Yangco vs Laserna Facts:

S.S. Negros, belonging to petitioner, Teodoro Yangco, left the port of Romblon on its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was then up, of which fact the captain was
duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers themselves before the vessel set sail. The boat was overloaded as indicated by the loadline which was 6 to 7 inches below the surface of the water. The passengers, numbering about 180, were overcrowded, the vessel's capacity being limited to only 123 passengers. After two hours of sailing, the boat encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of Banton and Simara. As the sea became increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return to port, but in the maneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to capsize and sink. Many of the passengers died in the mishap. The respondents instituted

separate civil actions against petitioner here to recover damages for the death of the passengers. The court was in favour of respondents. After the rendition of the judgment to
this effect, petitioner, by a verified pleading, sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in the three cases, together with all its equipments, without prejudice to his right to appeal. The abandonment having been denied, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein all the judgments were affirmed. Issue: May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of the negligence of its captain, be properly held liable in damages for the consequent death of its passengers? Held: The petitioner is not liable. We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is controlled by the provision of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.

"The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he may have earned during the voyage."

The provision accords a shipowner or agent the right of abandonment; and by necessary implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." If the shipowner or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death of passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of collisions or shipwrecks, his liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, the fact is not ignored that the ill-fated S. S. Negros, as a vessel engaged in interisland trade, is a common carrier, and that the relationship between the petitioner and the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of carriage. But assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage, the exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear that the vessel was insured.

Marine Trading Company vs Government of the Philippine Islands Facts: Marine Trading Company owned a launch named Active and defendant owned a launch named Bohol. Both launches were in use upon the Pasig River in the city of Manila. On Aug 10, 1955, in the Pasig River, the launch Bohol was towing up the river two rudderless scows or lighters, one behind the other. The scow nearest the launch was about 5 meters behind, was empty, and was high in the water. The second lighter was tied to the rear of the first one, with a distance of about 2 meters intervening, was loaded, and was lower in the water. The Active was coming down the river from Pandacan toward Manila Bay. The patron of the Active blew one blast of his whistle, and the patron of the Bohol answered with one whistle, which indicated that the Active had a clear way and should pass to starboard. When under the bridge of Spain, the Active passed the Bohol and the first scow towed by it. But when the Active was about to pass the second scow, the latter swerved to the left, and its forward left end corner struck the Active on the port side between the cabin and the bow with such force and impact that the launch sank immediately. The Active was in good condition and state of operation before the collision occurred. The launch was so seriously damaged by the collision and the sinking that it took the sum of P9,677 to repair it. Issue: whether or not the accident occurred through the negligence of the Bohol only, or whether both launches can be blamed for the collision. Whether or not the state is liable for interests Held: The trial court was clearly of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the patron of the Bohol in operating his launch and the scow in such a way as to endanger the Active and its occupants. The court was further of the opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the patron of the Active. Negligence on the part of the Bohol is demonstrated by the following: a. The patron of the Bohol gave the whistle which indicated that the Active had a clear way and should pass to the starboard, and did not give four blasts of the whistle in quick succession in order to denote danger. b. The two scows in tow by the Bohol were apparently not properly fastened together, as required by Section 197 of the Philippine Marine Regulations c. The two launches passed each other under the bridge of Spain, and the Bohol, instead of steering so as to avoid danger of a collision between theActive and its scows, kept its course and crowded the Active almost against a buoy. It is the undoubted law that the State (in this jurisdiction, the Government of the Philippine Islands) never pays interest unless it expressly engages to do so. This is especially true in case the claim is an unliquidated one. The rule is equally well established that the State is not liable for costs unless the statute expressly makes it so. Here, Act No. 2630 only authorized the court to fix the damages if any, and to enter judgment accordingly. Unless damages can be interpreted to include interest and costs, plaintiff cannot recover the same. This appearing to be a strained interpretation, we believe we should hold to the view that since the government has not stipulated to pay interest or costs, the courts should not include these items in the judgment.