HEIRS OF AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND

COMPANIA MARITIMA
G.R. No. L-51165 June 21, 1990

FACTS:

M/V 'Mindoro' sailed from pier 8 North Harbor, Manila at about 2:00 (should have been 6:00
p.m.) in the afternoon bound for New Washington, Aklan, with many passengers aboard. It met
typhoon 'Welming' on the Sibuyan Sea, Aklan, at about 5:00 in the morning causing the death of
many of its passengers, although about 136 survived.

Mauricio delos Santos was with his common-law wife, Amparo delos Santos, and 5 children to
pier 8, North Harbor, Manila, to board the M/V Mindoro 'bound for Aklan. Due to the strong
waves of Typhoon Welming, the vessel sank causing the drowning of many passengers among
whom were Amparo delos Santos, her 5 children, Teresa Pamatian and Diego Salim.

Plaintiffs presented evidence that defendant is negligent. In a decision of the Board of Marine
Inquiry, it was found that the captain and some officers of the crew were indeed negligent in
operating the vessel, however this decision cannot be executed against the captain who perished
with the vessel.

The defendant alleges that no negligence was ever established and, in fact, the shipowners and
their officers took all the necessary precautions in operating the vessel. Furthermore, the loss of
lives as a result of the drowning of some passengers, including the relatives of the herein
plaintiff, was due to force majeure because of the strong typhoon 'Welming.'

RTC: Ruled in favor of Defendant Maritima. It dismissed petitioner’s contention for lack of
evidence.
CA: Affirmed. Ruled that Maritima cannot be held liable in damages based on the principle of
limited liability of the shipowner or ship agent under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce.

ISSUE:

1) Whether Maritima is negligent (YES)

2) Whether Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is applicable in this case (NO)

RULING:

1) Maritima claims that it did not have any information about typhoon 'Welming'
until after the boat was already at sea. Modem technology belie such contention.
The Weather Bureau is now equipped with modern apparatus which enables it to
detect any incoming atmospheric disturbances. In his summary report on tropical
cyclone 'Welming' which occurred within the Philippine Area of Responsibility, Dr. Roman L.
Kintanar, Weather Bureau Director, stated that during the periods of November 15, 1967, the
Bureau issued a total of seventeen (17) warnings or advisories of typhoon 'Welming' to shipping
companies.

If the captain knew of the typhoon beforehand, it is inconceivable for Maritima to be totally in
the dark of 'Welming.' In allowing the ship to depart late from Manila despite the typhoon
advisories, Maritima displayed lack of foresight and minimum concern for the safety of its
passengers taking into account the surrounding circumstances of the case.

While We agree with the appellate court that the captain was negligent for
overloading the ship, We, however, rule that Maritima shares equally in his
negligence. We find that while M/V Mindoro was already cleared by the Bureau of Customs
and the Coast Guard for departure at 2:00 p.m. the ship's departure was, however, delayed for
four hours. Maritima could not account for the delay because it neither checked
from the captain the reasons behind the delay nor sent its representative to
inquire into the cause of such delay. As the appellate court stated, '(v)erily, if it were not
for have reached (its) destination and this delay, the vessel could thereby have avoided the
effects of the storm. This conclusion was buttressed by evidence that another ship,
M/V Mangaren, an interisland vessel, sailed for New Washington, Aklan on
November 2, 1967, ahead of M/V Mindoro and took the same route as the latter but
it arrived safely

Maritima, however, could not present evidence that it specifically installed a radar
which could have allowed the vessel to navigate safely for shelter during a storm.

The foregoing clearly demonstrates that Maritima's lack of extraordinary diligence

coupled with the negligence of the captain as found by the appellate court were the
proximate causes of the sinking of M/V Mindoro.

2. Art. 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for indemnities in favor of third persons
which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the
vessel, but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments
and the freight it may have earned during the voyage.

Under this provision, a shipowner or agent has the right of abandonment; and by
necessary implication, his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of
right to abandon-"the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have
earned during the voyage" (Yangco v. Laserna, et al., 73 Phil. 330, 332). Notwithstanding
the passage of the New Civil Code, Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is still good law. The
reason lies in the peculiar nature of maritime law which is 94 exclusively real and hypothecary
that operates to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any
(Yangco v. Laserna, Ibid). As correctly stated by the appellate court, "(t)his rule is found
necessary to offset against the innumerable hazards and perils of a sea voyage and to encourage
shipbuilding and marine commerce. Contrary to the petitioners' supposition, the limited
liability doctrine applies not only to the goods but also in all cases like death or
injury to passengers wherein the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the
negligent or illicit acts of the captain (Yangco v. Laserna, Ibid). It must be stressed at this
point that Article 587 speaks only of situations where the fault or negligence is
committed solely by the captain. In cases where the shipowner is likewise to be
blamed, Article 587 does not apply). Such a situation will be covered by the provisions of
the New Civil Code on Common Carriers.

Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code, the amount of damages for
the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier is at least three
thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The prevailing jurisprudence has increased the amount of
P3,000.00 to P30,000.00. Consequently, Maritima should pay the civil indemnity of
P30,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims. For mental anguish suffered due to the deaths of
their relatives, Maritima should also pay to the heirs the sum of P10,000.00 each as moral
damages. Passenger of ship who survived sinking not entitled to moral damages in absence of
proof of fraud or bad faith. Mere carelessness of common carrier does not amount to bad faith.

KEY NOTES TO REMEMBER:

 Art. 587 of the Code of Commerce is still good law despite passage of New Civil Code
 Limited liability doctrine of ship’s captain and agent applies to goods and passengers
alike. Civil
 Indemnity for death of a passenger is P30,000, plus P10,000.00 for moral damages
 Passenger of ship who survived sinking not entitled to moral damages in absence of
proof of fraud or bad faith. Mere carelessness of common carrier does not amount to bad
faith.