G.R. No. L-17192 - Barrios vs. Go Thong and Co.

The dispute arose from an incident on May 1–2, 1958, involving two vessels: the MV Henry I (commanded by plaintiff Honorio M. Barrios, employed by William Lines, Incorporated) and the MV Don Alfredo (owned/operated by defendant Carlos A. Go Thong & Company).
The plaintiff, acting in his capacity as captain (and/or roaster) of the MV Henry I, received a distress signal transmitted by blinkers from the MV Don Alfredo.

On the evening of May 1, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., the plaintiff intercepted the distress signal and altered the course of the MV Henry I to approach the MV Don Alfredo, which was reportedly adrift due to an engine failure and loss of propeller.
At approximately 8:25 p.m., the plaintiff managed to bring his vessel within seven meters of the MV Don Alfredo. With the consent and knowledge of the latter’s master, he secured the distressed vessel by connecting tow lines.

The MV Henry I towed the MV Don Alfredo throughout the night as both vessels headed towards the vicinity of Dumaguete City, with documented assistance from the MV Don Alfredo’s officers.
On the morning of May 2, 1958, around 5:10 a.m., while nearing Apo Island off Zamboanga town, Negros Oriental, the MV Lux (a sister ship of the MV Don Alfredo) was sighted approaching.
Following the request of the MV Don Alfredo’s master, the plaintiff released the tow lines after approximately nine hours of towing.

Both parties agreed on the factual sequence as indicated by the evidentiary certificate executed by the MV Don Alfredo’s officers.
Despite the mutual acknowledgment of events, a dispute arose regarding the legal nature of the service provided by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff based his claim on the Salvage Law (Act No. 2616), arguing that the ship was in imminent danger and that his intervention constituted salvage eligible for compensation.
Additionally, the plaintiff suggested a claim under Article 2142 of the New Civil Code, which recognizes quasi-contractual relations arising from certain voluntary acts intended to prevent unjust enrichment.
The defendant countered by asserting that the circumstances did not amount to either a salvage situation or a claim for independent remuneration, particularly noting that the service rendered was mere towage and that any compensation should vest solely with the vessel owner.

The trial court determined that despite the distress signal, the MV Don Alfredo was neither abandoned nor in a perilous state that would warrant salvage under the law.
The court observed that the weather conditions were fair, with a smooth sea and adequate moonlight, ensuring there was no immediate danger to life or cargo.
The court further noted that the towing operation was conducted in a situation where rescue and assistance were readily available (as evidenced by the arrival of the MV Lux), thereby negating a claim of imminent peril.

Whether the assistance provided by the plaintiff constituted “salvage” under the Salvage Law (Act No. 2616) or was merely a “towage” service.

If the act is considered salvage, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation under the Salvage Law.
If the service is categorized as towage, whether a quasi-contractual claim under Article 2142 of the New Civil Code could independently entitle the plaintiff to remuneration.
Whether equity may be invoked to provide additional relief to the plaintiff for the services rendered, despite the absence of statutory justification.