etitioner.

Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission

etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
 sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission

etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.
Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission
etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission

etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
 sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission

etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.
Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission
etitioner.
Powell & Vega for respondents.

MORAN, J.:

At about one o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S.S. Negros, belonging to
petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its retun trip to Manila. Typhoon
signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called
by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by
the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other
equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the
vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some
lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being
limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and
rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies'
dresses, the awnings were lowered. 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 being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia
Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother-in-law, are respondents in G.R. No.
47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P.A. de Laserna in G.R.
47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G.R. No. 47449. These
respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner
here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the
heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldana the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and
those of Genaro Basana, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effcet, petitioner, by a
verified pleading, sought to abandon th evessel to the plainitffs in the three cases, together with all
its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an
appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgmnets were affirmed except that which
sums was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his
legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: 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? We are of the opinion
and so hold that this question is controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads:

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. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de
Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:

La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de
abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que dierQe
lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

¿Es ese el espiritu del legislador? No; ¿habra derecho de abandono en las
responsabilidades nacidas de obligaciones contraidas por el Capitan y de otros actos de
este? Lo reputamos evidente y, para fortalecer nuestra opinion, basta copiar el siguiente
parrafo de la Exposicion de motivos:

"El proyecto, al aplicar estos principios, se inspira tambien en los intereses del
comercio maritimo, que quedaran mas asegurados ofreciendo a todo el que contrata
con el naviero o Capitan del buque, la garantia real del mismo, cualesquiera que
sean las facultades o atribuciones de que se hallen investidos." (Echavarri, Codigo
de Comercio, Tomo 4, 2. a ed., pags. 483-484.)

A cursory examination will disclose that the principle of liomited liability of a shipowner or agent is
provided for in but three articles of the Code of Commerce — article 587 aforequoted and article 590
and 837. Article 590 merely reiterates the principle embodied in article 587, applies the same
principle in cases of collision, and it has been observed that said article is but "a necessary
consequences of the right to abandon the vessel given to the shipowner in article 587 of the Code,
and it is one of the many superfluities contained in the Code." (Lorenzo Benito, Lecciones 352,
quoted in Philippine Shipping Co. vs. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281, 282.) In effect, therefore, only articles 587
and 590 are the provisions conatined in our Code of Commerce on the matter, and the framers of
said code had intended those provisions to embody the universal principle of limited liability in all
cases. Thus, in the "Exposicon de Motivos" of the Code of Commerce, we read:

The present code (1829) does not determine the juridical status of the agent where such
agent is not himself the owner of the vessel. This omission