Title
Ivancich vs. Odlin
Case
G.R. No. 924
Decision Date
May 1, 1902
The court denied the captain's writ of prohibition, affirming the judge's jurisdiction and allowing procedural errors to be rectified through alternative remedies.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 924)

Facts:

  • Petitioner: Pio Ivancich, captain of the Austrian steamer Marguerite.
  • Respondents: Arthur F. Odlin, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the Pacific Export Lumber Company.
  • Date: May 1, 1902.
  • Incident: Judge Odlin ordered the attachment of the steamer Marguerite based on a libel filed by the Pacific Export Lumber Company.
  • Allegations: The libel claimed the captain deviated from the vessel's course due to its unseaworthy condition, necessitating an unscheduled stop at Honolulu for coal, incurring additional costs of $4,327.90.
  • Further Claims: The deviation caused a loss of five and a half days, constituting a general average loss. Upon reaching Manila, the owners allegedly caused further damages by retaining freights and refusing to pay for remaining coal and to call for a general average contribution.
  • Legal Action: The captain, represented by attorneys Gibbs & Kincaid, moved to dissolve the attachment and dismiss the libel, arguing it was a nullity. The court overruled this motion.
  • Supreme Court Petition: Ivancich sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Odlin from continuing the proceedings and detaining the steamer based on an ex parte libel.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Odlin did not act without jurisdiction in ordering the attachment of the steamer Marguerite.
  2. The court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition,...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Arellano, held that under the Code of Commerce, an action in rem lies against any vessel for the enforcement of certain liens, allowing the vessel to be attached and sold.
  • The court found that the judge acted within his jurisdiction as the substantive and procedural laws under the Code of Commerce were still in force in the Philippines.
  • The court emphasized that the attachment and sale of vess...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.