Quiz 6 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
Real and hypothecary
Real is for res.
Hypothecation is the pledging of property or mortgage as surety for a loan.
G.R. Nos. 160088 and 160565
1) Discuss the “No vessel, no liability rule.”
The said rule has been explained to be that of the real and hypothecary doctrine in maritime law where the shipowner or ship agent’s liability is held as merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction.
‘No vessel, no liability,’ expresses in a nutshell the limited liability rule. The shipowner’s or agent’s liability is merely coextensive with his interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. The total destruction of the vessel extinguishes maritime liens because there is no longer any res to which it can attach. This doctrine is based on the real and hypothecary nature of maritime law which has its origin in the prevailing conditions of the maritime trade and sea voyages during the medieval ages, attended by innumerable hazards and perils. To offset against these adverse conditions and to encourage shipbuilding and maritime commerce, it was deemed necessary to confine the liability of the owner or agent arising from the operation of a ship to the vessel, equipment, and freight, or insurance, if any.
G.R. Nos. 160088 and 160565
2) What is the policy behind the Limited Liability Rule?
The policy which the rule is designed to promote is the encouragement of shipbuilding and investment in maritime commerce.
G.R. Nos. 160088 and 160565
3) Could Philippine Trigon claim the benefit of the Limited Liability Rule in order not to be liable for damages? Explain.
No. It is not the shipowner nor its agent; it is only a charterer.
The charterer does not completely and absolutely step into the shoes of the shipowner or even the ship agent because there remains conflicting rights between the former and the real shipowner as derived from their charter agreement.
Their (the charterer’s) possession was, therefore, the uncertain title of lease, not a possession of the owner, such as is that of the agent, who is fully subrogated to the place of the owner in regard to the dominion, possession, free administration, and navigation of the vessel.
G.R. No. 181375
4) Would the total loss of the vessel exonerate petitioner from its liability under the POEA-SEC? Explain.
No.
The petitioner is still liable for the injuries to passengers even without a determination of its fault or negligence.
Also, the limited liability rile has exceptions to its applications, of which the one applicable is the exception in workmen’s compensation claims.
G.R. No. 181375
5) Will petitioner be compensated for his liability under the POEA-SEC? If yes, by whom? If no, why?
YES and NO, depending on how you present your answer.
G.R. No. 181375
6) Is petitioner liable? To Whom? Explain.
Yes, to his co-debtors TEMMPC and TMCL, due to their solidary liability as discussed in Section 10 of the Migrant Worker’s Act of 1995.
Notes:
For Case 2:
Personal Accident Plan. The heirs received compensation for damages twice (2).
1) POEA-SEC. Statutory.
2) Insurer. Due to fault in its admission that it was the lives of the employees that are insured, not the ship.
No technical double compensation.
