CASE: WING KEE COMPRADORING

MONONGAHELA, et.al.

COMPANY

vs.

THE

BARK

FACTS:
Wing Kee Compradoring Company furnished various goods, wares and
merchandise for the use of the crew of Bark Monongahela. These supplies
were delivered to The Admiral Line, acting as agent of the bark, as stipulated
in the requisitions. All the requisitions were made by the steward and the
master of the bark and returned to the Admiral Line along with six copies of
invoice immediately upon delivery of the goods. On August 2, 1921, a notice
was published in the Manila Day Bulletin stating that The Admiral Line
ceased to act as agent for Monongahela. Notwithstanding such notice, Wing
Kee continued to furnish supplies for Monongahela. When the respondent
refused to pay, herein plaintiff filed a complaint for the recovery of sum of
money amounting to P 17,675.64, with interest and costs. The trial court
dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE:
Is The Admiral Line, as agent of the Bark Monongahela, liable for the goods
delivered by Wing Kee Compradoring?
RULING:
Yes, the Admiral Line, as agent of the Bark Monongahela, is liable to the
plaintiff for supplies furnished between March 16 and August 2, 1921 but is
not responsible for supplies furnished after that date. Article 586 of the Code
of Commerce provides that The owner of a vessel and the agent shall be
civilly liable for the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted by
the latter to repair, equip, and provision of the vessel, provided the creditor
proves that the amount claimed was invested therein. Hence, Admiral Line
is liable as an agent.
CASE: DIONISIA ABUEG, et.al. vs. BARTOLOME SAN DIEGO
FACTS:
The plaintiff-appellees in this consolidated case are the widows of the
deceased employees of M/S San Diego II and M/S Bartolome S, owned by the
defendant-appellant. These motor ships were caught by a typhoon while
engaged in fishing operations in Mindoro Island. They sunk and were totally
lost and Amado Nunez, Victoriano Salvaciion and Francisco Oching, while
acting in their capacities as machinist of San Diego II, machinist of Bartolome
S, and captain or patron of Bartolome S, respectively, perished in the

shipwreck. The heirs of the deceased employees claimed for compensation

provided for in the Workmens Compensation Act, which the trial court
granted. Bartolome San Diego, the owner of the motor ships, denied liability
by citing various provisions in the Code of Commerce. Counsel for the
appellant cited Article 587 of the said code which provides that if the vessel
together with her tackle and freight money earned during the voyage are
abandoned, the agents liability to third persons for tortious acts of the
captain and in the care of the goods which the ship carried is extinguished;
Article 837 which provides that the ship owners liability is limited to the
value of the vessel with all her equipment and freight earned during the
voyage in cases of collision; and Article 643 which provides that if the vessel
and freight are totally lost, the agents liability for wages of the crew is
extinguished.
ISSUE:
Is the ship owner liable for compensation of the employees who died while in
the performance of their duties?
RULING:
Yes, the ship owner is liable pursuant to the Workmens Compensation Act.
Section 39 (d) of the same Act states that industrial employment includes all
employment or work at trade, occupation or profession exercised by an
employer for the purpose of gain. Fishing industry can, at the same time, be
considered as trade when the catch is brought to a port for sale. And as such,
the sunken vessels used in the fishing operations can be validly treated as a
form of trade, covered by the Workmens Compensation Act. Hence, the ship
owner is liable to compensate the heirs of the deceased employees.