Case Digest: Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126

Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126, March 4, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Private respondent, Atty. Renato Arroyo, a public attorney, bought a ticket from Trans-Asia Shipping, a corporation engaged in inter-island shipping, for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City on November 12, 1991.

At around 5:30 in the evening of November 12, 1991, Aroyo boarded the M/V Asia Thailand vessel. At that instance, plaintiff noticed that some repair works were being undertaken on the engine of the vessel. The vessel departed at around 11:00 in the evening with only one (1) engine running.

After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor thereat. After half an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to, Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceded to their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City.

At Cebu City, Aroyo together with the other passengers who requested to be brought back to Cebu City, were allowed to disembark. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City. The next day, Aroyo boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of petitioner.

On account of this failure of Trans-Asia to transport him to the place of destination on November 12, 1991, Aroyo filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against petitioner.

Private respondent asserted that his complaint was "an action for damages arising from bad faith, breach of contract and from tort," with the former arising from the petitioner's "failure to carry [him] to his place of destination as contracted," while the latter from the "conduct of the [petitioner] resulting [in] the infliction of emotional distress" to the private respondent.

After trial, RTC ruled that it did not appear from the evidence that plaintiff was left in the Port of Cebu because of the fault, negligence, malice or wanton attitude of defendant's employees, the complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant's counterclaim is likewise dismissed it not appearing also that filing of the case by plaintiff was motivated by malice or bad faith.

Unsatisfied, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA reversed RTC’s decision by applying Article 1755 in relation to Articles 2201, 2208, 2217, and 2232 of the Civil Code and, accordingly, awarded compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner exercised extraordinary diligence required of common carrier.

RULING

No, petitioner did not.

Under the law, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

In this case, SC fully agree with CA that in allowing its unseaworthy M/V Asia Thailand to leave the port of origin and undertake the contracted voyage, with full awareness that it was exposed to perils of the sea, it deliberately disregarded its solemn duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and obviously acted with bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner. Petitioner’s contention that the safety or the vessel and passengers was never at stake because the sea was "calm" in the vicinity where it stopped as faithfully recorded in the vessel's logbook and the private respondent was merely "over-reacting" to the situation obtaining then is unacceptable.

Petitioner's defense cannot exculpate it nor mitigate its liability. On the contrary, such a claim demonstrates beyond cavil the petitioner's lack of genuine concern for the safety of its passengers. It was, perhaps, only providential then the sea happened to be calm. Even so, the petitioner should not expect its passengers to act in the manner it desired. The passengers were not stoics; becoming alarmed, anxious, or frightened at the stoppage of a vessel at sea in an unfamiliar zone as nighttime is not the sole prerogative of the faint-hearted. More so in the light of the many tragedies at sea resulting in the loss of lives of hopeless passengers and damage to property simply because common carriers failed in their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their obligations.