Sunday, February 25, 2024

Case Digest: Barrios vs. Go Thing, 7 SCRA 535, G.R. No. L17192


Barrios vs. Go Thing, 7 SCRA 535, G.R. No. L17192, March 30, 1963

Subject: Transportation Law


FACTS

Petitioner Honorio Barrios, captain and/or master of the MV Henry I, received or otherwise intercepted an S.O.S. distress signal by blinkers from the MV Alfredo, owned and/or operated by respondent Carlos Go Thong & Company. Thereafter, he altered the course of said vessel, and steered and headed towards the beckoning MV Don Alfredo, which Barrios found to be in trouble, due to engine failure and the loss of her propeller. Upon getting close to the MV Don Alfreco, with the consent and knowledge of the captain and/or master of the MV Don Alfredo, Barrios caused the latter vessel to be tied to, or well-secured and connected with tow lines from the MV Henry, and proceeded moving until such time that a sister ship of MV Don Alfredo was sighted so that the tow lines were also released. Brought to the CFI of Manila, the court therein dismissed the case; with cost against Barrios. Barrios interposed an appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the service rendered by plaintiff to the defendant constituted "salvage" or "towage", and if so, whether the plaintiff may recover from the defendant compensation for such service.

RULING

No, it is not a salvage service.

Salvage defined “Salvage” has been defined as “the compensation allowed to persons by whose assistance a ship or her cargo has been saved, in whole or in part, from impending peril on the sea, or in recovering such property from actual loss, as in case of shipwreck, derelict, or recapture.”  Three elements are necessary to a valid salvage claim, namely, (1) a marine peril, (2) service voluntarily rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract, and (3) success in whole or in part, or that the service rendered contributed to such success.

In this case, no marine peril to justify valid salvage claim by Barrios against Go Thong. In case of danger of stranding, its anchor could be released, to prevent such occurrence. There was no danger that Go Thong’s vessel would sink given the smoothness of the sea and the fairness of the weather. That danger was absent shown by the fact that said vessel or its crew did not even find it necessary to lower its launch and two motor boats, to evacuate its passengers aboard. Neither did they find occasion to jettison the vessel’s cargo as a safety measure. Neither the passengers nor the cargo were in danger of perishing. All that the vessel’s crew members could not do was to move the vessel on its own power. That did not make the vessel a quasi-derelict. Contract of towage perfected even without written agreement

In consenting to Barrios’ offer to tow the vessel, Go Thong (through the captain of its vessel MV Don Alfredo) thereby impliedly entered into a juridical relation of “towage” with the owner of the vessel MV Henry I, captained by Barrios, the William Lines. Only the owner is entitled to remuneration in towage If the contract thus created is one for towage, then only the owner of the towing vessel, to the exclusion of the crew of the said vessel, may be entitled to remuneration.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...