[Nos. L-6106-07.

 April 18, 1958]

MADRIGAL, TIANGCO & Co., plaintiff and appellant,  vs.HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON,
INC., defendant and appellee.

MADRIGAL, TIANGCO & Co., ET AL., plaintiff s and appellants,  vs.  ROMÁN MABANTA,
defendant and appellant. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, intervenor.

CARRIERS; UNSEAWORTHINESS; PRECLUDES RECOVERY OF THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL.

—A motor launch owned by the plaintiffs was chartered by the defendant from the date of actual delivery
thereof in seaworthy condition with the necessary documents to enable her to navigate. Delivery of the
motor launch was made after the date agreed upon. While manned by a complement engaged by the
defendant, the motor launch sank. Plaintiffs brought the present action to recover the value of the motor
launch. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that although it found that-there had been
delivery of the motor launch to the defendant, yet she was unseaworthy. Plaintiffs have
appealed. Held: Whether or not there was delivery of the motor launch on the date agreed upon becomes
unimportant if the motor launch was unseaworthy. The preponderance of evidence leans to the conclusion
that the

346

346 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madrigal, Tiangco & Co., et al: vs. Hanson, Orth

& Stevenson, Inc., et al.

motor launch was unseaworthy, because at the time it sank there was no typhoon; the waves were those
that were caused by the monsoon winds of the season; the motor launch did not touch bottom or hit anything
during her cruise in the bay; and the water was bubbling in the engine room, from which it may be inferred
that the underneath plankings gave way. This finding that the motor launch was unseaworthy precludes
recovery by the plaintiffs of the amount for which the motor was insured.

APPEAL from judgments of the Court of First Instance of Manila. San José, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
San Juan, Africa, Yñigo & Benedicto for appellants.
Nicodemus L. Dasig for appellee.
Nicodemus L. Dasig and Ramon Mabanta, Jr. for defendant and appellant.
Sixto de la Costa for intervenor.

PADILLA, J.:

On 6 January 1948, for and in consideration of the sum of P1,750 to be paid monthly as rental, a
motor launch named "Isla Verde" owned by the plaintiffs was chartered by the defendant for six
months from the date of actual delivery and acceptance, under and by virtue of a contract which,
among other terms, required delivery thereof on 20 January 1948, in seaworthy condition
together with the necessary documents to enable her to navigate. Delivery of the motor launch
was not made as agreed upon, because it was on 12 January 1948 only that the motor launch was
drydocked at Malabon to undergo repairs; and on 28 January 1948 she was transferred to the
dock of the defendant near the Hospicio de San José of the Isla Convalesencia and there some
additional improvements were made on the motor launch. On the 29th, manned by a complement
engaged by the def endant, the motor launch was
347

VOL. 103, APRIL 18, 1958 347

Madrigal, Tiangco & Co., et al. vs. Hanson, Orth &
Stevenson, Inc., et al.

put to sea and at 5:00 o'clock a.m. of the following day she sank off the coast of Limay, province of
Bataan, becoming a total loss. To recover P50,000, the estimated value of the motor launch with
all equipment and tackle and a monthly rental of P1,750, the plaintiffs brought this action. The
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, successor to the Agricultural & Industrial Bank, was
allowed to intervene to recover P10,745.06, together with a daily interest thereon of P1.77 from
18 January 1950 until the date of payment thereof, from the plaintiffs, should they be successful
in their claim against either the defendant or the insurance company, against which an action
was also brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount for which the motor launch was insured
under a policy issued by the insurance company. As the intervenor has not appealed from the
judgment dismissing its complaint, the same is no longer involved in these appeals.
The defendant in his answer denies liability for the sinking of the motor launch and claims in
a counterclaim P5,000 for unrealized profits; P2,500 for equipment and fishing tackle; P1,086.16
for the cost of repairs of four sets of nets and the value of the new ropes; and P1,485.28 for the
value of 5 blocks of ice, 2,754 gallons of crude oil, 3 drums of motor oil and 300 fish boxes.
After hearing the Court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without pronouncement
as to costs, on the ground that although it found that there had been delivery of the motor launch
to the defendant, yet she was unseaworthy. For the same reason the action against Hanson, Orth
& Stevenson, Inc. to recover the amount for which the motor launch was insured under a policy
issued by it was dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. From the judgment rendered in civil
case No. 4616 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, both the plaintiffs and the defendant have
appealed (G. R. No. L-6107); and from that rendered in civil case No. 5756 of the same Court the
plaintiff also has appealed (G. R. No. L-6106).
348

