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 Summary (G.R. No. 159213)

Petitioners and Respondent

• Vector Shipping Corporation and Francisco Soriano – liable under subrogation theory
• American Home Assurance Company – indemnified insured Caltex and sought reimbursement

Factual Background

• September 30, 1987: Caltex contracts with Vector to transport petroleum cargo; insures cargo for ₱7,455,421.08 under Marine Open Policy No. 34-5093-6.
• December 20, 1987: Collision between M/T Vector and M/V Doña Paz; cargo perishes.
• July 12, 1988: Respondent indemnifies Caltex in full.

Procedural History

• March 5, 1992: Respondent files suit against Vector, Soriano, and Sulpicio Lines for reimbursement.
• December 10, 1997: RTC dismisses complaint as barred by four-year prescription for quasi-delict (Art. 1146, Civil Code).
• July 22, 2003: CA reverses; holds Vector and Soriano jointly liable under ten-year prescription for written contracts or obligations created by law (Art. 1144, Civil Code).
• July 3, 2013: Supreme Court resolves Vector and Soriano’s appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether respondent’s claim is time-barred by prescription.
  2. Nature of cause of action: quasi-delict (four-year period) vs. contractual or statutory obligation (ten-year period).

Applicable Law (1987 Constitution and Civil Code)

• Article 1144, Civil Code: ten-year prescription for (1) written contracts, (2) obligations created by law, (3) judgments.
• Article 1146, Civil Code: four-year prescription for quasi-delict and injury to rights.
• Article 2207, Civil Code: statutory subrogation of insurer upon indemnity payment.

Subrogation and Prescriptive Period

• Right of subrogation arises by law upon payment of the insured’s claim (Art. 2207).
• Such right constitutes an obligation created by law, not a derivative contractual claim.
• Prescription runs ten years from accrual—date of indemnity payment (July 12, 1988).

Resolution of Prescription Issue

• RTC erred in characterizing cause of action as quasi-delict (four-year period expired December 20, 1991).
• CA correctly applied Article 1144: ten-year prescription; complaint filed March 5, 1992, well within period from July 12, 1988.

Establishment of Subrogation Rights

• Respondent introduced Marine Open Policy (Exhibit C), Caltex’s claim (Exhibit D), related marine documents (Exhibits E–H), and subrogation receipt (Exhibit I).
• Payment receipt conclusively proves indemnification and triggers subrogation.
• Subro



...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.