Professional Documents
Culture Documents
there is clearance from the captain and (4) there is clearance from the Resorts assistant
G.R. No. 186312 / JUNE 29, 2010 / CARPIO MORALES, J./SUBJECTTOPIC manager.
NATURE Complaint for Damages RTC: dismissed the Petitioners complaint. MR also dismissed.
PETITIONERS SPS Dante & Leonora Cruz CA: affirmed RTC. It stated that respondent is a private carrier which is only required to
RESPONDENTS Sun Holidays, Inc. observe ordinary diligence. MR by petitioners – denied.
SUMMARY. Spouses Cruz filed a complaint for damages against respondent for the death of their son
ISSUES & RATIO.
who died on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized. Respondent said they cannot be held liable
since they are not common carrier. RTC and CA ruled in favor of Respondents. SC reversed and set aside 1. WON respondent is a common carrier – YES.
the lower court’s decision stating that respondent is a common carrier. The Civil Code defines common carriers in the following terms: Article 1732. Common carriers are
DOCTRINE. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the
their services to the public. public.
Art 1732 made no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity.
FACTS. Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
Spouses Cruz filed a Complaint for damages against Sun Holiday arising from the death of offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on
their son Ruelito C. Cruz & his wife (NEWLY WED) on board the boat M/B Coco Beach an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a
III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple carrier offering its services to the general public, i.e., the general community or population, and
had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort) owned and operated by respondent. one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general
The stay of the NEWLY WED at the Resort was a tour packagecontract with respondent that population.
included transportation.
the concept of common carrier under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of
Miguel C. Matute (Matute), a scuba diving instructor and one of the survivors, narrated that on
public service, under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended). Under
the day of tragedy, Matute and 25 other Resort guests including the NEWLY WED trekked to
Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, public service includes: . . . every person that
the other side of the Coco Beach mountain to board M/B Coco Beach III.
now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or
Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain. The weather got worse when they reached the
compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and
open seas that caused the boat to tilt from side to side and the captain to step forward to the
done for general business purposes . .
front, leaving the wheel to one of the crew members.
Respondent is a common carrier because its ferry services are intertwined with its main business as
After getting hit by two big waves which came one after the other, M/B Coco Beach
to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondents ferry services in its resort
III capsized putting all passengers underwater.
operations is underscored by its having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour packages it offers,
The passengers with life jackets struggled to get out of the boat. When they saw and asked the
which include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the
captain what they can do to save the people trapped under the boat that captain replied “Iligtas
same. These services are thus available to the public.
niyo na lang ang sarili niyo.”
When help came after about 45 mins, only 22 persons were saved, the other 8 including the
2. WON Respondent is liable– YES.
NEWLY WED died during the incident.
When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the
Petitioners demanded indemnification form the death of their son. However, respondent denied
common carrier is at fault or negligent. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express
any responsibility because the incident was because of fortuituous event.
finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may
Respondents offer a money as an act of commiseration which was denied by Petitioners.
only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.
Petitioners alleged that respondent, as a common carrier, was guilty of negligence of
Under the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety
negligence in allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail despite storm warning bulletins issued by
of the passengers transported by them. They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
the PAGASA.
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard
Respondent denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are not available to the
for all the circumstances.
general public as they only ferry Resort guests and crew members. Also, it claimed that it
The evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24hour public weather forecasts and tropical cyclone
exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers (by providing sufficient
warnings for shipping on September 10 and 11, 2000 advising of tropical depressions in Northern
life jackets, clearance from the Coast guard & that there is no storm that day).
Luzon which would also affect the province of Mindoro. By the testimony of Dr. Frisco Nilo,
Carlos Bonquin, the captain, said that the all Resort customarily 4 conditions before a boat to
supervising weather specialist of PAGASA, squalls are to be expected under such weather condition.
be allowed to sail was met, (1) the sea is calm, (2) there is clearance from the Coast Guard, (3)
A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave such stormy weather
and put other peoples lives at risk. The extraordinary diligence required of common carriers demands
that they take care of the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own. This
respondent failed to do
DECISION.
Petition granted. CA decision set aside.