G.R. No. 13229 ; September 26, 1918
JOSE FERNANDEZ, O. N. HOLMSEN, and M. A. MACLEOD, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THOMPSON & CO., W.F. STEVENSON & CO., KER & CO., Captain GUY, Captain SWAN, JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE and HENRY JONES, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The British steamer Bengloe stranded on a shoal in the Sulu Sea on September 13, 1914. After sending parties for assistance, the master sent a telegram on October 1 stating the vessel was “abandoned.” Upon learning of this, plaintiffs Jose Fernandez, O.N. Holmsen, and M.A. Macleod formed a partnership and, using a small launch hired from provincial authorities, proceeded to the wreck on October 7. They took possession, removed approximately P2,500 worth of copra and effects, and stored them. They also attempted, unsuccessfully, to charter larger vessels for a full salvage operation.

Meanwhile, the London Salvage Association, acting for the underwriters and owners, engaged Ker & Co. to conduct salvage. Their representative, William Swan, arrived at the wreck on October 9 with the original master and crew, supported by a government cutter and constabulary soldiers. The plaintiffs were forcibly ejected from the vessel and prevented from continuing their salvage efforts.

The plaintiffs filed an action to recover P179,780 as compensation for the property they saved and as damages for being deprived of the opportunity to complete the salvage. The trial court found the vessel was abandoned when the plaintiffs acted and that they commenced operations in good faith. It awarded them P1,200 as salvage compensation for the property actually saved, to be paid from the proceeds of that property deposited with the court. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the plaintiffs had adequate equipment to effect the salvage of the ship and cargo.
2. Whether the plaintiffs had the right to retain possession of the wreck against the salvors employed by the owners and underwriters.
3. Whether the compensation awarded by the trial court was adequate.

RULING:
1. No. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs’ equipmenta small launch, baskets, and sackswas utterly inadequate to salvage a large, perilously situated vessel and its valuable cargo. Their subsequent unsuccessful attempts to secure better equipment did not alter this fact.
2. No. The Court held that the first salvors’ right to retain possession is conditional on their ability to effect the salvage with fidelity and vigor. Since the plaintiffs’ means were inadequate, they could not rightfully exclude the second, properly equipped salvage party engaged by the owners and underwriters. Consequently, their claim for massive damages based on being prevented from completing the salvage failed, as there was no evidence they could have successfully saved the vessel with their available resources.
3. No, the award was inadequate and was modified. Applying the principles of salvage law, which considers the labor expended, promptitude, skill, risk, value of property saved, and the degree of danger, the Court found the original award of P1,200 (approximately half the value of the saved property) insufficient. Considering the plaintiffs’ good faith, the services they actually rendered in preserving the copra and effects, and the fact they were mistreated and ejected, a more liberal award was justified. The Court increased the salvage compensation to P2,000, with legal interest from November 24, 1914, and costs against the defendants.

A separate concurring opinion emphasized that the increased award was based on the specific facts of the case, particularly the defendants’ conduct in ejecting the plaintiffs.