Case Digest: Transasia Shipping vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118126

 

Transasia Shipping vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 260, G.R. No. 118126, March 04, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Renato Arroyo, a public attorney, bought a ticket from herein petitioner for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City on November 12, 1991.

The vessel departed with only one engine running. After an hour, 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.

In Cebu City, plaintiff 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. Petitioner, the next day, boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of defendant.

Hence, respondent Arroyo filed before the trial court “an action for damage arising from bad faith, breach of contract and from tort,” against petitioner. The trial court ruled only for breach of contract. The CA reversed the trial court's decision and allowed only compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages. No actual damages was given for there was no designation of departure time as well as petitioner’s liability as to delay in departure.

ISSUE

Whether or not in case of interruption of a vessel's voyage and the consequent delay in that vessel's arrival at its port of destination, the right of a passenger affected thereby to be determined and governed by the vague Civil Code provision on common carriers, or in the absence of a specific provision thereon governed by Art. 698 of the Code of Commerce?

RULING

Art. 698 of the Code of Commerce applies suppletorily with the New Civil Code provisions.

The Civil Code is silent on the rights and duties arising from the delay in a vessel's voyage. However, the petitioner correctly cites Article 698 of the Code of Commerce, which outlines specific provisions for such situations. According to Article 698, passengers must pay a fare proportionate to the distance covered if a voyage is interrupted due to fortuitous events or force majeure. Passengers have a right to indemnity if the interruption is exclusively caused by the captain. The article applies suppletorily according to Article 1766 of the Civil Code.

In this case, the petitioner's failure to observe extraordinary diligence caused the delay. Article 698, in conjunction with other Civil Code articles, holds the petitioner liable for pecuniary losses or loss of profits suffered by the private respondent due to the delay. The private respondent's loss of income, assuming he stayed on the vessel, is considered. However, as the private respondent and some passengers chose not to complete the voyage, causing the vessel to return to its origin, any further delay was a result of his decision to disembark. Had the private respondent stayed on the first vessel, he would have reached his destination on time. Compensatory damages must be proven, and the private respondent failed to provide convincing evidence that he did not receive his salary for the specified date, or that his absence was not excused. Consequently, the petitioner may not be liable for compensatory damages.