Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 217 SCRA 359, G.R. No. 100446, January 21, 1993
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Petitioner is a
corporation engaged in the business of maritime trade as a carrier who owned
and operated the M/V P/ ABOITIZ, a common carrier that sank on a voyage.
Private respondent General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd.
(GAFLAC) is a foreign insurance company pursuing its remedy as a subrogee of
several cargo consignees whose respective cargo sank with the said vessel and
for which it has priory paid.
The sinking of
vessel gave rise to filling of suit to recover the lost cargo either by
shippers, their successors-in-interest, or the cargo insurers like GAFLAC as
subrogees. The sinking was initially investigated by the Board of Marine
Inquiry, which found that such sinking was due to fortuitous event.
Notwithstanding
such finding, the trial court found against the carrier on the basis that the
loss was not due to force majeure. The attempted execution of the judgment
award in said case gave rise to this case.
Aboitiz contends
that the Limited Liability Rule warrants immediate stay of execution of
judgment to prevent impairment of other creditor’s shares.
ISSUE
Whether or not the doctrine of
limited liability is applicable to this case.
RULING
Yes, the doctrine of limited liability is applicable to this case.
The provisions
under the Code of Commerce provides that limited liability rule covers only
civil liabilities for injuries to third parties (Art. 587), acts of the captain
(Art. 590) and collisions If these circumstances are attendant then the only
time the Limited Liability Rule does not apply is when there is an actual
finding of negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent.
In this case, there
has been no actual finding of negligence on the part of Aboitiz. The cause of
the sinking of the vessel was because of unseaworthiness due to the failure of
the crew and the master to exercise extraordinary diligence. There appears to
have been no evidence presented sufficient to form a conclusion that petitioner
shipowner itself was negligent.
No comments:
Post a Comment