Kramer vs. Court of Appeals

An action founded upon a quasi-delict must be filed within four years from the day the quasi-delict is committed — here, the date of the maritime collision — and the prescriptive period is not tolled by the pendency of an administrative investigation into the cause of the accident.

In the early morning of April 8, 1976, the fishing boat F/B Marjolea, owned by petitioners Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Maria Kramer, was navigating from Marinduque to Manila. Near Maricabon Island and Cape Santiago, the boat collided with the inter-island vessel M/V Asia Philippines, owned by private respondent Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. The F/B Marjolea sank, taking its fish catch with it.

• The Collision: On April 8, 1976, the fishing boat F/B Marjolea, owned by petitioners Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Maria Kramer, was sailing from Marinduque to Manila. Near Maricabon Island and Cape Santiago, it collided with the inter-island vessel M/V Asia Philippines, which was owned by private respondent Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. The F/B Marjolea sank, and its entire fish catch was lost.
• Administrative Proceedings: Following the mishap, the captains of both vessels lodged marine protests with the Board of Marine Inquiry of the Philippine Coast Guard. The Board conducted an investigation and, on October 19, 1981, determined that the loss of the F/B Marjolea and its cargo was caused by the negligence of private respondent’s employees aboard the M/V Asia Philippines. On April 29, 1982, the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard issued a Decision adopting the Board’s findings and suspending the second mate of the M/V Asia Philippines from his profession as a marine officer.
• Filing of the Complaint: On May 30, 1985 — more than nine years after the collision — petitioners instituted a civil action for damages against private respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action had prescribed under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the prescriptive period should be counted from April 29, 1982, the date when the Coast Guard finally determined the fault of private respondent’s crew. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the four-year period began on the day of the collision and had already elapsed.

• Commencement of Prescriptive Period: Petitioners maintained that maritime collisions involve technical peculiarities that only a specialist body like the Board of Marine Inquiry can properly analyze. They contended that the filing of the marine protest tolled the running of the prescriptive period, and their cause of action accrued only on April 29, 1982, when the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard finally determined that the collision was attributable to the negligence of private respondent’s employees. Consequently, the complaint filed on May 30, 1985 was filed within the four-year period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
• Applicability of the Vazquez Ruling: Petitioners argued that the decision of the Court of Appeals was inconsistent with the ruling in Vasquez, where the prescriptive period was purportedly computed from the final administrative determination, and that the same principle should apply.

• Prescription from the Date of Collision: Private respondent countered that under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based on quasi-delict prescribes in four years, and the period begins to run from the day the quasi-delict is committed — April 8, 1976, the date of the collision. The complaint filed on May 30, 1985 was therefore instituted well beyond the prescriptive period.
• Non-tolling Effect of Administrative Proceedings: Private respondent maintained that the Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations cannot repeal or modify the provisions of the Civil Code on prescription of actions. The findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry do not suspend the accrual of the cause of action or the running of the prescriptive period.

• Prescription of Action: Whether the four-year prescriptive period for an action for damages founded on quasi-delict arising from a maritime collision begins to run from the date of the collision, or only from the date when an administrative body (the Board of Marine Inquiry/Philippine Coast Guard) finally determines the negligence of the party causing the collision.

• Prescription of Action: The prescriptive period commenced on the day of the collision, April 8, 1976. A cause of action based on quasi-delict accrues when the last of its three elements occurs — an act or omission violative of the plaintiff’s right. That act is the collision itself, not its subsequent administrative characterization. The ruling in Paulan vs. Sarabia squarely established that the four-year period in collision cases is counted from the day of the accident. The aggrieved party need not await the outcome of an administrative investigation before seeking judicial relief; the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry are not binding on the courts and cannot operate to delay the accrual of the cause of action. The decision in Vasquez, which involved a collision due to a fortuitous event, was distinguished and held inapplicable. Because the complaint was filed only on May 30, 1985, more than nine years after the collision, the action had prescribed.

• Accrual of cause of action for quasi-delict — A cause of action consists of three elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right; and (3) an act or omission by the defendant violative of the plaintiff’s right. The cause of action accrues, and the prescriptive period begins to run, only when the last element occurs. In a quasi-delict arising from a collision, the third element is the collision itself.
• Prescriptive period for actions upon a quasi-delict under Article 1146 — Actions upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four years. The period is computed from the day the quasi-delict is committed, not from the discovery of the defendant’s fault or from a definitive administrative determination of negligence.

• "Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four (4) years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed."
• "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 ... ."
• "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. The ruling in Vasquez does not apply in this case. Immediately after the collision the aggrieved party can seek relief from the courts by alleging such negligence or fault of the owners, agents or personnel of the other vessel."

• Paulan vs. Sarabia, G.R. L-10542, July 31, 1952 — Followed. In an action for damages arising from a collision of two trucks based on a quasi-delict, the four-year prescriptive period must be counted from the day of the collision.
• Espanol vs. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA 314 (1985) — Followed. Defined the three elements of a cause of action and held that it accrues when the last element takes place.
• Vasquez, 138 SCRA 553 (1985) — Distinguished. That case involved a maritime collision attributable to a fortuitous event, rendering its ruling on the tolling of the prescriptive period by proceedings before the Board of Marine Inquiry inapplicable to the present collision caused by negligence.

• Article 1146, Civil Code — Prescribes a four-year period for actions upon a quasi-delict. The Court applied the provision by counting the period from the date the quasi-delict was committed, i.e., the day of the collision, and not from any subsequent administrative finding.
• Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations, Article XVI/b — Cited by the trial court as the source of the Board of Marine Inquiry’s jurisdiction to investigate marine accidents. The Supreme Court ruled that these regulations do not alter the rules on prescription of actions under the Civil Code.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.