relations created between the owners of the merchandise laden on it and its owner.
In the case, Jison was propelled by a second-hand motor, originally used for a tractor plow; and it had a capacity for only eight persons. It was used for carrying of passengers and luggage between the landing and ships in the harbor. This was not such a boat as is contemplated in article 835 of the Code of Commerce, requiring protest in case of collision. The word "nave"(Ship) in Spanish, which is used interchangeably with "buque "(vessel) in the Code of Commerce, means, according to the Spanish-English Dictionary complied by Edward R. Bensley, " Ship, a vessel with decks and sails." A deck is not a feature of the smallest types of water craft. The case of Mamie from the Federal Court in the United States held that only vessels engaged in what is ordinarily known as maritime commerce are within the provisions of law conferring limited liability on the owner in case maritime disaster. The French author Dufour says “as a general rule, it appears to me clearly, both by the letter and spirit of the law, that the provisions of the Second Book of the Commercial Code(French) relate exclusively to maritime and not to fluvial navigation; and that consequently the word 'ship' when it is found in these provisions, ought to be understand in the sense of a vessel serving the purpose of maritime navigation of seagoing vessel, and not in the sense of a vessel devoted to the navigation of rivers." Thus, Art. 835 does not apply and a protest is not required. But even if it was required, an individual who has suffered a compound fracture of the femur and received other physical injuries sufficient to keep him in a hospital for months, cannot be supposed to have in a condition to make protest within 24 hours of such occurrence. It follows that the demurrer in this case was not well taken and should have been overruled.
TRANSPORTATION | B2015 CASE DIGESTS
DISPOSITIVE: The judgment appealed from is REVERSED, the demurrer overruled, and the defendant is required to answer the complaint within five days after notification of the return of this decision to the court of origin.
