CHAPTER 13 – PERSONS WHO TAKE PART IN
MARITIME COMMERCE limited to informing the consignee of the
Cases discussed in the book:
♥ Wing Kee Compradoring Co. v. Bark Monogahela
- Various supplies were furnished
- Bills made out against the Admiral Line, S.S.
Monogahela
- Countersigned by master and the first
steward
- Admiral Line, the ship agent, was liable to pay
the supplies to the seller up to the termination
of the agency.
♥ Ohta Development Co v. Steamship Pompey
- Defendant company, as shipowner, was
liable for the indemnities arising from the lack
of skill or from negligence of the captain
- Steamship Pompey, under the command of
Capt. Alfredo Galvez, was carrying cargo
consisting principally of flour and rice for the
plaintiff.
- Ship docked and fastened her cables to the
posts on the pier. Other ships > fastened a
cable to a tree situated farther west on the
beach, a precaution taken to avoid the ship
getting too close to the pier.
- Pompey docked
 Did not fasten the cable to the tree on the
shore
 Nor drop her kedge-anchors from the
prow
 Unload the flour and rice which were first
deposited on the pier and later
transported to the plaintiff’s warehouse
on land, where it was officially receipted
for.
 Unloading was hastily done and there
being 15-20 laborers, a large amount of
the cargo accumulated on the dock. Pier
sank with all the merchandise.
♥ Yu Biao Sontua & Co. v. Ossorio
- General liability of a vessel owner extends to
losses by fire arising from another vessel, or
from the shore; and the fact that fire produces
the motive power of a boat does not affect the
case.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
♥ Ace Navigation Co., Inc. v. FGU Insurance
Corporation
- Agent is not a ship agent if its only function is
arrival of the vessel in order for the latter to
immediately take possession of the cargoes.
- Not a ship agent if there’s no hand in the
provisioning of the vessel.
- Responsibilities of such an agent is not
governed by the CoC but by the provisions of
the NCC.
 ART. 1897 – an agent is not personally
liable to the party with whom he
contracts, unless he expressly binds
himself or exceeds the limits of his
authority without giving such party
sufficient notice of his powers.
- Records are bereft of any showing that
ACENAV, the agent, exceeded its authority in
the discharge of its duties as a mere agent of
CARDIA.
- Neither was it shown that ACENAV’s limited
obligation as agent of the shipper, CARDIA,
was not known to HEINDRICH.
- Improper packing
- As a mere agent, ACENAV cannot be made
responsible or held accountable for the
damage supposedly caused by its principal.
♥ Yu Con v. Glicerio Ipil, et al.
- Captain > applied to those who govern
vessels that navigate the high seas or ships
of large dimensions and importance,
although they are engaged in coastwise
trade.
- Masters > those who command smaller ships
engaged exclusively in coastwise trade.
- For purposes of maritime commerce > have
the same meaning, both being the chiefs or
commanders of ships; terms are used
synonymously in the CoC.
- Boat captain – person authorized by MARINA
to act as officer and/or command of a
boat/ship or has the qualification/license to
act as such.
♥ Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., et al. vs.
Court of Appeals
- Captain of a vessel is a confidential and
managerial employee.
- A captain commonly performs three distinct
roles:
1. General agent of the shipowner
2. Commander and technical director of the
vessel
3. Representative of the country under
whose flag he navigates
♥ Compagnie de Commerce v. Hamburg
- Charter party was executed between
Compagnie de Commerce and the owners of
the vessel Sambia, at the port of Saigon,
certain cargo destined for the Ports of
Dunkirk and Hamburg in Europe.
- The Sambia, flying the German flag, could
not, in the judgment of its master, reach its
port of destination because war (WWI) had
 been declared between Germany and
France.
- Master decided to deviate from the stipulated
voyage and sailed instead at the Port of
Manila.
- CDC sued in the PH for damages arising from
breach of the charter party and unauthorized
sale of the cargo.
- SC: master of the Sambia had reasonable
grounds to apprehend that the vessel was in
danger of seizure or capture by the French
authorities in Saigon and was justified by
necessity to elect the course which he took.
- Shipowner was relieved from liability for the
deviation from the stipulated route and from
liability for damage to the cargo.
- Danger = real and not imaginary
- CDC: shipowner should be held responsible
for the deterioration in the value of the cargo
incident to its long stay on board the vessel
from the date of its arrival in Manila until the
cargo was sold.
- SC: master is entitled to delay for such period
as may be reasonable under the
circumstances, before deciding on the course
he will adopt.
- If cargo is perishable and likely to be injured
by the delay > it ought to be forwarded, or
sold, or given up, as the case may be, without
waiting for repairs.
♥ Yu Con v. Ipil
- SC sustained the judgment of the lower court
against the ship captain and the ship agent
for the loss sustained by a passenger
because of a theft that was committed in the
vessel. The goods that were stolen were
delivered to the master and the supercargo
and the theft occurred because of the
negligence of the said master and
supercargo.