379 - Vector Shipping v. American Home., 3 July 2013
379 - Vector Shipping v. American Home., 3 July 2013
379 - Vector Shipping v. American Home., 3 July 2013
, 3 July 2013
Title
G.R. No. 159213 July 3, 2013
VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION and FRANCISCO SORIANO vs.
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and SULPICIO LINES, INC.,
Topic
Subrogation
Prescription
Article 1144 of the New Civil Code
Facts
On Sept. 30, 1987 Caltex entered into a contract of Affreightment with Vector Shipping Corp. through MV Vector
own by Fransico Soriano, Caltex insured this petroleum cargo to American Home Assurance Co. in amount of
7,455, 421. 08 in an marine policy.
On Dec. 20, 1987 MV Vector and MV Dona Paz own by Sulpicio Lines collided and both vessel sink, this led to
indemnifying by American Home Assurance to pay Caltex the amount of in the said policy.
On Mar 1992, the respondent filed an action in RTC against Vector and Suplicio Lines to recover the amount, but
rendered that this action had prescribed under the quasi-delict and such must commence within 4 years dismissing
the complaint by the American Home Assurance.
Respondent then appeal to CA which rendered in favor of the respondent, but absolved the Sulpicio lines from
recovering the amount, which then the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration praying to hold Sulpicio Lines
and Vector to jointly liable.
While the appeal of respondent held in abeyance on that matter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court.
Issue
Whether this action of respondent was already barred by prescription for bringing it only on Mar. 5, 1992.
Ruling
No, Vector insist insist that this action was premised on a quasi-delict or upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff,
which, pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, must be instituted within four years from the time the cause of
action accrued.
We concur with the CA’s ruling that respondent’s action did not yet prescribe
Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the cause of action accrues:
(1)Upon a written contract;
(2)Upon an obligation created by law;
(3)Upon a judgment.
This is because the subrogation of respondent to the rights of Caltex as the insured was by virtue of the express
provision of law embodied in Article 2207 of the Civil Code
Article 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance
company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance
company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated
the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved
party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
In legal contemplation, subrogation is the "substitution of another person in the place of the creditor, to whose
rights he succeeds in relation to the debt;" and is "independent of any mere contractual relations between the
parties to be affected by it, and is broad enough to cover every instance in which one party is required to pay a
debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which in equity and conscience ought to be discharged by the
latter."
This action was brought by respondent to recover from Vector and Soriano whatever it had paid to Caltex under its
marine insurance policy.