12/14/2017 G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v.

SMITH BELL & COMPANY<br /><br />005 Phil 85 : SEPTEMBER 1905 - PHILIPPIN…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1876 September
30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

005 Phil 85:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1876. September 30, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Pillsbury & Sutro, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMIRALTY; ACTION FOR DAMAGES AS RESULT OF COLLISION. — An action for the recovery of loss
and damages arising from the collision of boats engaged in traffic upon the waters of the Philippine
Archipelago, can not be admitted if a sworn statement or declaration is not presented within twenty-four
hours to competent authority of the point where the collision took place or of the first port of arrival of
the vessel. (Art. 835, Commercial Code.) This statutory rules applies even though the injury was done to
a boat operated by the Government.

DECISION

JOHNSON, J. :

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
This was an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, brought in the Court of First Instance of the city
of Manila, to recover the sum of $1,600, United States currency, for damages occasioned to the Navy
boat Barcelo on the 6th day of November, 1902, at about 11 o’clock, p.m., on the said day, near the
mouth of the Pasig River, by a collision with a casco that was then and there being towed by the launch
Alexandra. The launch Alexandra is the property of the defendant.

The inferior court found that the defendant had not complied with the rules of navigation in Manila Bay,
in that it failed to display lights in accordance with such regulations, and that, by reason of such failure,
the collision and consequent damages occurred. This findings of fact by the court below, there being no
motion for a new trial, is conclusive.

The defendant, in the court below, claimed that the plaintiff could and recover in the action, for the
reason that it had not complied with the provisions of the Code of Commerce, relying particularly upon
article 835 of the same. Article 835 provides: "The action for the recovery of loss and damages arising
from collisions can not be admitted if a sworn statement or declaration is not presented within twenty-
four hours to competent authority of the point where the collision took place, or that of the first port of
arrival of the vessel."
cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff claimed that this provision of the Commercial Code did not apply to it. We are all of the
opinion that the quoted provision of the Commercial Code applies to all persons engaged in traffic upon
ChanRobles Intellectual Property the waters of the Philippine Archipelago; that the defendant has as much right to insist upon compliance
with this provision of the code where the damages were done to a boat operated by the Government as if
Division such boat had been operated by a private individual or company. This provision of the Commercial Code,
requiring protest to be made and presented to the proper authority within twenty-four hours after the

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1905septemberdecisions.php?id=292 1/4
12/14/2017 G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY<br /><br />005 Phil 85 : SEPTEMBER 1905 - PHILIPPIN…
collision, or after the arrival of the injured boat in port, is a prerequisite to the bringing of an action for
damages. By having failed to comply with this provisions of the Commercial Code it can not maintain this
action for damages.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the decision of the inferior court be affirmed, and that the
defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs in this action, and at the expiration of twenty days judgment
should be entered in accordance herewith, and the cause remanded to the court below for execution of
said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.

Willard, J., did not sit in this case.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
September-1905 Jurisprudence 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SOMES v. WIFE AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
004 Phil 713
2013 2014 2015 2016
G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906

UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL

004 Phil 716

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA
VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

004 Phil 719

G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN

QUIROS v. D. M. CARMAN

004 Phil 722

G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906

JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG

004 Phil 727

G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY

v. SY-GIANG

004 Phil 730

G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES

v. SILVINO ARCEO

004 Phil 733

G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD

AGUILAR v. PLACIDO LAZARO

004 Phil 735

G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION

INFANTE v. MANUEL T. FIGUERAS

004 Phil 738

G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE

BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

004 Phil 746

G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO

BUENAVENTURA v. JUANA URBANO, ET AL.

005 Phil 1

G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL

v. DONALDSON SIM & CO.

005 Phil 11

G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A.

SANTOS v. ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL.

005 Phil 15

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1905septemberdecisions.php?id=292 2/4