FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-3124. January 3, 1907. ]
THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Enrique N. Barretto, for Appellant.
Modesto Reyes, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ADMIRALTY; COLLISION; EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE. — Held, That the evidence quoted in the opinion did not prove that the collision between the steamboat of the plaintiff and the lorcha of the defendant was caused by the negligence of those in charge of the latter.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The opinion of a witness that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, when he does not testify to any facts upon which such opinion is based, does not prove such negligence.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The opinion of a witness that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, when he does not testify to any facts upon which such opinion is based, does not prove such negligence.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
The steamship Pluto, belonging to the plaintiff, while lying at its dock in the Pasig River on the 5th day of January, 1904, was run into by lorcha No. 1, belonging, as the plaintiff alleged, to the defendant, and was damaged, as the plaintiff also alleged, to the amount of 5,292 pesos. Judgment was rendered in the court below against the defendant for that sum,. for which judgment he appealed.
In this court he makes the point that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the persons in charge of the lorcha. In answer to this claim, the appellee refers to the testimony of Golden and Collins, and claims that this testimony is sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the person in the lorcha. The testimony of Golden who was the master of the launch St. Paul on that day, so far as it relates to this point, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Q. Will you please inform the court what occurred while you were towing quartermaster lorcha No. 1, as you have testified? A. I towed quartermaster lorcha No. 1, from the quartersmaster dock to the arsenal dock, and just crossing from the dock, and I had to let go back of the lorcha. I was going slow at the time. I was about 400 feet, or over away from the dock.
"Q. What happened? — A. I cast off the lorcha and went to port, then turned around and was watching the lorcha, which was going slow, and that the tide was bringing them in all the time.
"Q. What did the lorcha do? — A. I could see the lorcha steering straight toward the stern of the Pluto, but I did not see her strike.
"Q. After you had cast off the lorcha, what did you do next? — A. I went to port of the casco of lumber and went on up the river and turned round, and while turning round I saw the lorcha going straight for the stern of the Pluto very slow, but I did not see her strike.
Collins was the engineer on the Pluto on that day. He testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"A. I had been working in the engine room, at the time the lorcha struck us, and Captain O’Brien came to the engine room and called me on deck, and said; "Look at this railing about the stern all broken by this lorcha, Our men were standing by with fenders, but could not do anything after the damage was done, so the captain sent a man to the launch to find out the captain’s name, and also the lorcha. That is all that I can say about the matter.
"Q. What did you do when Captain O’Brien came and called you? — A. I came on deck, and the men were shoving a lorcha off close by-shoving it right away from us.
Both parties agree that this is all the evidence in the case which tends to show any negligence on the part of the lorcha, and in our opinion it is entirely insufficient for that purpose. As will be noticed, there is nothing to show what the persons on the lorcha did or what they did not do; how many people there were on the lorcha; how near the lorcha was to the Pluto when the tow rope was cast off by the St. Paul; whether or not the people on the lorcha were notified by the captain of the St. Paul that he was going to cast them off; what time, if any, they had to prepare for such an event, and whether or not they knew that they had been cast adrift. On these points, as is seen, there was absolutely no evidence at all.
It was suggested in the court below that the Pluto being tied of the wharf and having been run into by the lorcha, there is a presumption that the accident was caused by the negligence of the lorcha. Whatever may be said of this presumption in other cases, it can have no application in this case since it affirmatively appears that the lorcha was being towed by the St. Paul, and whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the people on the lorcha or by the tow so unexpectedly does not appear.
The case was continued from January to July to enable the defendant to present the testimony of O’Brien, captain of the Pluto, and who evidently was an eyewitness of the accident. He was not produced at that time as a witness, but in this place Collins, the engineer, testified. Why he was not produced does not appear, but the reason may perhaps may be inferred from a statement made by him on the day following the accident, when reporting it, which statement was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. In that report he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This accident occurred while the S.S. Pluto was moored at its garbage dock, and everything was done, as far as putting out rattan fenders, to offset the force of the blow, as we could see the lorcha had a big rate of speed owing to the bad judgment on the part of the native patron of the launch St. Paul by letting go his towline.
"Q. In your judgment could the collision have been avoided if proper methods had been taken by the patron of the lorcha? — A. Yes, sir.
