CASE: WING KEE COMPRADORING COMPANY vs. THE BARK MONONGAHELA, et.al.

FACTS:

Wing Kee Compradoring Company furnished various goods, wares and merchandise for the use of the crew of Bark Monongahela. These supplies were delivered to The Admiral Line, acting as agent of the bark, as stipulated in the requisitions. All the requisitions were made by the steward and the master of the bark and returned to the Admiral Line along with six copies of invoice immediately upon delivery of the goods. On August 2, 1921, a notice was published in the Manila Day Bulletin stating that The Admiral Line ceased to act as agent for Monongahela. Notwithstanding such notice, Wing Kee continued to furnish supplies for Monongahela. When the respondent refused to pay, herein plaintiff filed a complaint for the recovery of sum of money amounting to P 17,675.64, with interest and costs. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE:

Is The Admiral Line, as agent of the Bark Monongahela, liable for the goods delivered by Wing Kee Compradoring?

RULING:

Yes, the Admiral Line, as agent of the Bark Monongahela, is liable to the plaintiff for supplies furnished between March 16 and August 2, 1921 but is not responsible for supplies furnished after that date. Article 586 of the Code of Commerce provides that The owner of a vessel and the agent shall be civilly liable for the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted by the latter to repair, equip, and provision of the vessel, provided the creditor proves that the amount claimed was invested therein. Hence, Admiral Line is liable as an agent.

CASE: DIONISIA ABUEG, et.al. vs. BARTOLOME SAN DIEGO

FACTS:

The plaintiff-appellees in this consolidated case are the widows of the deceased employees of M/S San Diego II and M/S Bartolome S, owned by the defendant-appellant. These motor ships were caught by a typhoon while engaged in fishing operations in Mindoro Island. They sunk and were totally lost and Amado Nunez, Victoriano Salvaciion and Francisco Oching, while acting in their capacities as machinist of San Diego II, machinist of Bartolome S, and captain or patron of Bartolome S, respectively, perished in the shipwreck. The heirs of the deceased employees claimed for compensation provided for in the Workmens Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. Bartolome San Diego, the owner of the motor ships, denied liability by citing various provisions in the Code of Commerce. Counsel for the appellant cited Article 587 of the said code which provides that if the vessel together with her tackle and freight money earned during the voyage are abandoned, the agents liability to third persons for tortious acts of the captain and in the care of the goods which the ship carried is extinguished; Article 837 which provides that the ship owners liability is limited to the value of the vessel with all her equipment and freight earned during the voyage in cases of collision; and Article 643 which provides that if the vessel and freight are totally lost, the agents liability for wages of the crew is extinguished.

ISSUE:

Is the ship owner liable for compensation of the employees who died while in the performance of their duties?

RULING:

Yes, the ship owner is liable pursuant to the Workmens Compensation Act. Section 39 (d) of the same Act states that industrial employment includes all employment or work at trade, occupation or profession exercised by an employer for the purpose of gain. Fishing industry can, at the same time, be considered as trade when the catch is brought to a port for sale. And as such, the sunken vessels used in the fishing operations can be validly treated as a form of trade, covered by the Workmens Compensation Act. Hence, the ship owner is liable to compensate the heirs of the deceased employees.