348 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madrigal, Tiangco & Co., et al. vs. Hanson, Orth &
Stevenson, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs contend that, as found by the trial court, there was delivery of the motor launch to
the defendant and that this finding not having been appealed by the defendant is now final On
the other hand, the defendant claims that the sinking of the motor launch off the coast of Limay,
Bataan, was due to her unseaworthiness and not to the incompetence or negligence of the
complement engaged by him (the defendant) to man her,
The preponderance of evidence leans towards the conclusion that there was no delivery of the
motor launch in accordance with the terms of the contract, because there was no license issued by
the Bureau of Customs, the license of the motor launch having expired on 6 June 1947 (Exhibit
E) and the special permit, on 15 December 1947 (Exhibits F and 12) ; there was no license issued
by the Bureau of Fisheries authorizing the motor launch to engage in deep sea fishing; and the
defendant refused to sign a document dated 28 January 1948 purporting to acknowledge receipt
or acceptance of the motor launch and to waive the delivery thereof on 20 January 1948 (Exhibit
3) in accordance with the terms of the contract (Exhibit A). Nevertheless, even if the motor
launch was not delivered on the date agreed upon, the fact that the defendant took possession
thereof when she was put to sea on 29 January 1948; and that if on that trip the motor launch
sank due to the negligence or incompetence of the  patron,  engineer, or crew engaged by the
defendant to man her, provided that she was seaworthy, the defendant would still be responsible
for the sinking of the motor launch, because he has to answer for the negligent acts of his agents.
Hence whether there was actual delivery or it was merely a trial run becomes unimportant if the
motor launch was unseaworthy. Again the preponderance of evidence leans toward the conclusion
that the motor launch was unseaworthy. And this conclusion is supported by the fact that there
was no typhoon; that the waves were those that were caused by the monsoon winds of the season
(Exhibit 13-E); and that the motor launch did not touch bottom
349

VOL. 103, APRIL 18, 1958 349

Madrigal, Tiangco & Co., et al vs. Hanson, Orth &
Stevenson, Inc., et al.

or hit anything during her cruise in the bay (Exhibit 13-C). The claim of the plaintiffs that the big
waves of the sea filled the engine room with water, one and one-half or two feet high, as a result
of which the engine stopped, and that the water could not be pumped out by the bilge pump,
cannot be believed, because according to Pedro Ala and Eugenio Maraginot they saw the water
bubbling in the engine room (pp. 738, 808, t.s.n.) and this testimony is corroborated by Zoilo
Belale, the patron, who said that he thought the water entered the engine room through the tail
shaft but that he was wondering why it was filled with water so soon (Exhibit 13-B, p. 3). This
was also found by the board of inquiry of the Bureau of Customs that investigated the sinking of
the motor launch with a view to finding the responsibility of the  patron.  For that reason the
board exonerated the  patron  from any negligence arising from the sinking of the motor launch
(Exhibit 13-C). The plaintiffs argue and contend that the board did not have jurisdiction to make
such finding and that it was a mere conjecture. The cause of the sinking of the motor launch was
connected with the responsibility of the patron for the sinking thereof. It is true that nobody saw
the. underneath plankings give way; but this fact may be inferred from the established facts that
there was no typhoon; that there were no big waves; that the motor launch did not touch bottom
or hit anything before she sank; and that the water was bubbling in the engine room.
The plaintiffs further contend that the motor launch was put to sea on 29 January 1948 an
uneven keel; that she was not properly loaded, because the oil weighing 11 tons and water
weighing 1 or 2 tons were placed at the astern, whereas only a few blocks of ice weighing 1,500
pounds were at the prow of the motor launch; that this unbalanced loading became worse because
of the fishing nets attached to the rear of the motor launch, of the weight of the chain which was
140 kilos, of the stones which was 40 kilos and of the aldake which could be carried only by four
persons if not wet and by six if wet.
350

350 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madrigal, Tiangco & Co., et al. vs. Hanson, Orth &
Stevenson, Inc., et al.
They conclude that the uneven keel of the motor launch constitutes negligence on the part of the
complement and the direct cause of the sinking thereof. The fact that the motor launch was run
and operated for 17 hours in the bay without mishap is strong proof that the cause of the sinking
was not the uneven keel. It was a different cause which as above stated is inferred from
established facts which need not be restated.
Another contention is that that the motor launch was thoroughly repaired and overhauled. But
such repair did not include the hull. If only water entered the engine room through the tail shaft,
it would not have been bubbling and could have been pumped out easily.
As to the claim of the defendant in his counterclaim, the trial court made the following
pronouncements.
With respect to the counterclaim of the defendant, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that the amount of
P5,000 cannot be recovered for being speculative. As to the amount of P2,500, the evidence disclosed that it
represents the purchase price of the equipment sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Under
the contract of charter the defendant is not entitled to the refund of said amount. As to the repairs made on
old equipment and the acquisition of new ones, the charter party being silent about the same, the defendant
cannot recover their cost from the plaintiffs.

We agree to this pronouncement of the trial court.

The finding that the motor launch was unseaworthy at the time she sank precludes recovery
by the plaintiffs of the amount for which the motor launch was insured under the policy issued by
the insurance company (paragraph 7 of the Marine Hull Policy, Annex A to the complaint filed in
civil case No. 5756).
The judgments appealed from are affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Parás, C. J.,  Bengzon,  Montemayor,  Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo,  Concepción,  Reyes, J. B.
L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

Judgments affirmed.
351

VOL. 103, APRIL 18, 1958 351

Albert vs. University Publishing Co., Inc.