Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd.
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd.
GENERAL ACCIDENT liability of the carrier in connection with losses related to maritime contracts is confined
FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD. (Recio) to the vessel, which is hypothecated for such obligations or which stands as the guaranty
January 21, 1993 | MELO, J. | Maritime Law for their settlement. (2) The only time the Limited Liability Rule does not apply is when
there is an actual finding of negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent.
There is no actual finding of negligence on the part of Petitioner Aboitiz. Re: Recovery of Claims
8. We now come to its applicability in the instant case. In the few instances 12. The rights of a vessel owner or agent under the Limited Liability Rule are akin to those of the
rights of shareholders to limited liability under our corporation law. Both are privileges granted
when the matter was considered by this Court, we have consistently held
by statute, and while not absolute, must be swept aside only in the established existence of the
that the only time the Limited Liability Rule does not apply is when most compelling of reasons. In the absence of such reasons, this Court chooses to exercise
there is an actual finding of negligence on the part of the vessel owner prudence and shall not sweep such rights aside on mere whim or surmise, for even in the
or agent. existence of cause to do so, such incursion is definitely punitive in nature and must never be
9. A careful reading of the decision rendered by the trial court in Civil Case taken lightly.
13. More to the point, the rights of parties to claim against an agent or owner of a vessel may be
No. 144425 as well as the entirety of the records in the instant case will compared to those of creditors against an insolvent corporation whose assets are not enough to
show that there has been no actual finding of negligence on the part of satisfy the totality of claims as against it. While each individual creditor may, and in fact shall,
petitioner Aboitiz. In its Decision, the trial court merely held that: be allowed to prove the actual amounts of their respective claims, this does not mean that they
"...Considering the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the shall all be allowed to recover fully thus favoring those who filed and proved their claims
sooner to the prejudice of those who come later.
vessel M/V 'Aboitiz' and its cargo were not lost due to fortuitous event or 14. In both insolvency of a corporation and the sinking of a vessel, the claimants or creditors are
force majeure.” limited in their recovery to the remaining value of accessible assets. In the case of an insolvent
10. The same is true of the decision of this Court in G.R. No. 89757 affirming corporation, these are the residual assets of the corporation left over from its operations. In the
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 10609 since both case of a lost vessel, these are the insurance proceeds and pending freightage for the particular
voyage.
decisions did not make any new and additional finding of fact. Both
15. In the instant case, there is, therefore, a need to collate all claims preparatory to their
merely affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, adding that the cause satisfaction from the insurance proceeds on the vessel M/V P. Aboitiz and its pending
of the sinking of the vessel was because of unseaworthiness due to the freightage at the time of its loss. No claimant can be given precedence over the others by the
failure of the crew and the master to exercise extraordinary diligence. simple expedience of having filed or completed its action earlier than the rest. Thus, execution
Indeed, there appears to have been no evidence presented sufficient to of judgment in earlier completed cases, even those already final and executory, must be stayed
pending completion of all cases occasioned by the subject sinking. Then and only then can all
form a conclusion that petitioner shipowner itself was negligent, and no such claims be simultaneously settled, either completely or pro-rata should the insurance
tribunal, including this Court, will add or subtract to such evidence to proceeds and freightage be not enough to satisfy all claims.
justify a conclusion to the contrary.
11. On this point, it should be stressed that unseaworthiness is not a fault that Final Note [I don’t think it’s impt, but adding it just in case]
can be laid squarely on petitioner Aboitiz' lap, absent a factual basis for 16. Finally, the Court notes that petitioner has provided this Court with a list of all pending cases,
together with the corresponding claims and the pro-rated share of each. We likewise note that
such a conclusion. some of these cases are still with the Court of Appeals, and some still with the trial courts and
a. The unseaworthiness found in some cases where the same has which probably are still undergoing trial. It would not, therefore, be entirely correct to preclude
been ruled to exist is directly attributable to the vessel's crew the trial courts from making their own findings of fact in those cases and deciding the same by
and captain, more so on the part of the latter since Article 612 allotting shares for these claims, some of which, after all, might not prevail, depending on the
evidence presented in each. We, therefore, rule that the pro-rated share of each claim can only
of the Code of Commerce provides that among the inherent duties
be found after all the cases shall have been decided.
of a captain is to examine a vessel before sailing and to comply 17. In fairness to the claimants, and as a matter of equity, the total proceeds of the insurance and
with the laws of navigation. Such a construction would also put pending freightage should now be deposited in trust. Moreover, petitioner should institute the
matters to rest relative to the decision of the Board of Marine necessary limitation and distribution action before the proper admiralty court within 15 days
Inquiry. from the finality of this decision, and thereafter deposit with it the proceeds from the insurance
company and pending freightage in order to safeguard the same pending final resolution of all
b. While the conclusion therein exonerating the captain and crew of incidents, for final pro-rating and settlement thereof.
the vessel was not sustained for lack of basis, the finding therein