Title
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Philippine Steamship Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 18957
Decision Date
Jan 16, 1923
Collision between *Isabel* and *Antipolo* due to mutual negligence; *Antipolo*'s owner held solidarily liable for lost rice under Article 827, Code of Commerce.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 18957)

Incident Overview

The facts indicate that the Isabel set sail from Manila destined for Balayan, Batangas, carrying its cargo of rice. After departing, around 10 PM on February 10, 1920, both vessels spotted each other when they were approximately one to two miles apart. While both vessels were operating at a speed of roughly six miles per hour, a critical decision by the mate of the Antipolo to alter its course became an essential point of contention. Upon realizing the risk of collision, the mate of the Antipolo turned hard to starboard, a maneuver which could have averted disaster had the mate of the Isabel responded similarly.

Negligence Attribution

The Court of First Instance determined that negligence could be attributed to both vessels, albeit of differing degrees. The mate of the Antipolo was found negligent for allowing the vessel to close in on the Isabel without taking evasive measures sooner, while the mate of the Isabel was particularly faulted for making an ill-advised turn to port instead of maintaining a course that could have avoided the collision. The court noted that exhaustion on the part of the mate on the Isabel, who had been on duty continuously, may have contributed to the lapse in judgment.

Legal Principles and Application

The court applied Article 827 of the Code of Commerce, which addresses situations where both vessels are at fault and stipulates that they shall be solidarily responsible for damages incurred. Given that the Isabel sustained a total loss and therefore could not contribute to any liability, the court determined that full responsibility for the damages fell to the Philippine Steamship Company, Inc. The decision reinforced that liability under Article 827 is not exclusively dependent on the ability to identify a single culpable party; rather, it accommodates circumstances where both vessels share blame.

Conclusion and Judgment Affirmation

The appellate court found no error in the initial ruling from the Court of First

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.