Wing Kee Compradoring Co. v. Monongahela
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, Wing Kee Compradoring Company, sought to recover P17,675.64 from the defendants, including the Admiral Line (agent for the Bark Monongahela), for goods supplied to the vessel's crew between March 16, 1921, and August 16, 1921. The plaintiff alleged a just and preferred claim against the vessel and debt from the Admiral Line, Captain Lothigius, and the owners. Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the complaint. The owners were not cited, and no action was taken against the bark itself. The plaintiff primarily sought payment from the Admiral Line, expecting reimbursement from the owners. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the dismissal, arguing for the liability of the Admiral Line as the agent responsible for provisioning the vessel.
Issue(s)
Whether the Admiral Line, as agent for the Bark Monongahela, is liable for supplies furnished to the vessel. Whether the termination of the agency absolves the Admiral Line from liability for supplies furnished during the period of agency.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding the Admiral Line liable for supplies furnished to the Bark Monongahela between March 16, 1921, and August 2, 1921. The Court ordered the Admiral Line to pay the plaintiff the sum of P16,526.29, without interest and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of the Admiral Line for supplies furnished: The Court applied Article 586 of the Code of Commerce, which states that the owner and agent of a vessel are civilly liable for obligations contracted by the captain for provisioning the vessel, provided the creditor proves the amount claimed was invested therein. The evidence showed that the supplies were furnished to the Bark Monongahela and that most bills were made out against the "Admiral Line, S.S. Monongahela," indicating the plaintiff was looking to the Admiral Line for payment. The requisitions were also made on forms headed "The Admiral Line," further supporting the agency relationship. On the effect of agency termination: The Court rejected the argument that the Admiral Line was not liable because the agency had ceased. The Court reasoned that this argument was far-fetched, as it would allow any agent to avoid responsibility by simply terminating the agency when threatened with suit. Moreover, the bills for the supplies were presented while the Admiral Line was still the agent. The Court clarified that the Admiral Line is liable for supplies furnished between March 16, 1921, and August 2, 1921, the date the Admiral Line ceased to act as agent, as indicated by a notice in the Manila Daily Bulletin on August 2, 1921. However, the Court found the Admiral Line not responsible for supplies furnished after August 2, 1921. The total debt for which the Admiral Line was held liable was calculated to be P16,526.29.
Main Doctrine
The owner and agent of a vessel are civilly liable for obligations contracted by the captain for the repair, equipment, and provisioning of the vessel, provided the creditor proves the amount claimed was invested therein. The agent remains liable for supplies furnished during the agency, even if the agency is terminated, if the bills were presented while the agency was still active.