Case Digest: Magsaysay vs. Agan, 96 Phil. 504, G.R. No. L6393

 

Magsaysay vs. Agan, 96 Phil. 504, G.R. No. L6393, January 31, 1955

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The S S "San Antonio", vessel owned and operated by plaintiff bound for Basco, Batanes, vis Aparri, Cagayan, with general cargo belonging to different shippers, among them the defendant. It made a day's stopover and while in Aparri port, it ran aground at the mouth of the Cagayan river. In attempt to refloat it, plaintiff employed the Luzon Stevedoring Co. at an agreed compensation.

The plaintiff brought the present action in the CFI of Manila to make defendant pay his contribution on the expenses incurred in refloating the vessel which constitutes the general average and shared by the cargo owners.

Defendant, in his answer, denies liability to his amount, alleging, among other things, that the stranding of the vessel was due to the fault, negligence and lack of skill of its master.

After trial, the lower court found for plaintiff and rendered judgment against the defendant for the amount of the claim, with legal interests. Hence, this petition by the defendant.

ISSUE

Whether or not the expenses incurred in floating a vessel so stranded should be considered general average and shared by the cargo owners.

RULING

No, the expenses cannot be considered general average and shared by the cargo owners.

Under the law, the following are requisites for the general average: (1) there must be a common danger; (2) that for the common safety part of the vessel or of the cargo or both is sacrificed deliberately; (3) that from the expenses or damages caused follows the successful saving of the vessel and cargo; and (4) that the expenses or damages should have been incurred or inflicted after taking proper legal steps and authority.

In this case, concerning the requisites for the general average: (1) the evidence does not disclose that the expenses sought to be recovered from the defendant were incurred to save the vessel and cargo from a common danger; (2) the expenses in question were not incurred for the common safety of vessel and cargo, since they, or at least the cargo, were not in imminent peril; (3) the sacrifice was for the benefit of the vessel to enable it to proceed to destination and not to save the cargo, thus, the cargo owners are not in law bound to contribute to the expenses; and lastly, (4) it does not appear that the expenses here in question were incurred after following the procedure laid down in article 813 of the Code of Commerce. Absent all requisites, this case is not made out for the general average. Therefore, the expenses cannot be shared by the cargo owners.