1. SHIPS AND SHIPPING; COLLISIONS OR SHIPWRECKS; CIVIL LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNER FOR INJURY TO OR DEATH OF PASSENGERS ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF CAPTAIN. — If the shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death of passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or shipwrecks, his liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, the fact is not ignored that the ill-fated S. S. Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common carrier, and that the relationship between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage, the exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear that the vessel was insured.

At about one o’clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1927, the steamer S. S. Negros, belonging to petitioner here, Teodoro R. Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. Baggage, trunks and other equipments were heaped on the upper deck, the hold being packed to capacity. In addition, the vessel carried thirty sacks of crushed marble and about one hundred sacks of copra and some lumber. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel’s capacity being limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara, and as the waves splashed the ladies’ dresses, the awnings were ordered lowered. As the sea became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return to port, but in the maneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap, among them being Antolin Aldaña and his son Victorioso, husband and son, respectively, of Emilia Bienvenida who, together with her other children and a brother- in-law, are respondents in G. R. No. 47447; Casiana Laserna, the daughter of respondents Manuel Laserna and P. A. de Laserna in G. R. No. 47448; and Genaro Basaña, son of Filomeno Basaña, respondent in G. R. No. 47449. These respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of Capiz separate civil actions against petitioner here to recover damages for the death of the passengers aforementioned. The court awarded the heirs of Antolin and Victorioso Aldaña the sum of P2,000; the heirs of Casiana Laserna, P590; and those of Genaro Basaña, also P590. After the rendition of the judgment to this effect, Petitioner, by a verified pleading, sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in the three cases, together with all its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgments were affirmed except that which awarded to the Aldañas the sum of P2,000, which sum was increased to P4,000. Petitioner, now deceased, appealed and is here represented by his legal representative.

Brushing aside the incidental issues, the fundamental question here raised is: May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of the negligence of its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its passengers? We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is controlled by the provision of article 587 of the Code of Commerce. Said article reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during the voyage."cralaw virtua1aw library

The provision accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." It is true that the article appears to deal only with the limited liability of shipowners or agents for damages arising from the misconduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carries, but this is a mere deficiency of language and in no way indicates the true extent of such liability. The consensus of authorities is to the effect that notwithstanding the language of the aforequoted provision, the benefit of limited liability therein provided for, applies in all cases wherein the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or illicit acts of the captain. Dr. Jose Ma. Gonzalez de Echavarri y Vivanco, commenting on said article, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"La letra del Codigo, en el articulo 587, presenta una gravisima cuestion. El derecho de abandono, si se atiende a lo escrito, solo se refiere a las indemnizaciones a que diere lugar la conducta del Capitan en la custodia de los efectos que cargo en el buque.

"