Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3649)
Facts:
Jose Guzman v. William X, Captain of the Steamer Kudat, and Behn, Meyer & Co., G.R. No. 3649, October 24, 1907, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court.
In early January 1904 the owner Jose Guzman (plaintiff) contracted through an agent with Behn, Meyer & Co. (defendant agents of the steamer Kudat) to tow Guzman’s lorcha Nevada from Manila to Iloilo for P150. The agreement was for towage (not a charter party). On 4 January the captain of the Kudat took charge of the Nevada; on 5 January at noon the Kudat departed Manila with the lorcha in tow.
At about 9:30 p.m. on 5 January, while within sight of Cabras Island between Luzon and Mindoro, the port tow line broke. The captain ordered the lorcha brought to the steamer’s stern and, despite protests by the lorcha’s master (patron, arraez), compelled the lorcha’s crew to board the Kudat. The captain then ordered the tow line cut and cast the lorcha adrift; the Nevada was thereafter lost and never reached Iloilo.
Upon arrival at Iloilo on 7 January, the master of the lorcha lodged a formal protest with the collector of customs stating that weather and sea conditions were fair and that the lorcha could have been left in safety near nearby islands; the captain of the Kudat filed no protest. Guzman sued in the Court of First Instance of Manila for indemnity of P49,000 plus costs. Behn, Meyer & Co. denied the allegations. The CFI rendered judgment on 19 October 1904 ordering the defendants (Behn, Meyer & Co.) to pay P9,000 and costs. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they duly excepted.
The appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance reached the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the towage contract between Jose Guzman and Behn, Meyer & Co. proved and enforceable against the defendants?
- Are Behn, Meyer & Co., as agents of the steamer *Kudat*, civilly liable for the loss of the lorcha caused by the captain’s conduct?
- Did the captain’s abandonment of the lorcha constitute negligence or willful conduct excusing liability (i.e., was there force majeure), and did the defendants sustain the burd...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)