G.R. No. 29166, October 22, 1928
AUGUSTO LOPEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN DURUELO, ET AL., defendants. ALBINO JISON, appellee.

Ponente: STREET, J.

FACTS

Plaintiff Augusto Lopez sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained due to the alleged negligence of defendants Juan Duruelo (patron) and Albino Jison (owner) of the motor boat “Jison.” Lopez was a passenger on the “Jison,” which was ferrying passengers from the Silay port to the interisland steamer “San Jacinto.” The complaint alleged that the “Jison” was grossly overloaded (14 passengers vs. a capacity of 8-9) and was operated by an inexperienced 16-year-old engineer. As it approached the “San Jacinto,” the motor boat came too close to the ship’s still-turning propeller, causing a collision that sank the “Jison” and severely injured Lopez. The defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that Lopez filed a protest with the port authority within 24 hours of the accident, as purportedly required under Article 835 of the Code of Commerce. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, prompting Lopez’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of a protest under Article 835 of the Code of Commerce is a condition precedent for maintaining an action for damages arising from the collision involving the motor boat “Jison.”

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and ordered the defendants to answer the complaint.

The Court held that Article 835 of the Code of Commerce, which requires the filing of a protest within 24 hours after a collision, does not apply to minor craft like the motor boat “Jison” engaged in local harbor service (transporting passengers and luggage between shore and ships at anchor). Book III of the Code of Commerce, where Article 835 is found, governs maritime commerce and is intended for merchant vessels engaged in sea-going trade, not for small boats used in river and bay traffic. Citing authorities like Estasen, the Court distinguished between ocean-going merchant vessels and ancillary craft like launches. The “Jison,” powered by a second-hand tractor motor and with a small passenger capacity, fell into the latter category. Therefore, the civil liability of its owner and operator is governed by the Civil Code (Articles 1902 and 1903 on quasi-delicts), not by the protest requirement of the Code of Commerce.

Furthermore, the Court added that even if Article 835 were applicable, the severe nature of Lopez’s injuries (including compound fractures requiring an 8-month hospitalization) would excuse the lack of protest under Article 836, which provides an exception for persons not in a condition to make their wishes known.

The Court also emphasized the policy of liberally construing pleadings against dismissal on demurrer. A complaint should not be dismissed if, under any reasonable interpretation, a cause of action can be made out. Any defects in the complaint’s specificity could be addressed later in the proceedings without prejudicing the defendants.