Atlantic v. Kaisha

JOHNSON, J.:

This action was commenced by the plaintiffs in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover from the defendants the sum of P300,000 as compensation for the salvage of the steamship Kyodo Maru and part of her cargo, in Manila Bay, in the months of October and November, 1918. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Uchida Kisen Kaisha and Mitsui Bussan Kaisha in solidum for the sum of P14,000 and for costs. The action was dismissed as regards the defendants Vicente Madrigal, the owner of the cargo.

From that judgment the plaintiffs and the defendants Uchida Kisen Kaisha and Mitsui Bussan Kaisha appealed to this Court. It appears from the record that on the 21st day of October, 1918, while the steampship Kyodo Maru was discharging a cargo of coal, the property of the defendant Vicente Madrigal, in the harbor of Manila, inside the breakwater, one of the lighters alongside said vessel sank. In swinging with the tide, the Kyodo Maru came violently in contact with this submerged lighter, the result being that her hull was perforated.

The said steamer began to sink during the morning of October 22d and touched the bottom of the harbor at 10 o'clock of the same morning. She continued to sink deeper into the mud until, on October 23d, the forward half of the vessel was entirely submerged, while the stern half was still afloat. The depth of the water in that part of the harbor where the vessel was moored at the time of the accident is about 21 feet at low tide.

The depth of the vessel from deck to keel is about 35 feet. The value of the vessel at the time of the accident was about P1,300,000, Philippine currency. On the afternoon of October 23d, the plaintiffs, at the request of the captain and agents of the ship, took possession of the sinking vessel as salvors and commenced salvage operation at once.

At that time they had submitted two propositions to the captain and agents of the ship as to compensation for the salvage services to be performed: One for P150,000 in case of success and reimbursement of expenses in case of failure, and another for P300,000 "no cure no pay." The plaintiffs were informed that the propositions would be transmitted to the owners of the vessel in Japan for acceptance or rejection, but they were requested to continue work in the meantime, upon the understanding that if no special contract should be made they would be compensated as salvors. The vessel was floated on October 30th and the salvage operations ended the following day.

On the afternoon of October 30th the plaintiffs were informed in writing that the head office of the steamship company in Japan had, by cable, rejected both of the above-mentioned propositions, and that it was proposed to settle with them on the basis of the reasonable value of their services as salvors. Plaintiffs then made demand for payment of P150,000. Defendants (not including Madrigal) offered to pay P75,000.

Plaintiffs then made a counter offer of P125,000. This was rejected, and plaintiffs then brought the present action for the recovery of a salvage award of P300,000; but, in their trial brief, they reduced this demand to P297,443.40.

During the pendency of the negotiations regarding the value of the salvage services, it was agreed that the vessel should be freed from any lien which the plaintiffs might have upon her as salvors, in consideration of the agreement of the defendant Mitsui Bussan Kaisha to respond in solidum with the owner of the vessel, the defendant Uchida Kisen Kaisha, for whatever might be found due the salvors upon final judgment. There is no dispute with regard to the foregoing facts. The only dispute in this case is (1) with regard to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the plaintiffs for the salvage of the ship in question, and (2) whether or not the defendant-appellee Vicente Madrigal, as owner of the cargo, is liable for any contribution to such compensation.

I. While the plaintiffs originally claimed P300,000 as compensation, which they reduced to P297,443.40 in their trial brief in the court below, they have further reduced the same to P275,000 in their brief on appeal to this court; whereas the defendants-appellants still maintain their original contention that the plaintiffs are not entitled to more than P75,000. This question of compensation involves two elements: (a) The actual expenses incurred in the salvage operation, and (b) the reward for services rendered by the plaintiffs as salvors. A. Attached to the plaintiffs' complaint is a statement (Exhibit A) of the expenses alleged to have been incurred by them, aggregating the sum of P63,074.45.

The defendants-appellants, in their brief, vigorously challenge the reasonableness of these charges, alleging that they "are palpably, grossly and sinfully exaggerated," and contend that if the plaintiffs "are allowed P40,000 to recover their out-of-pocket expenses and the reasonable value of the use of their equipment, they would certainly not be the losers." Among the items in Exhibit A which are impugned by the defendants-appellants are the following: (1) Rental of pump lighter ..................................................

P11,520.00 (2) Rental of derrick No. 2 ................................................. 9,600.00 (3) Rental of the launch Columbia ................................... 4,800.00 (4) Ferry service ..................................................................

7,410.00 (5) Rental of pumps ........................................................... 3,000.00 (6) Use of hose .................................................................... 10,612.50 (7) Charges for labor and supervision, consisting of: (a) Preliminary labor in connection with preparing equipment, machine shop work, and overhauling equipment upon its return ................................................

P1,390.00 (b) Labor at ship ............................................................... 3,352.00 (c) Supervision ................................................................. 2,500.00