KRAMER v CAPetitioner: ERNESTO KRAMER, JR. and MARIA KRAMERRespondent: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC.,Ponente: Gancayco, J..

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:

1. On April 8, 1976, the F/B Marjolea, a fishing boat owned by petitioners Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Marta Kramer collided with an inter-island vessel, the M/V Asia Philippines owned by the private respondent Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. As a consequence of the collision, the F/B Marjolea sank, taking with it its fish catch.

2. Both parties filed their protest with the Board of Marine Inquiry for the determination of the proximate cause of the collission. The Board decided that the collision occurred due to the negligence of the employees of the private respondent who were on board the M/V Asia Philippines.

3. 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.

4. On May 30, 1985, the petitioners instituted a Complaint for damages against the private respondent before the RTC. The private respondent filed a Motion seeking the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of prescription.

5. Respondents argue that the prescription period for actions based on quasi-delict is 4 years from when the cause of action accrued as stated in Art. 1146 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the period should be counted from April 8, 1976 when the collision occurred.

6. Petitioners argue that the period should be counted from 1982, or when the date when the Decision ascertaining the negligence of the crew of the M/V Asia Philippines had become final. They claimed 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.

7. RTC denied the MTD based on the arguments of the petitioners. It stated that prescriptive period under the law should begin to run

only from April 29, 1982, the date when the negligence of the crew of M/V Asia Philippines had been finally ascertained.

8. The CA reversed the RTC decision. The CA stated that the decisions of an admin are not binding on the courts. If an accrual of a cause of action has to be dependent on an action of an admin body, then it might get delayed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the action has prescribed.

RULING + RATIO: 1. YES. 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.

a. The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action, which consists of 3 elements, namely:

i. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created

ii. An obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right

iii. An act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff

b. The occurrence of the last element is the time when the cause of action arise.

c. It is therefore clear that in this action for damages arising from the collision of two (2) vessels the four (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.

d. The period should be counted from April 8, 1976.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.