GR L 5583; (March, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5583
G. URRUTIA & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER CO, defendant-appellee.
March 19, 1910
FACTS:
On or about December 6, 1908, during a storm, the steamer Nuestra Señora del Pilar, owned by G. Urrutia & Co. (plaintiff-appellant), rendered salvage services to the disabled steamer San Juan, owned by The Pasig Steamer and Lighter Co. (defendant-appellee), towing it to a safe port.
G. Urrutia & Co. demanded P40,000 as remuneration for the salvage services. When The Pasig Steamer and Lighter Co. delayed payment, G. Urrutia & Co. filed a suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila for the said amount plus interest.
The Pasig Steamer and Lighter Co. filed a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that there was a “defect of plaintiff parties” because the officers and crew of the Nuestra Señora del Pilar were not included as co-plaintiffs.
The CFI sustained the demurrer, ruling that G. Urrutia & Co. was required to include the officers and crew of its steamer as parties. When G. Urrutia & Co. chose not to amend its complaint as per the CFI’s order, the CFI dismissed the case. G. Urrutia & Co. appealed this dismissal.
ISSUE:
Can the owner of a salving vessel sue for salvage remuneration without making the officers and crew of the salving vessel parties to the suit?
RULING:
Yes, the owner of a salving vessel can sue for salvage remuneration without making its officers and crew parties to the suit.
The Supreme Court noted that Philippine law did not expressly provide for this specific situation. Therefore, it resolved the question in accordance with the laws and decisions of United States courts, particularly principles of common law applicable to salvage. Citing US Supreme Court decisions (The Blackwall and The Camanche), the Court held that:
1. Salvage is awarded to encourage prompt and heroic endeavor in saving life and property.
2. The owner of the salving vessel is entitled to a salvage reward for the use and the risk to their vessel in rendering the service.
3. While the officers and crew are also entitled to a certain part of the remuneration, US jurisprudence does not compel the owner of the salving vessel to make them parties to the suit.
4. The non-inclusion of other potential salvors does not deprive the prosecuting salvors of their remedy, nor does it warrant the dismissal of the owner’s action. Other salvors, such as the officers and crew, may appear at any time before the fund is distributed and claim any interest they may have in the proceeds.
Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial should continue without prejudice to the officers and crew exercising their rights to claim their proportionate share of the remuneration whenever they deem proper.
The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s order sustaining the demurrer and the subsequent order of dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with law.