Yu Con v.
Ipil Defendants arguments and bases for counter-claim1:
December 29, 1916 | ARAULLO, J. | Martinez
PETITIONER: Yu Con
RESPONDENTS: Glicerio Ipil (master), Narciso Lauron (shipowner), Justo
Solamo (supercargo)
SUMMARY: Chinamans money amounting to P450 disappeared. He is trying
to recover from the shipowner, master, and supercargo. SC ruled that
defendants are jointly and severally liable to Yu Con.
DOCTRINE: The shipowner is liable for the acts of the captain and the crew
based on Arts. 587 and 618 of the Code of Commerce. The liability of the
shipowner stems from his capability to appoint the crew and the captain and
from the rule under the Partidas that he who derives benefit from a particular
activity must also be liable for losses occasioned by such activity.
FACTS:
Yu Con contracted with Narciso Lauron for the transportation of certain
merchandise and some money from the port of Cebu to Catmon. Yu Con
chartered the banca Maria with Glicerio Ipil as master and Justo Sulamo as
supercargo for the said purpose. They had several times chartered before. On
the afternoon of October 18, 1911, Yu Con delivered a trunk containing P450,
which was to be delivered to Yu Cons shop in Catmon for the purchase of corn.
That same night, the trunk was lost and the thief was not identified despite
investigations. Yu Con filed a complaint to recover the sum of P450 while the
defendants filed a counterclaim.
Surrounding circumstances:
1. Master and supercargo received from Yu Con the trunk containing P450.
Said trunk was placed outside the stateroom of the banca because
there was no more space inside.
2. Master and supercargo later transferred the P450 to their trunk, which
was inside the stateroom.
3. Yu Con charged the master and supercargo to take special care of the
money. Master assured Yu Con that there was no danger of the money
being lost.
4. 2 other cabin boys knew of the existence of the money inside the
stateroom.
5. 1 of the cabin boys slept inside the stateroom that night, while Master
slept outside. There was 1 guard.
6. That night, the sum of P450 and the trunk containing it disappeared.
Yu Cons argument: the disappearance of said sum was due to the
abandonment, negligence, or voluntary breach, on the part of the defendants, of
the duty they had in respect to the safe-keeping of the aforementioned sum.
1. Denial of the allegations in the complaint
2. Yu Con chartered the banca for a fixed period of 3 days
3. The loss occurred through the misfortune, negligence, or abandonment
of the plaintiff himself and was caused by theft committed by unknown
thieves
4. Defendant Lauron, the owner of the banca merely placed this craft at
the disposal of the plaintiff and did not go with the banca on its voyage
from Catmon to Cebu
ISSUES & RATIO:
WON defendants are jointly and severally liable to Yu Con. YES.
1. MASTER AND SUPERCARGO LIABLE
They gave no satisfactory explanation with regard to the disappearance of the
trunk and the money, thus the fortuitous event argument is unavailing.
a. They merely testified that they did not know who the robbers were, for,
when the robbery was committed, they were sound asleep, as they were
tired, and that he believed that the guard also fell asleep too.
b. Both of them testified that the trunk in which the money was contained
could have been passed through the small window of the stateroom,
which was broken after the incident. They claimed that the window-
blinds had been removed, as well as the partition. However, no evidence
(other than their bare claim) was offered to prove the veracity of such
statement.
c. It was not proven, nor is there any circumstantial evidence to show, that
the robbery in question was committed by persons not belonging to the
craft.
d. Not only did they fail the take the necessary precautions to properly
guard the stateroom, but they also did not station some person inside
the stateroom in safekeeping the trunk since it was not duly proven that
a cabin boy (see facts: SC #5) did in fact sleep there. He was not
presented to testify. What was proven was the fact that they all slept
soundly, which is not an acceptable explanation for the loss.
e. There were 6 crewmembers who were near or around the stateroom. It
is very strange that none of them heard the noise which the robbers
must have made in breaking its window.
Therefore, is beyond doubt that the loss of the P450, which were in the
possession of the defendants, occurred through the manifest fault and
negligence of the defendants. As depositaries of the sum in question, they are
1
[COUNTERCLAIM] Plaintiff should pay the unpaid freight agreed upon amounting to P80, plus
the sum of P70, as an indemnity for the losses and damages caused them by the attachment of
the banca, additional sum of P100, for the deterioration of the said banca, and also that of P200
for other deterioration suffered by the same since Nov, 1911, and which had not been paid for.
liable pursuant to Arts. 1601 & 1602, in rel. to 1738 & 1784, as prescribed by
1770 of the CC.
2. (MAIN) SHIPOWNER ALSO LIABLE
Lauron, as the proprietor and owner of the craft of which the master and
supercargo were held to be liable for their fault & negligence resulting to the loss
of Yu Cons P450, is also civilly liable under Arts. 587 & 618 of the Code of
Commerce.
a. The court first determined whether the banca Maria falls under the
meaning of vessel2 pursuant to the Code of Commerce. It does. Also, Ipil
as master of the banca must also be considered as captain in the legal
contemplation of the word since he was in-charge of the vessel
b. BEFORE Arts. 5873 and 6184 of the Code of Commerce, the agent or
shipowner was in no wise liable for any excesses which, during the
navigation, may be committed by the captain and the crew. The only
recourse BEFORE was against the captain or crew.
c. But NOW we already have Arts. 587 and 618, which imputes civil liability
to the agent or shipowner
and, above all, they themselves are unable to make such an investigation,
and even though they should do so, they could not obtain complete security,
inasmuch as the shipowner can, whenever he sees fit, appoint another
captain instead. The shipowner is in the same case with respect to the
members of the crew, for, though he does not appoint directly, yet, expressly
or tacitly, he contributes to their appointment.
Partidas - If the shipowner derives profits from the results of the choice of
the captain and the crew, when the choice turns out successful, it is also just
that he should suffer the consequences of an unsuccessful appointment, by
application of the rule of natural law contained in the Partidas, viz., that he
who enjoys the benefits derived from a thing must likewise suffer the losses
that ensue therefrom.
Penal Code - declares that such persons who undertake any industry shall
be civilly liable, in default of those who may be criminally liable, for the
misdemeanors and crimes committed by their subordinates in the discharge
of their duties.
DECISION: Judgment affirmed.

Citing Estasens Institutes of Mercantile Law referring to the Code Commission,

the ff. are the REASONS FOR THE SHIFT:
Captain is the agent and subordinate of the shipowner While the
shipowner be not held criminally liable for such crimes or quasi crimes; he
cannot be excused from liability for the damage and harm which, in
consequence of those acts, may be suffered by the third parties who
contracted with the captain, in his double capacity of agent and subordinate
of the shipowner himself.
Trust of shippers & passengers to the shipowner - The shippers and
passengers in making contracts with the captain do so through the
confidence they have in the shipowner who appointed him; they presume
that the owner made a most careful investigation before appointing him,

2
Ship or Vessel = designate every craft, large or small, so long as it be not an accessory of
another, such as the small boat of a vessel, of greater or less tonnage. This definition comprises
both the craft intended for ocean or for coastwise navigation, as well as the floating docks, mud
lighters, dredges, dumpscows or any other floating apparatus used in the service of an industry
or in that of maritime commerce. . . ."
3
The agent shall 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 trip.
4
The captain shall be civilly liable to the agent and the latter to the third persons who may have
made contracts with the former
1. For all the damages suffered by the vessel and its cargo by reason of want of skill
or negligence on his part, If a misdemeanor or crime has been committed he shall be
liable in accordance with the Penal Code.
2. For all the thefts committed by the crew, reserving his right of action against the
guilty parties.