G.R. No. 156978 - Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.

On October 31, 1980, M/V P. Aboitiz, a vessel owned by Aboitiz Shipping Corporation (petitioner), sank while voyaging from Hong Kong to Malaysia.
The vessel was carrying cargoes consigned to General Textile, Inc., which was insured by New India Assurance Company, Ltd. (respondent).

Following the sinking, respondent indemnified General Textile, Inc. for the lost cargoes.
Upon paying the claim, respondent was subrogated to the rights, interests, and actions against the petitioner.

Respondent initiated an action (Civil Case No. 82-1475) before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 36, seeking recovery from petitioner.
The claim included actual damages, attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, and costs, totaling P142,401.60.

On November 20, 1989, the trial court held the petitioner liable for the total value of the lost cargoes, opting not to apply the doctrine of limited liability.
The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting that the doctrine of limited liability should limit the award to the pro rata share of the insurance proceeds.
In its Decision dated May 2, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s petition for lack of merit, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals by holding the petitioner liable for the full value of the lost cargo.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the May 2, 2006 Decision modified or reversed earlier rulings in GAFLAC and Monarch Insurance Cases without due process, contrary to Section 4(3) of Article VIII of the Constitution.
The petitioner argued that the decision should be referred to the Court En Banc because no division decision may be modified except by the Court sitting en banc.
Respondent countered that petitioner was liable for the total cargo loss because the doctrine of limited liability did not apply due to concurrent negligence.

Whether the May 2, 2006 Decision improperly modified or reversed the doctrines established in GAFLAC and Monarch Insurance Cases concerning the doctrine of limited liability.
Whether such modification or reversal violated Section 4(3) of Article VIII of the Constitution, which mandates that decisions rendered in division can only be reversed or modified by the Court sitting en banc.

Whether the doctrine of limited liability, which limits the insurer's damages to its pro rata share in the insurance proceeds, should apply in a case where petitioner was found concurrently negligent.
Whether the presumption of negligence applicable to common carriers invalidates the petitioner’s claim to the protection of the doctrine of limited liability.

Assessing the factual differences between the present case and the precedents (GAFLAC and Monarch) that dealt with limited liability.
Evaluating the burden of proof on the petitioner to show that the unseaworthiness of the vessel was not due to its own fault or negligence.