G.R. No. 10513 - Urquijo, et al. vs. Hijos de I. de La Rama, et al.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 10513           September 21, 1917

URQUIJO, ZULUAGA AND ESCUBI,plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA, and ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA,defendants-appellants.

J. M. Arroyo for appellants.
Ruperto Montinola for appellees.

JOHNSON,J.:

The purpose of the present action was to recover damages for the loss of the sailing vesselCarmencita, the property of the plaintiffs, and her cargo which was lost at high sea in a collision with the steamshipTaculinwhich belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the saidCarmencitawas lost at sea through the negligence of the agents and representatives of the defendants in managing and operating the said steamshipTaculin. It is alleged that on or about midnight of the 27th day of April, 1914, the saidCarmencitawas sailing south from the city of Cebu and, at the time of the collision, was just east of the Island of Guimaras between the point Culasi of the Island of Guimaras and Pulupandan, a part of the municipality of Valladolid of the province of Occidental Negros; that the steamshipTaculinwas sailing north and had come from the said port of Pulupandan; and that at that point a collision took place between the said two ships, caused by the negligence of the captain and crew of the saidTaculin; and that as a result of said collision the sailing vesselCarmencitawas totally destroyed together with her cargo as well as the life of one of the passengers, the daughter of the captain; that the value of the cargo was P225; and that the value of the said sailing vessel was P5,500.

The defendants filed a general denial. Upon the issue presented by the petition and the answer the case was brought on for trial. After hearing the evidence, the Honorable J. S. Powell, judge, found that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the defendants, through their agents and representatives, in managing the steamshipTaculinnegligently destroyed the sailing vesselCarmencitatogether with her cargo, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the sum of P5,225 with interest from the 22d day of October, 1914, until paid, and the costs. From that judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

In their first assignment of error the appellants alleged that the lower court committed an error in finding that the said sailing shipCarmencitacarried lights at the time of the collision. Upon that question the captain of theCarmencitaand several members of her crew swore positively that the said ship was lighted in accordance with the requirements of navigation. She had a green light upon the starboard and a red light upon the larboard side of the boat as well as the lights. The statements of the captain and his crew were also supported by the captain of another boat, the Estrella, who passed theCarmencitaa short time before the collision took place. That captain swore that theCarmencitahad the usual lights; that he passed near by the saidCarmencitaon the night in question. The captain of theTaculinswore that he did not see any lights upon theCarmencitaat the time of or immediately before the collision took place. Upon the first assignment of error there seems to be a large preponderance of evidence in favor of the finding of the lower court.

The appellants in their second assignment of error alleged that the court erred in finding that the captain of theTaculinwas guilty of negligence. The captain of theTaculinswore that he did not see theCarmencitauntil he was right upon her; that he was within twenty brazas before he saw her. The captain of theCarmencitaswore that he saw theTaculinapproaching; that he first saw the red light of theTaculin; that almost immediately he saw the green light of theTaculin; and that then the collision occurred. If it be true that the captain of theCarmencitafirst saw the red light of theTaculinand then very shortly saw the green light that fact is proof positive that theTaculinhas changed her course; for if she had continued in the direction in which she was going at the time the captain of theCarmencitasaw the red light, she would have passed upon the port side of theCarmencita. To have changed her course, which the captain of theTaculinadmitted so as to display the green light upon the starboard side is proof positive that such a change in course brought theTaculinin a direction which would cross the path of theCarmencita. The proof shows that theTaculincollided with theCarmencitaupon the port side which was the natural result for the change of course above indicated, by theTaculinwhich enabled the captain of theCarmencitato see the green light of theTaculinafter he had first seen the red light. It will be remembered that the red light are always put upon the starboard side of the ship at sea. As further proof of the negligence of the captain of theTaculinwe have the declaration of captain Echevaria. He testified that had theTaculinbeen properly managed, the collision might have been avoided after the time when the captain of theTaculinfirst saw theCarmencitaat a distance of twentybrazasor about 120 feet. Captain Echevaria testified that even in a shorter distance that 120 feet the collision might have been avoided.

In considering the question of negligence we must not overlook the fact that theCarmencitawas a sailing vessel while theTaculinwas a ship operated by steam, nor the International Rules (article 20) for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea that; "If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other a steamship, are proceedings in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship."

Article 21 of the International Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea provides that; "Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed."

The proof shows that the captain of theTaculinchanged the course of his ship in a way that brought it cross the path of theCarmencita. We are of the opinion that a large preponderance of the proof support the conclusion of the lower court that the captain of theTaculinwas negligent in the management of his ship, which directly caused the loss of the saidCarmencita.

In their third assignment of error the appellants alleged that the lower court committed an error in rendering a judgment against them for the sum of P5,225. It is admitted that the cargo was valued at P225. Several witnesses testified that theCarmencitawas worth more than P5,000. Some of the witnesses testified that she was worth, at least P5,500. There is sufficient proof in the record to justify the conclusion of the lower court that theCarmencitawas worth, at least P5,000. Valuing the ship at P5,000 and the cargo at P225 a judgment was rendered for the sum of P5,225. We think that part of the judgment of the lower court is fully sustained by a preponderance of the proof.

After a careful examination of the evidence we find no reasons for altering or modifying the judgment of the lower court. The same is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ.,concur.