Title
Supreme Court
Vector Shipping Corp. vs. American Home Assurance Co.
Case
G.R. No. 159213
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2013
Collision between M/T Vector and M/V Doña Paz led to cargo loss; insurer American Home paid Caltex, then sued for subrogation. SC upheld insurer's right, ruling action not time-barred under 10-year prescriptive period.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 191002)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Vessel Ownership
    • Petitioners
      • Vector Shipping Corporation – operator of the motor tanker M/T Vector
      • Francisco Soriano – registered owner of the M/T Vector
    • Respondents
      • American Home Assurance Company – domestic insurer and subrogee of Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex)
      • Sulpicio Lines, Inc. – owner and operator of the M/V Doña Paz
  • Contract of Affreightment and Insurance
    • On September 30, 1987, Caltex contracted with Vector to transport petroleum cargo aboard the M/T Vector.
    • Caltex insured the cargo with American Home Assurance under Marine Open Policy No. 34-5093-6 for P7,455,421.08.
  • Collision, Loss and Indemnity Payment
    • On December 20, 1987, M/T Vector collided with M/V Doña Paz near Dumali Point, Tablas Strait; both vessels sank and Caltex’s cargo was lost.
    • On July 12, 1988, the insurer indemnified Caltex for P7,455,421.08 in full.
  • Proceedings Below
    • March 5, 1992 – Insurer filed Civil Case No. 92-620 against Vector, Soriano, and Sulpicio to recover the amount paid.
    • December 10, 1997 – RTC Makati dismissed the complaint as barred by the four-year prescription for quasi-delict (Art. 1146, Civil Code).
    • July 22, 2003 – Court of Appeals reversed: held Caltex‐Vector relationship contractual (ten-year prescription under Art. 1144), absolved Sulpicio, and cast Vector/Soriano jointly liable.
    • September 12 & October 1, 2003 – Insurer’s partial motion for reconsideration held in abeyance; petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the insurer’s action filed on March 5, 1992 was already barred by prescription.
  • Whether the cause of action is governed by the four-year prescription for quasi-delict or the ten-year period for obligations arising from contract or law.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.