Chua Yek Hong vs. IAC

 

G.R. No. L-74811 December 14, 1988

CHUA YEK HONG, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE AELLATE COURT, MARIANO GUNO !"# DOMINADOR OLIT, re$%o"#e"&$.

'ACT() Respondent is owner of M/V Luzviminda, a common carrier engaged in coastwise trade from Respondent the dierent dierent ports of Oriental Oriental Mindoro Mindoro to the Port of Manila. Manila. n Octo!er "#$$ "#$$,, petitio petitioner ner loaded ",%%% sac&s of copra, valued at P"%",''$.(% on !oard M/V Luzviminda for shipment to Manila. )aid cargo, however, however, did not reach Manila !ecause !ecause the vessel capsize capsized d and san& with all its cargo. Petitioner Petitioner then instituted a complaint for damages on !reach of contract of  carriag car riage e against priva private te respondent. respondent. *he trial court rendere rendered d a decision in favour of the petitione peti tioners. rs. On appea appeal, l, the appellate appellate court ruled in favour of the resp responden ondents ts appl+i appl+ing ng article -$ of the ode of ommerce. ommerce. nsuccessful in his motion for reconsideration, reconsideration, petitioner 0led this petition.

I((UE) 1hether or not the respondent court erred in appl+ing the doctrine of limited lia!ilit+ under 2rticle -$ of the ode of ommerce

HELD) “Article 587 of the Code of Commerce provides: The ship agents shall be civilly liable for the indemnities in favour of third persons which may arise from the conduct of  the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel; but he may  eempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all the e!uipment and the freight it may have earned during the voyage"#   *he limited lia!ilit+ lia!ilit+ rule, however however provides for e3ceptions4 e3ceptions4 5"6 where the in7u in7ur+ r+ or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of the ship owner, or to the concurring negligen negligence ce of the ship ship ow owne nerr and and th the e capt captai ain n 5' 5'66 wh wher ere e th the e ve vess ssel el is insu insurred8 ed8 and and 59 5966 in wo wor& r&me men: n:s s compensation claims. claims. n this case, there is nothing in the records to show that the loss of the cargo was due to the fault of the private respondent as ship owners, or to their concurrent negligence with the captain of the vessel and there was no showing that the vessel was insured. 2s the court held, there is nothing in the records showing such negligence )aid article is the source of the doctrine of limited lia!ilit+, which gives the ship agent;s or owner;s right of a!andonment of the vessel and earned freight and such a!andonment provides the cessation cessation of the responsi!ilit+ of the ship agent/owner agent/owner.. n other words, the ship agent/owner;s lia!ilit+ is merel+ co

2lso, the provisions of the ivil ode on common carriers do not appl+ in this case since the circumstances of the case are not within those that can !e regulated !+ such provisions so the ode of ommer ommerce ce and other spec specia iall la laws ws shall shall app appl+ l+.. n sum sum,, it is hel held d tha thatt the respondents responden ts are freed from their lia!ilities appl+ing the limited lia!ilit+ rule for having totall+ lost the vessel and none of the e3ceptions appl+ to them, the lia!ilit+ for the loss of the cargo of the copra must !e deemed e3tinguished.