"Q. How could the collision have been avoided? — A. If they went to the port they could have gone right by the Pluto, and if they had gone to starboard they could have gone right to the dock; there was nothing lying there; the dock was empty.
"Q. Through whose fault, in your judgment, was the collision caused? — A. The fault of the patron of the lorcha.
It is very plain that this evidence can have no effect upon the result. The witness did not testify to the facts upon which he based his conclusion, even if with such testimony his opinion would have been competent.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint, with the costs of the first instance against the plaintiff. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
In this court he makes the point that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the persons in charge of the lorcha. In answer to this claim, the appellee refers to the testimony of Golden and Collins, and claims that this testimony is sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the person in the lorcha. The testimony of Golden who was the master of the launch St. Paul on that day, so far as it relates to this point, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Q. Will you please inform the court what occurred while you were towing quartermaster lorcha No. 1, as you have testified? A. I towed quartermaster lorcha No. 1, from the quartersmaster dock to the arsenal dock, and just crossing from the dock, and I had to let go back of the lorcha. I was going slow at the time. I was about 400 feet, or over away from the dock.
"Q. What happened? — A. I cast off the lorcha and went to port, then turned around and was watching the lorcha, which was going slow, and that the tide was bringing them in all the time.
"Q. What did the lorcha do? — A. I could see the lorcha steering straight toward the stern of the Pluto, but I did not see her strike.
x x x
"Q. After you had cast off the lorcha, what did you do next? — A. I went to port of the casco of lumber and went on up the river and turned round, and while turning round I saw the lorcha going straight for the stern of the Pluto very slow, but I did not see her strike.
Collins was the engineer on the Pluto on that day. He testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"A. I had been working in the engine room, at the time the lorcha struck us, and Captain O’Brien came to the engine room and called me on deck, and said; "Look at this railing about the stern all broken by this lorcha, Our men were standing by with fenders, but could not do anything after the damage was done, so the captain sent a man to the launch to find out the captain’s name, and also the lorcha. That is all that I can say about the matter.
"Q. What did you do when Captain O’Brien came and called you? — A. I came on deck, and the men were shoving a lorcha off close by-shoving it right away from us.
Both parties agree that this is all the evidence in the case which tends to show any negligence on the part of the lorcha, and in our opinion it is entirely insufficient for that purpose. As will be noticed, there is nothing to show what the persons on the lorcha did or what they did not do; how many people there were on the lorcha; how near the lorcha was to the Pluto when the tow rope was cast off by the St. Paul; whether or not the people on the lorcha were notified by the captain of the St. Paul that he was going to cast them off; what time, if any, they had to prepare for such an event, and whether or not they knew that they had been cast adrift. On these points, as is seen, there was absolutely no evidence at all.
It was suggested in the court below that the Pluto being tied of the wharf and having been run into by the lorcha, there is a presumption that the accident was caused by the negligence of the lorcha. Whatever may be said of this presumption in other cases, it can have no application in this case since it affirmatively appears that the lorcha was being towed by the St. Paul, and whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the people on the lorcha or by the tow so unexpectedly does not appear.
The case was continued from January to July to enable the defendant to present the testimony of O’Brien, captain of the Pluto, and who evidently was an eyewitness of the accident. He was not produced at that time as a witness, but in this place Collins, the engineer, testified. Why he was not produced does not appear, but the reason may perhaps may be inferred from a statement made by him on the day following the accident, when reporting it, which statement was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. In that report he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This accident occurred while the S.S. Pluto was moored at its garbage dock, and everything was done, as far as putting out rattan fenders, to offset the force of the blow, as we could see the lorcha had a big rate of speed owing to the bad judgment on the part of the native patron of the launch St. Paul by letting go his towline.
"Q. In your judgment could the collision have been avoided if proper methods had been taken by the patron of the lorcha? — A. Yes, sir.
x x x
"Q. How could the collision have been avoided? — A. If they went to the port they could have gone right by the Pluto, and if they had gone to starboard they could have gone right to the dock; there was nothing lying there; the dock was empty.
"Q. Through whose fault, in your judgment, was the collision caused? — A. The fault of the patron of the lorcha.
It is very plain that this evidence can have no effect upon the result. The witness did not testify to the facts upon which he based his conclusion, even if with such testimony his opinion would have been competent.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint, with the costs of the first instance against the plaintiff. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
