Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 156978 2007-08-24	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY QUISUMBING, J.
The weather was moderate when M/V P. Aboitiz sank. Both the trial and appellate courts also ruled that the M/V P. Aboitiz sank due to its unseaworthiness and not due to typhoon. To limit petitioner's liability to the amount of the insurance proceeds, it has the burden of showing that the unseaworthiness of the vessel was not due to its fault or negligence. But it failed to do so. Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption of negligence, the doctrine of limited liability cannot be applied.[14]
	GR NO. 146426 2006-06-27	CARGOLIFT SHIPPING v. L. ACUARIO MARKETING CORP. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the first assigned error, petitioner is asking this Court to resolve factual issues that have already been settled by the courts below. The question of whether the barge had been damaged during its charter to Skyland is a factual matter, the determination of which may not be generally disturbed on appeal. Questions of fact are not reviewable by this Court except under certain exceptional circumstances.[15] No such exceptional circumstance exists in the case at bar.
	GR NO. 156978 2006-05-02	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY QUISUMBING, J.
Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption of negligence, the doctrine of limited liability cannot be applied.[28] Therefore, we agree with the appellate court in sustaining the trial court's ruling that petitioner is liable for the total value of the lost cargo.