G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963.
HONORIO M. BARRIOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CARLOS A. GO THONG & COMPANY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On May 1, 1958, plaintiff-appellant Honorio M. Barrios, as captain of the MV Henry I, intercepted an S.O.S. distress signal from the MV Don Alfredo, owned by defendant-appellee. The MV Don Alfredo was experiencing engine failure and had lost its propeller, causing it to drift. In response, Barrios altered his vessel’s course, located the distressed ship, and, with the consent of its master, secured it with tow lines. The MV Henry I then began towing the MV Don Alfredo toward Dumaguete City.
The following morning, May 2, another vessel owned by the defendant, the MV Lux, arrived on the scene. At the request of the master of the MV Don Alfredo, the tow lines were released, and the MV Lux subsequently took over. The parties agreed on these core facts but disagreed on their legal characterization. Barrios claimed he performed a salvage service meriting compensation, while the defendant argued the service constituted mere towage, for which only the owner of the towing vessel could claim remuneration.

ISSUE

Whether the services rendered by plaintiff-appellant constituted “salvage” or “towage,” thereby determining his right to claim compensation directly from the owner of the assisted vessel.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, ruling the service was towage, not salvage. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between the two maritime services. Salvage requires a vessel to be in marine peril or danger, entitling the salvor to a reward in which the crew may share. Towage is a routine service rendered to a vessel not in imminent danger, governed by contract, with compensation owed only to the owner of the towing vessel.
The Court found the MV Don Alfredo was not in imminent peril. The weather was fair, the sea calm, and the vessel was merely drifting slowly with no immediate risk of floundering or capsizing. The crew remained capable, no evacuation was necessary, and the cargo was not jettisoned. The sending of an S.O.S. signal, while indicative of a need for assistance, did not by itself establish the requisite marine peril for salvage. The service was therefore classified as voluntary towage. Since the owner of the towing vessel, William Lines Inc., had waived any claim for compensation, and as towage compensation belongs solely to the vessel owner, plaintiff-appellant as master had no separate, independent right to payment from the defendant. The applicable law is the quasi-contract of towage, not salvage principles.