G.R. No. 41503 ; August 17, 1934
E. M. MASTERSON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff E. M. Masterson filed an action to recover sums from defendant Smith Navigation Company. The defendant confessed judgment on two causes of action, and the third was dismissed. The trial proceeded on the defendant’s counterclaim for damages arising from an attachment the plaintiff had obtained on the defendant’s vessel, the Ethel Conklin. The plaintiff had secured the attachment alleging the defendant was selling property to defraud creditors. However, the court found the attachment was unjustified because the vessels were mortgaged and could not be sold, and a sale of a car was approved by the plaintiff himself as a member of the defendant’s board. The defendant claimed damages totaling P16,334.05 for various losses, including lost revenue, delays, and damage to goodwill.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant is entitled to damages due to the wrongful attachment, and if so, the extent of those damages.

RULING

Yes, the defendant is entitled to damages, but only for the losses that were directly and satisfactorily proven. The Court found the attachment was issued without justifiable motive, making the plaintiff liable for damages. However, only the claims for the six-day delay of the attached vessel (P1,200.00) and the losses paid to shippers due to the delay (P374.82), totaling P1,574.82, were properly justified by evidence. The other claimed damages, including for loss of revenue on outward freightage, delays in unloading, an 18-day delay for ordering a shaft, and damages to goodwill, were either not satisfactorily proven or were considered too remote and problematical. The trial court’s judgment was modified to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant P1,574.82 on the counterclaim.

AI Generated by Armztrong.