Case Digest (G.R. No. 83524)
Facts:
Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Marta Kramer v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 83524, October 13, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners, Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Marta Kramer, owned the fishing boat F/B Marjolea. In the early morning of April 8, 1976 the Marjolea collided with the M/V Asia Philippines, owned by private respondent Trans‑Asia Shipping Lines, Inc., resulting in the sinking of the Marjolea and loss of its catch. Captains of both vessels filed marine protests and the Board of Marine Inquiry of the Philippine Coast Guard investigated the incident.
On October 19, 1981 the Board found the loss attributable to negligence of the M/V Asia Philippines crew; on April 29, 1982 the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard issued a decision suspending that vessel’s second mate. On May 30, 1985 the Kramers filed a Complaint for damages against Trans‑Asia in Branch 117, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City (Civil Case No. 2907‑P). Trans‑Asia moved to dismiss for prescription under Article 1146 of the Civil Code (four‑year prescriptive period for quasi‑delict).
The petitioners argued that the prescriptive period was tolled pending the marine inquiry and that their cause of action accrued only upon the Commandant’s April 29, 1982 decision. By Order dated September 25, 1986 the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the technical nature of maritime collisions justified computing prescription from the final administrative determination under the Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations.
Trans‑Asia filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (Second Division, CA‑G.R. SP No. 12032), which in a Decision dated November 27, 1987 (clarified January 12, 1988) granted the petition and ordered dismissal, ruling that the cause of action accrued at the time of the collision and that courts are not bound by administrative findings; the CA denied the Kramers’ motion for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Kramers’ Complaint for damages barred by prescription?
- Does the four‑year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code for an action grounded on quasi‑delict arising from a maritime collision begin to run from the date of the collision or from the finality of an administrative Board of Marine Inq...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)