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

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.