8/12/2019 2. E. 5. Kramer v. CA
1/1
II. Quasi-Delicts
E. Defenses
5.Prescription
Kramer v. CA
Facts: F/B ar!olea" a fis#in$ %oat o&ne' %( petitioners"
Kramer spouses" colli'e' &it# /) Asia P#ilippines
o&ne' %( private respon'ent *rans-Asia +#ippin$ ,ines" Inc.
ar!olea san. After t#e mis#ap" t#e captains of
%ot# vessels file' t#eir respective marine protests &it# t#e
Boar' of arine Inuir( BI0. BI con'ucte' aninvesti$ation to
'etermine t#e pro1imate cause. 2n October 19, 1981, t#e Boar'
conclu'e' t#at t#e loss of t#e
F/B ar!olea an' its fis# catc# &as attri%uta%le to t#e
ne$li$ence of t#e emplo(ees of t#e private respon'ent
o &ere on %oar' t#e /) Asia P#ilippines 'urin$ t#e
collision. *#e fin'in$s ma'e %( t#e Boar' serve' as t#e
%asis of a su%seuent Decision of t#e Comman'ant of t#e
P#ilippine Coast 3uar' 'ate' April 4" 674 erein
t#e secon' mate of t#e /) Asia P#ilippines &as suspen'e'
from pursuin$ #is profession as a marine officer.
ON MAY 30, 1985, t#e petitioners institute' a Complaint for
'ama$es a$ainst t#e private respon'ent in
t#e 8*C. *#e private respon'ent file' a motion seein$ 'ismissal
on t#e ground of prescription.9e ar$ue' t#at
un'er Article 66; of t#e Civil Co'e" t#e prescriptive perio' for
institutin$ a Complaint for 'ama$es arisin$
from a uasi-'elict lie a maritime collision is four (ears. 9e
maintaine' t#at t#e petitioners s#oul' #ave file'
t#eir Complaint &it#in four (ears from t#e 'ate en t#eir
cause of action accrue'" i.e., from April 7" 6
