G.R. No. 923 : January 16, 1903
DOMINGO GARCIA Y CASANOVA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMETERIO RUIZ Y URBINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On July 12, 1898, Domingo Garcia y Casanova filed a complaint against Emeterio Ruiz y Urbina. Garcia alleged that on August 22, 1897, he entered into a verbal contract with Ruiz, the shipowner, to serve as the skipper of the merchant steamer Irene Urbina for voyages between ports in Misamis. The contract did not stipulate a specific duration. On June 11, 1898, while the steamer was in the port of Lapinig, Talisayan de Misamis, Ruiz discharged Garcia via a letter. Garcia contended that his dismissal was without just cause and, therefore, Ruiz was obligated to pay his monthly salary of $100 from the date of dismissal until his return to Manila (where the contract was made), plus his passage money and $60 in damages. After Ruiz denied the claim before marine authorities, Garcia filed this action. Ruiz was served with the complaint and summons but refused to accept them. Consequently, the trial court declared Ruiz in default, admitted the complaint as answered, and proceeded with the case. Judgment was rendered in favor of Garcia, limiting his salary claim to the period up to the notification of the judgment on September 12, 1898. Ruiz appealed, and during the appellate proceedings, he moved to annul the trial court proceedings from a certain point forward. The appellate court (the former Audiencia) denied this motion. Ruiz then appealed the main judgment to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant, Emeterio Ruiz, is liable to pay the plaintiff-appellee, Domingo Garcia, his salary from the date of his unjust dismissal until his return to the port where the contract was made (Manila).

RULING:
Yes, the defendant-appellant is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Court held that under Article 604 of the Code of Commerce, a ship captain dismissed without just cause is entitled to receive his salary until he returns to the port where his contract for an indefinite period was entered into. Since Ruiz was declared in default for failing to appear and answer the complaint, the facts alleged in Garcia’s complaint were deemed admitted. The trial court correctly applied the law, though it properly limited the salary award to the period ending with the notification of its judgment, a limitation to which Garcia did not object. The Supreme Court also noted that the incidental issue regarding the annulment of proceedings had already been finally decided by the appellate court and could not be revisited. The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.