G.R. No.

172682 – 798 SCRA 459 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages –

Article 1759 – Common Carriers – Liability of Employers; Liability
of Vehicle Owners – Extraordinary Diligence – Fortuitous Event;
when not available as a defense

In September 1998, despite the bad weather, the M/V Princess of

the Orient, a passenger boat owned by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. sailed
from the port of Manila. The vessel sank killing about 150 people.
Napoleon Sesante was one of those who survived. He sued
Sulpicio Lines for damages.

It was alleged that Sulpicio’s employees were negligent and that

the boat should have never sailed due to the bad weather.
Sulpicio argued that the boat was seaworthy and that the incident
happened due to fortuitous event.

The trial court found that Sulpicio had not established its due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessel crew; that
the ship officers had failed to inspect the stowage of cargoes
despite being aware of the storm signal; that the officers and
crew of the vessel had not immediately sent a distress signal to
the Philippine Coast Guard; that the ship captain had not called
for the “abandon ship” protocol; and that based on the report of
the Board of Marine Inquiry, the erroneous maneuvering of the
vessel by the captain during the extreme weather condition had
been the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking.

ISSUE: Whether or not fortuitous event is a defense in this case.

HELD: No. Article 1759 of the Civil Code does not establish a
presumption of negligence because it explicitly makes the
common carrier liable in the event of death or injury to
passengers due to the negligence or fault of the common carrier’s
employees. The liability of common carriers under Article 1759 is
demanded by the duty of extraordinary diligence required of
common carriers in safely carrying their passengers.

The presumption of negligence applies so long as there is

evidence showing that: (a) a contract exists between the
passenger and the common carrier; and (b) the injury or death
took place during the existence of such contract. In such event,
the burden shifts to the common carrier to prove its observance
of extraordinary diligence, and that an unforeseen event or force
majeure had caused the injury.

A common carrier may be relieved of any liability arising from a

fortuitous event pursuant to Article 1174 of the Civil Code. But
while it may free a common carrier from liability, the provision
still requires exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury
or loss. For a common carrier to be absolved from liability in case
of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by
a fortuitous event. The common carrier must still prove that it did
not contribute to the occurrence of the incident due to its own or
its employees’ negligence.