Title
Supreme Court
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. 156978
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2007
A vessel owned by Aboitiz sank, losing insured cargo. The Supreme Court held Aboitiz liable for total cargo value, rejecting limited liability due to negligence and failure to prove extraordinary diligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 37661)

Applicable Law

The pertinent legal framework includes the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 1733, 1734, and 1735, concerning the liabilities of common carriers, and the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Proceedings and Initial Rulings

The Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 36) ruled on November 20, 1989, that Aboitiz Shipping Corporation was liable for the total value of the lost cargoes instead of invoking the doctrine of limited liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Aboitiz subsequently elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning the applicability of the limited liability doctrine.

Supreme Court Decision of May 2, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a decision denying Aboitiz's petition for lack of merit. The Court upheld the lower courts’ findings and ruled that Aboitiz was liable for the full damages. The contention that the Court modified the principles set forth in prior cases, such as GAFLAC and Monarch, was central to the petitioner’s arguments.

Motion for Reconsideration

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Aboitiz filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They raised two primary issues: first, that the Court's decision disregarded previous rulings that limited Aboitiz's liability, and second, that it violated Section 4(3) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that only the Court En Banc has the authority to modify or reverse decisions rendered by divisions of the Court.

Respondent's Position and Supreme Court's Rejection

The respondent argued that the total liability was justified due to Aboitiz's negligence. The Supreme Court found Aboitiz's Motion for Reconsideration to be unpersuasive, stating that it merely reiterated arguments already considered and rejected in the May 2006 decision. It emphasized that the facts of this case distinguished it from the precedents cited by Aboitiz.

Distinction from Prior Decisions

The Court clarified that the circumstances that led to the sinking of M/V P. Aboitiz were different from those in GAFLAC, where the shipowner was not found negligent. In this case, both the ship captain and crew were deemed negligent, and as a result, the appl

...continue reading

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.