6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly denied by the CA in its Resolution[26] dated January 11, 2008. On the other hand, since SSSICI did not file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision, the CA issued a Partial Entry of Judgment[27] stating that the decision became final and executory as to SSSICI on October 27, 2007. Hence, this petition where petitioner claims that the CA erred in ignoring the fundamental rule in Maritime Law that the shipowner may exempt itself from liability by abandoning the vessel and freight it may have earned during the voyage, and the proceeds of the insurance if any. Since the liability of the shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel unless there is insurance, any claim against petitioner is limited to the proceeds arising from the insurance policies procured from SSSICI. Thus, there is no reason in making petitioner's exoneration from liability conditional on SSSICI's payment of the insurance proceeds. On December 8, 2008, TEMMPC filed its Manifestation[28] informing us of TEMMPC and TMCL's Joint Motion to Dismiss the Petition and the CA's Resolution[29] dated January 11, 2008 granting it. The dismissal is based on the execution of the Release of All Rights and Full Satisfaction Claim[30] (Release and Quitclaim) on December 14, 2007 between respondents and TEMMPC, TMCL, and Capt. Orbeta. In a Resolution[31] dated January 28, 2009, we noted that TEMMPC, TMCL, and Capt. Orbeta will no longer comment on the Petition. On the other hand, SSSICI filed its Comment[32] to the petition dated September 3, 2010. It alleged that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the insurance claim because claims on the Personal Accident Policies did not arise from employer-employee relations. It also alleged that petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money[33] in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, where it prays for the payment of the insurance proceeds on the individual Marine Insurance Policy with a Personal Accident Policy covering the crewmembers of MV Mahlia. This case was eventually dismissed and is now subject of an appeal[34] before the CA. SSSICI prays that this matter be considered in resolving the present case.[35] Issues I. Whether the doctrine of real and hypothecary nature of maritime law (also known as the limited liability rule) applies in favor of petitioner. II. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the liability of petitioner is extinguished only upon SSSICI's payment of insurance proceeds. Discussion I. Liability under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. At the outset, the CA erred in absolving petitioner from the liabilities under the POEASEC. Petitioner was the local principal of the deceased seafarers for the conduction trip of MV Mahlia. Petitioner hired them through TMCL, which also acted through its agent, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62118 5/18