Aboitiz vs. New India, 488 SCRA 563,
G.R. No. 156978, May 02, 2006
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Societe Francaise Des Colloides loaded
a cargo of textiles and auxiliary chemicals from France on board a vessel owned
by Franco-Belgian Services, Inc. The cargo was consigned to General Textile,
Inc., in Manila and insured by respondent New India Assurance Company, Ltd.
While in Hongkong, the cargo was transferred to M/V P. Aboitiz for
transshipment to Manila.
While at sea, the vessel received a
report of a typhoon moving within its general path. To avoid the typhoon, the
vessel changed its course. However, it was still at the fringe of the typhoon
when its hull leaked. On October 31, 1980, the vessel sank.
General Textile lodged a claim with
New India for the amount of its loss. Respondent paid General Textile and was
subrogated to the rights of the latter. Then the respondent filed a complaint
for damages against petitioner Aboitiz, Franco-Belgian Services, and the
latter’s local agent, F.E. Zuellig, Inc.
The trial court, citing the Court of
Appeals decision in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v.
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation involving the same incident, ruled in favor of the
respondent. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed in toto the trial court’s
decision. Hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s
claim for damages should only be against the insurance proceeds and limited to
its pro-rata share in view of the doctrine of limited liability.
ISSUE
Whether or not the limited liability
doctrine, which limits the respondent’s award of damages to its pro-rata share
in the insurance proceeds, applies in this case.
RULING
No, the limited liability doctrine
does not apply on this case.
Under the law, in the event of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers are presumed
to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence. Moreover, where the vessel is found
unseaworthy, the shipowner is also presumed to be negligent since it is tasked
with the maintenance of its vessel. Though this duty can be delegated, still,
the shipowner must exercise close supervision over its men.
In this case, the petitioner has the
burden of showing that it exercised extraordinary diligence in the transport of
the goods it had on board to invoke the limited liability doctrine. Considering
the evidence presented and the circumstances obtained in this case, the
petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Both the trial and the appellate
courts found that the sinking was not due to the typhoon but to its
unseaworthiness. Evidence on record showed that the weather was moderate when
the vessel sank. Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption of
negligence, the doctrine of limited liability cannot be applied. Therefore, the
petitioner is liable for the total value of the lost cargo.
No comments:
Post a Comment