Case Digest: Cruz v. Sun Holidays, 622 SCRA 389, G.R. No. 186312

 

Cruz v. Sun Holidays, 622 SCRA 389, G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz (petitioners) lodged a complaint against Sun Holidays, Inc. (respondent) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz (Ruelito) who perished with his wife on September 11, 2000 on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort) owned and operated by respondent.

The newly wed Ruelito and his wife stayed at the resort from September 9 to 11, 2000 by virtue of a tour package-contract with respondent that included transportation to and from the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas.

Respondent denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous event. It nevertheless offered, as an act of commiseration, the amount of ₱10,000 to petitioners upon their signing of a waiver. Petitioners declined respondent’s offer and filed the complaint, as earlier reflected, alleging that respondent was a common carrier guilty of negligence in allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail notwithstanding storm warning bulletins issued by PAG-ASA.

RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint and respondent’s counterclaim. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of RTC that respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence; that respondent in fact observed extraordinary diligence in transporting its guests on board M/B Coco Beach III; and that the proximate cause of the incident was a squall, a fortuitous event.

ISSUE

Whether or not, respondent is a private carrier; if not, whether or not the event is caso fortuito, a case exempting liability of a common carrier.

RULING

No. Respondent is a common carrier, and this is not a fortuitous event.

Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.

In this case, petitioner’s contention that they complied with all the requirements to set sail and that the event is a fortuitous event are untenable. For fortuitous event to take effect, one of its elements is it should be free from human intervention. Based on circumstantial evidence, the occurrence of squalls was expected under the weather condition of September 11, 2000, and that M/B Coco Beach III suffered engine trouble before it capsized and sank. The incident was, therefore, not completely free from human intervention. Respondent failed to prove that it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, it is presumed to have acted recklessly, thus warranting the award of damages.