1. KRAMER vs.

CA
-On April 8, 1976 collision between fishing boat owned by Sps. Kramer and M/V Asia
Philippines owned by Trans-Asia. The fishing boat sank.
-Both filed marine protest before the Board of Marine Inquiry. On October 19, 1981 the
Board concluded that the loss was due to the negligence of M/V Philippines during the
collision.
-On May 30, 1985 Kramers instituted a complaint for damages against Trans Asia.
-Trans Asia filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription under Article 1146 –
that prescriptive period for instituting a complaint for damages arising from quasi-delict
is 4 years. He averred that the complaint should have been filed within 4 years from the
date when their cause of action accrued – April 8, 1976
-complainants averred that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled by the filing
of the marine protest and that their cause of action accrued only on April 29,1982, the
date when the Decision ascertaining the negligence of the crew of M/V Asia Philippines
had become final
-The RTC denied the motion to dismiss ruling that in ascertaining negligence relating to a
maritime collision, there is a need to rely on highly technical aspects attendant to such
collision. It then concluded that the perceptive period runs from the time the negligence
of the crew of M/V Asia Philippines had been finally ascertained
-The CA thought otherwise ruling that the period should be reckoned from the time of
the occurrence of the mishap because that the precise time when damages inflicted
upon and sustained by the aggrieved party and from which relief from the court is
presently sought.
-In Espanol vs. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration: The right of action accrues
when there exists a cause of action, which consists of 3 elements: a) a right in favour of
the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; b) an
obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right; c) an act or omission on the
part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff. Thus, it is only when the last
element occurs or takes place that it can be said in law that a cause of action has arisen.

2. Dumuk vs. Daquigan

-On March 2, 1962 Miranda was charged with the crime of serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence in an information that was filed in the Municipal Court of
Bacnotan, La Union. An amended information was filed on October 17, 1969 charging
Miranda with the higher category of serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence.
-On Nov. 20, 1969 pending trial of the said criminal case, Dumuk filed an express
reservation to file a separate action as to the civil liability arising from the offense.
-On October 12, 1971 Miranda was convicted; He appealed this decision to the CFI.
-Before any information could be filed by the provincial fiscal’s office, Dumuk wrote the
provincial fiscal on Feb. 3, 1972 informing him that on account of the felony committed
he suffered 100k damages and he requested the provincial fiscal to include the said
damages in the information. He stated the reason why he reserved his right to file a
separate civil action for damages in the inferior court was because his claim was beyond
the jurisdiction of the said court.
-During the trial the court refused to receive evidence on the civil aspect. Thus in the
decision on October 14, 1977 Miranda was found guilty of the offense charged and
sentenced to 3 months and to pay costs. It was also stated therein that the right to file a
separate civil action for damages was reserved in favour of Dumuk.
-Dumuk earlier filed a complaint for damages against Miranda on August 17, 1977
arising from the criminal act of Miranda on January 12, 1962 apparently because of the
refusal of the trial court to receive evidence on the civil liability in the criminal case. The
trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
-The Supreme Court held that the period of prescription within which to file a civil action
as to the civil liability arising from the offense started to run on Nov. 20, 1969 when
Dumuk informed the municipal court in writing that he was reserving his right to file a
separate civil action. It was interrupted upon filing of the information in the CFI on Feb.
14, 1972 alleging the claim for damages.
-at the time the information was filed the 4 year prescriptive period had not yet lapsed.
Because of the refusal of the trial court to accept evidence of damages in the criminal
case, a separate civil action was instituted by DUmuk on August 17, 1976
However, the civil action based on quasi-delict had prescribed. The act complained of
occurred on Feb. 2, 1962 while the separate civil action for damages was filed by Dumuk
on January 17, 1977