Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 168
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
*
No. L-74811. December 14, 1988.
CHUA YEK HONG, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE

APPELLATE COURT, MARIANO GUNO, and
DOMINADOR OLIT, respondents.
Commercial law; Requisite for the exception to the limited

liability rule to apply under the Code of Commerce; Case at bar.—
Petitioner argues that this Court failed to consider the Trial
Court’s finding that the loss of the vessel with its cargo was due to
the fault of the ship-owner or to the concurring negligence of the
shipowner and the captain. The Appellate Court Decision,
however, mentions only the ship captain as having been negligent
in the performance of his duties (p. 3, Court of Appeals Decision,
p. 15, Rollo.) This is a factual finding binding on this Court. For
the exception to the limited liability rule (Article 587, Code of
Commerce) to apply, the loss must be due to the fault of the
shipowner, or to the concurring negligence of the shipowner and
the captain. As we held, there is nothing in the records showing
such negligence (p. 6, Decision).
Same; Same; The ruling laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines

vs. IAC is not applicable in the case at bar; Reasons.—Petitioner
further contends that the ruling laid down in Eastern Shipping
Lines vs. IAC, et al. (150 SCRA 464 [1987]) should be made to
apply in the instant case. That case, however, involved foreign
maritime trade while the present case involves local inter-island
shipping. The environmental set-up in the two cases, therefore, is
not on all fours.
PETITION for Motion for Reconsideration affirming the

judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Francisco D. Estrada for petitioner.
Purita Hontanosas-Cortes for private respondents.
RESOLUTION
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000172971fe0675022a537003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/3
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision

dated 30 September 1988 affirming the judgment of the
Court
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
473
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 14, 1988 473

Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
of Appeals dismissing the complaint against private

respondents and absolving them from any and all liability
arising from the loss of 1000 sacks of copra shipped by
petitioner aboard private respondents’ vessel. Private
respondents filed an opposition thereto.
Petitioner argues that this Court failed to consider the
Trial Court’s finding that the loss of the vessel with its
cargo was due to the fault of the shipowner or to the
concurring negligence of the shipowner and the captain.
The Appellate Court Decision, however, mentions only
the ship captain as having been negligent in the
performance of his duties (p. 3, Court of Appeals Decision,
p. 15, Rollo). This is a factual finding binding on this Court.
For the exception to the limited liability rule (Article 587,
Code of Commerce) to apply, the loss must be due to the
fault of the shipowner, or to the concurring negligence of
the shipowner and the captain. As we held, there is nothing
in the records showing such negligence (p. 6, Decision.)
The invocation by petitioners of Articles 1733 and 1735
of the Civil Code is misplaced. As was stated in the
Decision sought to be reconsidered, while the primary law
governing the instant case is the Civil Code, in all matters
not regulated by said Code, the Code of Commerce and
other special laws shall govern. Since the Civil Code
contains no provisions regulating liability of shipowners or
agents in the event of total loss or destruction of the vessel,
it is the provisions of the Code of Commerce, particularly
Article 587, that governs.
Petitioner further contends that the ruling laid down in
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. IAC, et al. (150 SCRA 464
[1987]) should be made to apply in the instant case. That
case, however, involved foreign maritime trade while the

present case involves local inter-island shipping. The
environmental set-up in the two cases, therefore, is not on
all fours.
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and this denial is
FINAL.
SO ORDERED.
Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.,

concur.
Motion denied.
———o0o———
474
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 168

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CHUA YEK HONG, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE

Commercial law; Requisite for the exception to the limited

Same; Same; The ruling laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines

PETITION for Motion for Reconsideration affirming the

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 14, 1988 473

of Appeals dismissing the complaint against private

case, however, involved foreign maritime trade while the

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.,

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like