G.R. No. L-10195
December 29, 1916
YU CON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLICERIO IPIL, NARCISO LAURON, and JUSTO SOLAMO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Yu Con, a merchant, chartered the banca “Maria,” owned by defendant Narciso Lauron and manned by master Glicerio Ipil and supercargo Justo Solamo, to transport merchandise and the sum of P450 from the port of Cebu to the town of Catmon. On October 18, 1911, the plaintiff delivered the P450 to Ipil and Solamo, who placed the money in their trunk inside the banca’s stateroom. That same night, while the banca was anchored in Cebu and ready to sail, the trunk containing the money disappeared. The plaintiff sued the defendants jointly and severally for the recovery of the lost amount, alleging negligence or breach of duty in safeguarding the money. The defendants countered that the banca was chartered by the plaintiff at a fixed rate, the loss was due to theft by unknown persons, and that the plaintiff was negligent. They also filed a counterclaim for unpaid freight and damages.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants, particularly the shipowner Narciso Lauron, are civilly liable for the loss of the plaintiff’s money due to the negligence of the master and supercargo.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment holding the defendants jointly and severally liable. The loss of the money was attributable to the negligence of the master (Ipil) and supercargo (Solamo) in safeguarding the plaintiff’s funds. As owner of the banca, Narciso Lauron is civilly liable under Articles 586, 587, and 618 of the Code of Commerce for the acts of his captain and crew. The Court rejected the absolute doctrine of non-liability of shipowners for unlawful acts of the captain and crew, emphasizing that shipowners who profit from maritime commerce must also bear the losses resulting from the negligence of their appointed agents. The evidence showed that the theft was likely committed by someone on the banca, and the defendants failed to prove force majeure or the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for default on the counterclaim, as the plaintiff had filed an answer, and properly absolved the plaintiff from the counterclaim since the banca did not complete the voyage due to the defendants’ fault.