FIRST DIVISION

[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.

Luciano de la Rosa for appellant.

Schwarzkopf & Ohnich for appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. SHIP AND SHIPPING; ARTICLE 586, CODE OF COMMERCE; SUPPLIES

FOR BARK "MONONGAHELA." — By article 586 of the Code of Commerce, "the owner
of a vessel and agent be civilly liable for the acts of the captain and for the obligations
contracted by the latter to repair, equip, and provision the vessel, provided the creditor
proves that the amount claimed was invested therein."
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — When the agents buy in their own names, but really for the
account of their principal, the seller has an option to look to either for payment, unless
(1) he trusted the agent exclusively; or (2) by the usage and understanding of the
business the agent only is held; or (3) unless the special circumstances of the case
show that only the agent was intended to be bound and the seller knew it or was
chargeable with knowledge of it.
3. ID.; ID. — Held: That the Admiral Line, as agent for the bark Monongahela,
is liable to the plaintiff for supplies furnished the Monongahela between March 16, 1921
and August 2, 1921, but is not responsible for supplies furnished after that date.

DECISION

MALCOLM, J : p

The plaintiff in this case, Wing Kee Corporation Company, seeks to recover from
the defendants principally the Admiral Line, as agent for the Bark Monongahela, the sum
of P17,675.64, with interest and costs, on account of goods wares,, and merchandise
sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants for the use of the crew of the Bark
Monongahela. The case, as submitted to the appellate court, must be reconstructed as
best it may, from pleadings not altogether clear and explicit, from facts taken in part
from the decision of the trial court, and in part from the exhibits, the stenographic notes
not having been written up, and from the briefs on the questions of law which are
involved.
 Turning first to the pleadings, we find the plaintiff in its amended complaint
praying for judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for the sum of
P17,675.64, meaning, thereby, we presume, that it had a just and preferred claim upon
and against the Bark Monongahela, and that the debt was due from the Admiral Line, the
agent: C. G. Lothigius, the captain of the boat; and the owners of the boat, either Victor
S. Fox & Co., Inc., or the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation.
Captain Lothingius and the Admiral Line answered. The owners were not cited to appear.
No action against the bark was taken. Following the trial, judgment was rendered
dismissing the complaint, without special finding as to costs.
Turning next to the facts, the exhibits of record show that beginning with March
16 1921, and ending with August 16,1921, various supplies were furnished the Bark
Monongahela by Wing Kee Compradoring Company. Most of the bills for these goods
are made out against the "Admiral Line, S. S. Monongahela." All are countersigned by
the master and the first steward. It appears, therefore, that the plaintiff was looking to
the Admiral Line for payment.
The first requisitions for supplies are on forms headed The Admiral Line." Then
follows Manila, the date, and the name, "Wing Kee Compradoring Co." Next is the order,
reading: "Please deliver to S. S. Monongahela now lying at Bay, the following goods and
send bills to the Admiral Line:". After this the goods are named. At the foot is found,
"United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation," although these words are
erased in a few of the requisitions, "The Admiral Line (Pacific Steamship Co.) Operating
Agents. By J. J. Armstrong." On the side of the requisitions in red ink the following:
"Note: This requisition must be receipted by ether Chief Officer, Chief Steward or Chief
Engineer and returned to the Admiral Line, with six copies of invoice immediately after
deliver of goods." After May 4, 1921, the requisitions seem to have been made our by
the steward and the master. We deduce from these documents that the Admiral Line
was the operating agent for the Monongahela, and was responsible as such until the
agency was terminated.
In the Manila Daily Bulletin for August 2, 1921, appeared the following: "Notice —
Bark Monongahela — The under-signed hereby give notice that they are not responsible
in any manner whatsoever for any indebtedness incurred by the Bark Monongahela, its
Master and/or Crew — The Admiral Line." The trial judge found as a fact that on or
before August 4, 1921, the Admiral Line had ceased to act as agent for the
Monongahela. Nevertheless, supplies were furnished the Monongahela after these dates
by the plaintiff.
Turning finally to the law, we find section 1 of Title 2 of our Code of Commerce,
given up to the subject, "Owners of Vessels and Their Agents." The first article in this
section (art 586) and the provision of law which in our judgment is controlling, reads:
"The owner of a vessel and the agent shall civilly liable for the acts of
the captain and for the obligations contracted by the latter to repair, equip, and
provision the vessel, provided the creditor proves that the amount claimed was
invested therein.
"By agent is understood the person intrusted with the provisioning of a
vessel, or who represents her in the port in which she happens to be."
The civil law, in this respect, is not all dissimilar to the common law. By the
general law of the United States as well as the England and Europe, it has been held
that when the agents buy in their own names, but really for the account of their principal,
that when the agents buy in their own names, but really for the account of their principal,
the seller has an option to look to either for payment, unless (1) he trusted the agent
exclusively; or (2) by the usage and understanding of the business the agent only is
held; or (3) unless the special circumstances of the case show that only the agent was
intended to be bound and the seller knew it or was chargeable with knowledge of it.
Although the English rule that, where the agent buys in his own name for the account of
a foreign principal, the agent only is bound appears not to have been followed in the
United States, yet the general doctrine is the same, that the seller has an option to
resort to either. (Berwind vs. Schultz [1885], 25 Fed., 912.)
Applying more directly the law to the pleadings and the facts, it is first to be noted
that the plaintiff has not followed out its allegation that it has a claim against the Bark
Monongahela, and might not have prospered any way, considering the rather dubious
doctrine announced in the case of Heath vs. Steamer San Nicolas ([1907], 7 Phil., 532).
Not only this, but the plaintiff has made no effort to bring the owner of the bark into the
case and has pushed with no enthusiasm its case against the captain of the boat. What
apparently the plaintiff wants for the Admiral Line, as the agent for the Bark
Monongahela, to pay the claim, leaving the latter to reimburse itself, if it sees fit, from
the owners.
To all this appellee answers that as the agency has ceased, action cannot be
brought against Admiral Line. To our minds this is a rather far-fetched argument, for
pursued to its logical conclusion, every agent for a vessel could thus avoid
responsibility pursuant to article 586 of the Code of Commerce, by giving up its agency
when threatened with suit to enforce the obligations of third parties. Moreover, the bills
were presented when the Admiral Line was yet the agent.
In resume, therefore, we are of opinion and so hold that the Admiral Line, as
agent for the Bark Monongahela, is liable to the plaintiff for supplies furnished the
Monongahela between March 16, 1921 and August 2, 1921, but is not responsible for
supplies furnished after that date. The mathematical additions show that the debt of the
Admiral Line to the plaintiff amounts to P16,526.29.
In accordance with the foregoing, judgment is reversed and the plaintiff shall have
and recover from the defendant, the Admiral Line, the sum of P16,526.29, without
interest and cost. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur.