G.R. No.
L-10986 March 31, 1917
COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE vs. HAMBURG
FACTS:
1. COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE ET DE NAVIGATION D'EXTREME ORIENT (Compagnie)
is acorporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
France, with its principal office inParis and a branch office in Saigon, Vietnam. THE
HAMBURG
AMERIKA
PACKETFACHT ACTIENGESELLSCHAFT(Hamburg)
is
a
corporation organized under the laws of Germany with its principal office in
Hamburg and represented in Manila by Behn, Meyer & Company (Limited), a
corporation.2. HAMBURG owned a steamship named SAMBIA, which proceeded to
the port of Saigon and on board was the cargo belonging to COMPAGNIE. There were
rumors of impending war between Germany and France and other nations of
Europe. The master of the steamship was told to take refuge at a neutral port
(because Saigon was a French port).3. COMPAGNIE asked for compulsory detention
of its vessel to prevent its property from leaving Saigon. However, the Governor of
Saigon refused to issue an order because he had not been officially notified of the
declaration of the war.4. The steamship sailed from Saigon, and was bound for
Manila, because it was issued a bill of health by the US consul in Saigon.
The steamship stayed continuously in Manila and where it contends it will be
compelled to stay until the war ceases. No attempt was made on the part of
the defendants to transfer and deliver the cargo to the destinations as stipulated in
the charter party.5. BEHN, MEYER and COMPANY (agent of HAMBURG in Manila)
offered to purchase the cargo from COMPAGNIE, but the latter never received the
cable messages so they never answered. When a survey was done on the ship, it
was found that the cargo was infested with beetles, so BEHN asked for court
authority to sell the cargo and the balance to be dumped at sea. The proceeds of
the sale were deposited in the court, waiting for orders as to what to do
with it.6. BEHN wrote COMPAGNIE again informing the latter of the disposition which
it made upon the cargo. COMPAGNIE answered that it was still waiting for orders as
to what to do. COMPAGNIE wanted all the proceeds of the sale to be given to them
(damages, for the defendants failure to deliver the cargo to the destinations
Dunkirk and Hamburg), while defendants contended that they have a lien on the
proceeds of the sale (amount due to them because of the upkeep and maintenance
of the ship crew and for commissions for the sale of the cargo).6. The trial
court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendants made the following
assignments on appeal (that the court had no jurisdiction, that the fear of capture
was not force majeure, that the court erred inconcluding that defendant is liable for
damages for non-delivery of cargo, and the value of the award of damages). On
appeal, the plaintiffs also contended that the court erred in not giving the full value
of damages.
ISSUE:
WONthe master of the steamship was justified in taking refuge in Manila (therefore
being the cause ofthe non-delivery of the cargo belonging to the plaintiffs)
COMPAGNIE contends that the master should have in mind the accepted principles
of public international law, the established practice of nations, and the express
terms of the Sixth Hague Convention (1907). The master should have confidently
relied upon the French authorities at Saigon to permit him to sail to his port of
destination under a laissez-passer or safe-conduct, which would have secured both
the vessel and her cargo from all danger of capture by any of the belligerents. The
SHIPOWNER contends that the master was justified in declining to leave his vessel
in a situation in which it would be exposed to danger of seizure by the French
authorities, should they refuse to be bound by the alleged rule of international law.
HELD:
A shipmaster must be allowed a reasonable time in which to decide what course he
will adopt as to the disposition of his cargo, after entering a port of refuge;
and though he must act promptly thereafter, when the cargo is a perishable one,
neither he nor the ship owner is responsible for loss or damage suffered by the
cargo as a result of its detention aboard the vessel during such time as may
reasonably necessary to come to a decision in this regard. Under the circumstances
set out in the opinion, the master of the Sambia proceeded with all reasonable
dispatch and did all that could be required of a prudent man to protect the interests
of the owner of the cargo aboard is vessel; so that any losses which resulted from
the detention of the cargo aboard the Sambia must be attributed to
the act of the Enemy of the King which compelled the Sambia to flee to a port of
refuge, and made necessary the retention of the cargo aboard the vessel at anchor
under a tropical sun and without proper ventilation until it could be ascertained that
the interests of the absent owner would be consulted by the sale of this perishable
cargo in the local market. In fleeing from the port of Saigon, and taking refuge in
Manila Bay the master of the Sambia was not acting for the common safety of the
vessel and her cargo. The French cargo was absolutely secure from danger of
seizure or confiscation so long as it remained in the port in Saigon, and the flight of
the vessel was a measure of precaution adopted solely and exclusively for the
preservation of the vessel from the danger of seizure or capture.
Dispositive: So much of the judgment as provides for the delivery to the plaintiff of
the net proceeds of the sale of the cargo (P128,977.71) affirmed; but so much
thereof as allowed damages for a breach of the charter party(P60,841.32) reversed
