157. Fernandez v. Thompson & Co.
September 26, 1918 – Malcolm
Parties:
1. Fernandez and Macleod – Salvagers
2. Swan – Captain
3. Thompson & Co. – Ship owner
Defense:
Thompson
1. They had in adequate equipment and could not have effectively salvaged the ship.
F&M:
1. Parties taking possession of an abandoned vessel or cargo have a right to retain it until the salvage
is completed, and no other person has the right to interfere with them, provided they are able to
effect the salvage, and are conducting the business with fidelity and vigor. But if their
own means are inadequate they are bound to accept additional assistance, if offered. Those
beginning a salvage service, and in the successful prosecution of it, are entitled to be regarded as
meritorious salvors of whatever is preserved, when wrongfully interrupted in the work by others
who complete the salvage
Facts:
1. British steamer Bengloe owned by W. Thompson & co. was stranded on the Mayone shoal in the
Sulu sea
a. Four seamen, were sent in search of assistance (No word was received)
b. Another party, consisting of the second officer and some members of the crew, was
dispatched on a similar mission
c. captain later arrived at Puerto Princesa, Palawan
i. Captain sent a telegram Bengloe abandoned last Thursday eighteen days on
Corral Reef no assistance whatever to hand ship dangerous position settling down
forward and listed heavily to Port Cargo in aft holds possible to salve. Crew all safe.
Proceeding Manila per Panglima due fifteenth advise Leith.
2. Jose Fernandez, O. N. Holmsen, and M. A. Macleod learned about the abandonment, so they formed
a partnership, with a capital of P1,500, for the purpose of salving the vessel and cargo, and hired a
boat (30 – 40 ton capacity)
3. Fernandez and Macleod They immediately took possession of the vessel and removed 14.937 kilos
of copra and certain furniture and effects, of the approximate value of P2,500.
a. Salvaged goods were stored in the Government warehouse
b. Copra and some furniture was perishable sold for approx P2,500
4. The owner of the ship of the ship then hired London Salvage Association, a professional, to take
charge of the salvage operations.
5. (Two days after F an M took things from the ship) When Swan (Captain) and the assistants arrived
a. When Fernandez and Macleod came back to salvage they were asked to leave.
6. F&M filed an action in the CFI for:
a. sole and exclusive possession of the wreck on the ground that they had not abandoned it
but only left to seek assistance.
b. P179,780, claimed to be due as compensation for the salvage of merchandise
c. P2,500 effects
d. Damages because of having been forcibly deprived of the possession of the steamship and
thereby prevented from prosecuting salvage operations.
7. Trial Court In favor of F&M
a. Ordered Thompson & Co. to pay sum of P1,200 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per
cent per annum
b. BUT not the exclusive possession of the ship because, F&M “was utterly inadequate for the
task they endeavored to undertake, and that they had no right to insist upon retaining
possession of the wreck as against the representative of the owners and underwriters, who
had superior equipment and ample financial resources. “
Issue:
1. Had the plaintiffs adequate equipment to effect the salvage of the ship and cargo?
2. Had plaintiffs the right to insist upon retaining possession of the Bengloe and her cargo for the
purpose of salvage as against the salvors employed by the owners and underwriters?
3. Was P1,200 adequate compensation for the property saved by the plaintiff?
Held:
1. No, they had barely adequate equipment.
2. No, they misinterpreted the law.
3. Yes, approximately one-half of the value of this property and gave plaintiffs, in addition to their
expenses, only a little more than P200 as a bounty.
Ruling:
INADEQUATE EQUIPMENTS
1. The only equipment actually in the possession of the plaintiffs for salving the Bengloe and he cargo
was a small launch and some baskets and sacks.
2. That such equipment was inadequate for the salvage of a vessel valued at P100,000, laden with
sugar, copra, and bunker coal of a value of P352,500, perilously situated, seems undeniable..
• But plaintiffs also made futile efforts, presumably in good faith, to acquire adequate salvage
equipment.
NO RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION
1. F&M’s Argument (refer above for full text): "provided they are able to effect the salvage and are
conducting the business with fidelity and vigor." First set of salvors had no right to exclude the
second set from saving the merchandise in the vessel, the first set not having at the time the
means to save it.
P1200 is ADEQUATE
1. The claim of plaintiffs for P170,000 as damages must then rest upon what they might have done
had they been left in undisturbed possession of the vessel
a. No satisfactory evidence could have been presented, to show that the vessel could have
been saved and the cargo salved with the small launch at plaintiffs' disposal.
b. Nor can we do more than speculate as to the value of plaintiffs' services if they had been
permitted to help and the two parties had worked together.
c. The services rendered by the plaintiffs contributed immediately to the preservation of a
small amount of property on the stranded vessel, but as an actual fact, their further
exertions, however meritorious they were intended to be were not successful in any
degree and cannot be compensated in damages.
2. The following circumstances as the main ingredients in determining the amount of the reward to be
decreed for a salvage service:
a. The labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service.
b. The promptitude, skill, and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the
property.
c. The value of the property employed by the salvors rendering the service, and the danger to
which such property was exposed.
d. The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril.
e. The value of the property saved. (6) The degree of danger from which the property was
rescued.
3. **Public policy encourages the hardy and adventurous mariner to engage in these laborious and
sometimes dangerous enterprises, and with a view to withdraw from him every temptation to
embezzlement and dishonesty, the law allows him, in case he is successful, a liberal
compensation.**
4. Amount of compensation P1,200 + P200.
a. The amount of the property saved was valued at approximately P2,500.
b. Expenditures in the sum of P972.95 in the salvage of the copra and other effects and in
making arrangements for the salvage of the remainder of the cargo.
c. The quantum for salvage allowed by the trial court of P1,200 was therefore
approximately one-half of the value of this property and gave plaintiffs, in
addition to their expenses, only a little more than P200 as a bounty.
5. Compensation for salvage services necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular
case. In this instance, we are inclined to agree with appellants that a reasonable, and at the same
time liberal award, for their services as meritorious salvors, would be P2,000.
