YU BIAO

DOCTRINE: The general liability of a vessel owner extends to losses by fire arising from other than a
natural or other excepted cause, whether occurring on the ship accidentally, or communicated from
another vessel, or from the shore; and the fact that fire produces the motive power of a boat does not
affect the case. Such losses are not within the exceptions either of act of God, or peril of the sea, except
by local custom, unless proximately caused by one of these events. In jurisdictions where the civil law
obtains, however, it has been held that if property on a steamboat is destroyed by fire, the owners of
the boat are not responsible, if it was being navigated with proper diligence, although the accident
occurred at night. The common law liability extends even to loss by fires caused entirely by spontaneous
combustion of the cargo, without any negligence on the part of master or crew.
FACTS:
A fire broke on board the motor boat Alfonso owned by the defendant while it was about to weigh
anchor from the Pasig River.
The fire spread to and the steamer Y. Sontua of the plaintiff causing damages on its deck. It appears that
2,000 cases of petroleum and 8,473 cases of gasoline were loaded on the motor boat Alfonso, of which
5,000 cases of gasoline and 2,000 cases of petroleum were placed in the hold of said motor boat, and
the balance on the deck; and that the loading was done without permission from the customs
authorities; that the loading was by means of straps supporting 10 to 12 cases at a time; and the said
cases were placed in the hold about 14 feet from the boiler of the main engine and about 4 feet from
the boiler of the smaller engine. It was shown by expert testimony that after several transshipments of
more than 8,000 cases of gasoline and 2,200 cases of petroleum there is bound to be a leakage due to
the fact that the loading was effected by means of straps supporting from 10 to12 cases at a time
which, quite frequently, receive violent bumps resulting in damage to the cans. It was also shown that
the gases formed by the volatilization of the gasoline or petroleum leaking from the cases are apt to
accumulate in a compartment, such as the hold of a ship, without sufficient ventilation causing the
gases to ignite upon coming in contact with a spark or upon the temperature being sufficiently raised.
ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is liable for the negligence of his agents and employees
HELD: YES.
The fire which caused the damages for which the plaintiff seeks to be indemnified was the inevitable
effect of the explosion and fire which occurred in the motor boat Alfonso; that this explosion and fire in
the said motor boat is, with good ground, imputable to the negligence of the persons having charge at
that time of said motor boat and under whose direction the loading of the aforesaid cases of petroleum
and gasoline had been performed.
It is proven that the agents and employees, through whose negligence the explosion and fire in question
occurred, were agents, employees, and mandatories of the defendant. Where the vessel is one of
freight, a public concern or public utility, its owner or agent is liable for the tortious acts of his agents

(arts. 587, 613, and 618, Code of Commerce; and arts. 1902, 1903, 1908, Civil Code). This principle has
been repeatedly upheld in various decisions of this court.
The general liability of a vessel owner extends to losses by fire arising from other than a natural or other
excepted cause, whether occurring on the ship accidentally, or communicated from another vessel, or
from the shore; and the fact that fire produces the motive power of a boat does not affect the case.
Such losses are not within the exceptions either of act of God, or peril of the sea, except by local custom,
unless proximately caused by one of these events. In jurisdictions where the civil law obtains, however,
it has been held that if property on a steamboat is destroyed by fire, the owners of the boat are not
responsible, if it was being navigated with proper diligence, although the accident occurred at night. The
common law liability extends even to loss by fires caused entirely by spontaneous combustion of the
cargo, without any negligence on the part of master or crew.

DOCTRINE: The rule is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a shipowner may be held liable for
injuries to passengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and hypothecary nature of maritime law if
fault can be attributed to the shipowner.
FACTS:
Sometime in April 1980, Ramon Miranda, one of the private respondents in this case purchased four
special tickets (Numbers 74411, 74412, 74413 and 74414) from the petitioner for his wife, children and
niece who were then bound to leave for Bacolod City to attend a family reunion.
On 22 April 1980, private respondents aforementioned relatives boarded M/V Don Juan of Negros
Navigation Co., Inc., that was leaving Manila at 1:00 PM. As expected, said vessel sailed on time.
However, on the evening of 22 April, petitioners vessel collided with the M/T Tacloban City- an oil
tanker owned by the Philippine National Oil Corporation (PNOC) and the PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation (PNOC/STC). Obviously, several passengers perished in the sea tragedy. Some bodies were
found, and some, including the relatives of private respondents were never found.
Knowing the ill-fate of the M/V Don Juan, private respondents, namely Garcia and Sps de la Victoria filed
a complaint against the Negros Navigation, the PNOC, and the PNOC/STC. Private respondents sought
for damages for the death of their relatives namely Ardita de la Miranda, Rosario V. Miranda, Ramon
Miranda Jr., and Elfreda de la Victoria.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents, and asked petitioners, including PNOC
and PNOC/STC to pay the moral damages sought by Garcia and Sps. de la Victoria. And upon review by
the Court Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the RTCs decision with several modification.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the ruling in the Mecenas vs CA finding the crew members of petitioner to be
grossly negligent in the performance of their duties is binding in this case
(2) Whether or not the total loss of the M/V Don Juan extinguished petitioners liability
HELD:
(1) YES.
In finding petitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise the extraordinary diligence
required of it in the carriage of passengers, both the trial court and the appellate court relied on the
findings of this Court in Mecenas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, which case was brought for the
death of other passengers. In that case it was found that although the proximate cause of the
mishap was the negligence of the crew of the M/T Tacloban City, the crew of the Don Juan was
equally negligent as it found that the latters master, Capt. Rogelio Santisteban, was playing
mahjong at the time of collision, and the officer on watch, Senior Third Mate Rogelio De Vera,
admitted that he failed to call the attention of Santisteban to the imminent danger facing
them. This Court found that Capt. Santisteban and the crew of the M/V Don Juan failed to take
steps to prevent the collision or at least delay the sinking of the ship and supervise the abandoning
of the ship.
Petitioner Negros Navigation was found equally negligent in tolerating the playing of mahjong by
the ship captain and other crew members while on board the ship and failing to keep the M/V Don

Juan seaworthy so much so that the ship sank within 10 to 15 minutes of its impact with the
M/T Tacloban City.
In addition, the Court found that the Don Juan was overloaded. The Certificate of Inspection, dated
August 27, 1979, issued by the Philippine Coast Guard Commander at Iloilo City stated that the total
number of persons allowed on the ship was 864, of whom 810 are passengers, but there were
actually 1,004 on board the vessel when it sank, 140 persons more than the maximum number that
could be safely carried by it.
Adherence to the Mecenas case is dictated by this Court's policy of maintaining stability in
jurisprudence in accordance with the legal maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere" (Follow past
precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.) Where, as in this case, the same questions
relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case
litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to
relitigate the same issue.
(2) NO.
The rule is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a shipowner may be held liable for injuries to
passengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and hypothecary nature of maritime law if fault can
be attributed to the shipowner.
In Mecenas, this Court found petitioner guilty of negligence in (1) allowing or tolerating the ship
captain and crew members in playing mahjong during the voyage, (2) in failing to maintain the
vessel seaworthy and (3) in allowing the ship to carry more passengers than it was allowed to carry.
Petitioner is, therefore, clearly liable for damages to the full extent.