G.R. No. 19540 ; January 29, 1923
WING KEE COMPRADORING COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE BARK “MONONGAHELA,” VICTOR S. FOX & CO., INC., owner of the bark Monongahela, THE ADMIRAL LINE, and C. G. LOTHIGIUS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Wing Kee Compradoring Company, supplied goods, wares, and merchandise to the Bark Monongahela for the use of its crew from March 16, 1921, to August 16, 1921. The requisitions for supplies were initially made on forms headed “The Admiral Line,” which was the operating agent for the vessel, and bills were sent to the Admiral Line. On August 2, 1921, the Admiral Line published a notice disclaiming responsibility for any indebtedness incurred by the Bark Monongahela. The trial court found that the Admiral Line had ceased to act as agent on or before August 4, 1921. The plaintiff filed a complaint to recover the sum of P17,675.64, primarily against the Admiral Line as agent. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Admiral Line, as the former agent of the Bark Monongahela, is liable for the supplies furnished to the vessel during the period it acted as agent.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Applying Article 586 of the Code of Commerce, which holds the owner and the agent of a vessel civilly liable for obligations contracted by the captain to provision the vessel, the Court ruled that the Admiral Line, as the agent, is liable for supplies furnished between March 16, 1921, and August 2, 1921 (the date it publicly terminated its agency). The Court rejected the argument that the termination of agency absolved the Admiral Line of liability, as such a rule would allow agents to avoid responsibility simply by ending their agency when sued. However, the Admiral Line is not liable for supplies furnished after August 2, 1921. The plaintiff is entitled to recover P16,526.29 from the Admiral Line.