October 13, 1989
Ponente: Gancayco, J.
FACTS:
·
On April 8, 1976, the F/B Marjolea, a fishing
boat owned by Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Marta Kramer, was navigating its way from
Marinduque to Manila. Somewhere near Maricabon Island and Cape Santiago, the
boat figured in a collision with an inter-island vessel, the M/V Asia Philippines
owned by Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. As a consequence of the collision, the
F/B Marjolea sank, taking with it its fish catch.
·
After the mishap, the captains of both vessels
filed their respective marine protests with the Board of Marine Inquiry of the
Philippine Coast Guard. The Board conducted an investigation for the purpose of
determining the proximate cause of the maritime collision.
·
On October 19, 1981, the Board concluded that
the loss of the F/B Marjolea and its fish catch was attributable to the
negligence of the employees of Trans-Asia Shipping who were on board the M/V
Asia Philippines during the collision. The findings made by the Board served as
the basis of a subsequent Decision of the Commandant of the Philippine Coast
Guard dated April 29, 1982 wherein the second mate of the M/V Asia Philippines
was suspended from pursuing his profession as a marine officer.
·
On May 30, 1985, the Kramers instituted a
Complaint for damages against Trans-Asia Shipping before Branch 117 of the
Pasay RTC.
·
Trans-Asia Shipping filed a Motion seeking the
dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of prescription. It argued that under
Article 1146 of the Civil Code, the prescriptive period for instituting a
Complaint for damages arising from a quasi-delict like a maritime collision is
4 years. It maintained that the Kramers should have filed their Complaint
within 4 years from the date when their cause of action accrued, i.e., from
April 8, 1976 when the maritime collision took place, and that accordingly, the
Complaint filed on May 30, 1985 was instituted beyond the 4-year prescriptive
period.
·
As a counter-argument, the Kramers contended
that maritime collisions have peculiarities and characteristics which only
persons with special skill, training and experience like the members of the
Board of Marine Inquiry can properly analyze and resolve. The petitioners
argued that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled by the filing of
the marine protest and that their cause of action accrued only on April 29,
1982, the date when the Decision ascertaining the negligence of the crew of the
M/V Asia Philippines had become final, and that the four-year prescriptive
period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code should be computed from the said
date.
·
RTC ruled in favor of the Kramers. But the CA
reversed the RTC ruling and held that the Kramers should have immediately
instituted a complaint for damages based on a quasi-delict within 4 years from
the said marine incident because its cause of action had already definitely
ripened at the onset of the collision. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether or
not the Kramers' action based upon a quasi-delict against Trans-Asia Shipping
has already prescribed. – YES.
·
Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an
action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four years. The
prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed.
·
The collision occurred on April 8, 1976. The
complaint for damages was filed in court only on May 30, 1985 – beyond the
4-year prescriptive period.
·
The right of action accrues when there exists
a cause of action, which consists of 3 elements, namely: a) a right in favor of
the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
b) an obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right; and c) an act
or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the
plaintiff. It is only when the last element occurs or takes place that it can
be said in law that a cause of action has arisen.
·
For damages arising from the collision of 2
vessels (such as the present case), the 4-year prescriptive period must be
counted from the day of the collision. The aggrieved party need not wait for a
determination by an administrative body like a Board of Marine Inquiry, that
the collision was caused by the fault or negligence of the other party before
he can file an action for damages.