GR L 1963; (April, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1963
FACTS:
The plaintiff-appellee, Baer Senior & Co.’s Successors, owner of the launch Mascota, contracted with the defendant-appellant, La Compañia Maritima, for the latter to tow the launch from Aparri to Manila. The defendant’s steamer Churruca took the launch in tow and departed Aparri. After a stop in Vigan, the steamer encountered rough seas and strong winds. During the night, the launch disappeared from tow. Despite a search, it was not found, and the steamer proceeded to Manila. The plaintiff filed an action to recover the value of the lost launch. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, as a tug under a towing contract, is liable as a common carrier for the loss of the towed launch, and if not, whether it exercised the requisite degree of diligence in the performance of its obligation.
RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s judgment and absolved the defendant from liability.
The Court ruled that the defendant was not a common carrier with respect to the towed launch. Citing American jurisprudence, the Court distinguished a tug from a general ship carrying goods. A tug is not an insurer of the vessel in tow; its liability arises only from negligence or unskillfulness, not from the mere fact of loss.
The obligation of the defendant arose from a contract of towage, governed by Articles 1101 and 1104 of the Civil Code on obligations. The defendant was bound to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family (ordinary diligence), considering the circumstances.
The evidence established that the defendant exercised the required diligence. The towing lines were properly fastened by experienced personnel. The loss occurred when a post on the launch, to which the lines were secured, broke during the storma fortuitous event. The testimony of the plaintiff’s witness, who lacked experience in towing, was insufficient to prove negligence on the defendant’s part.
Consequently, the defendant was not liable for the loss of the launch.