EN BANC trade, is a common carrier, and that the as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common
G.R. No. L-47447-47449 October 29, 1941 carrier, and that the relationship between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the
TEODORO R. YANGCO, ETC., petitioner, vs. MANUEL LASERNA, ET AL., respondents. mishap rests on a contract of carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of
contract of carriage, the exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law
MORAN, J.:
operates to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any.
“NO VESSEL, NO LIABILITY” In the instant case it does not appear that the vessel was insured.
FACTS: Whether the abandonment of the vessel sought by the petitioner in the instant case was in
steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to petitioner, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on accordance with law of not, is immaterial. The vessel having totally perished, any act of
its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly abandonment would be an idle ceremony. (emphasis supplied)
advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel set
sail. The boat was overloaded. Judgement is reversed and petitioner is hereby absolved of all the complaints, without costs.
After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and rough seas and as the sea
became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return to
port, but in the manuever, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to
capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap, among them were the
respondents.
ISSUE:
May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of the negligence of
its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its passengers? NO!
HELD:
Article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
“The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons
which arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the
vessel carried; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel
with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during the voyage.”
The provisions accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary
implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon — "the
vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." It is
true that the article appears to deal only with the limited liability of shipowners or agents for
damages arising from the misconduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel
carries, but this is a mere deficiency of language and in no way indicates the true extent of
such liability. The consensus of authorities is to the effect that notwithstanding the language
of the aforequoted provision, the benefit of limited liability therein provided for, applies in all
cases wherein the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or illicit
acts of the captain.
As evidence of this real nature of the maritime law we have (1) the limitation of the liability of the agents
to the actual value of the vessel and the freight money, and (2) the right to retain the cargo and the
embargo and detention of the vessel even in cases where the ordinary civil law would not allow more
than a personal action against the debtor or person liable.
Assuming that the shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to
or death of passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or
shipwrecks, his liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total
loss thereof results in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, we have not been
unmindful of the fact that the ill-fated steamship Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland
