G.R. No. 110398 November 7, 1997
Negros Navigation Co., Inc., petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Ramon Miranda, Sps. Ricardo and Virginia de la Victoria, respondents.

FACTS

In April 1980, private respondent Ramon Miranda purchased four special cabin tickets from Negros Navigation Co., Inc. for his wife, daughter, son, and niece for Voyage No. 457-A of the M/V Don Juan, scheduled to leave Manila on April 22, 1980. On the evening of April 22, 1980, the M/V Don Juan collided with the M/T Tacloban City in the Tablas Strait and sank, resulting in the deaths of numerous passengers, including Miranda’s four relatives whose bodies were never recovered. Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against Negros Navigation, Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), and PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC). Petitioner Negros Navigation admitted the purchase of the tickets and the collision but denied that the victims actually boarded the vessel, citing the lack of recovered bodies. Petitioner also asserted that the M/V Don Juan was seaworthy and that the collision was solely due to the fault of the M/T Tacloban City’s crew. Petitioner later entered into a compromise agreement with PNOC, assuming full responsibility for claims arising from the collision. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications to the amounts of damages awarded.

ISSUE

1. Whether the members of private respondents’ families were actually passengers of the M/V Don Juan.
2. Whether the ruling in Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, finding the crew members of petitioner grossly negligent, is binding in this case.
3. Whether the total loss of the M/V Don Juan extinguished petitioner’s liability.
4. Whether the damages awarded by the appellate court are excessive, unreasonable, and unwarranted.

RULING

1. Yes. The fact that the victims were passengers was sufficiently proven. Private respondent Ramon Miranda testified that he personally accompanied his family and niece to the vessel and stayed with them until departure. His testimony was corroborated by the passenger manifest listing their names and ticket numbers, and by survivor Edgardo Ramirez, who testified to being with the victims on the ship and having dinner with them before the collision. The non-recovery of their bodies does not disprove their presence, as other passengers were also missing and not recovered.
2. Yes. The findings in Mecenas v. Court of Appeals are binding. In that case, the Supreme Court found the crew of the M/V Don Juan grossly negligent. The master was playing mahjong during the collision, the officer on watch failed to alert him to imminent danger, and the crew failed to take preventive steps or supervise abandonment. The vessel was also overloaded, carrying 1,004 persons against an allowed maximum of 864. The M/V Don Juan, as the faster and better-equipped vessel, could have avoided the collision. Therefore, the Don Juan was guilty of contributory negligence.
3. No. The total loss of the vessel does not extinguish liability. A common carrier’s liability for the death of or injury to passengers arises from breach of contract of carriage, not from the loss of the vessel. The liability persists irrespective of the vessel’s loss.
4. No. The damages awarded are not excessive. The Court modified the awards, ordering petitioner to pay private respondent Ramon Miranda: P23,075.00 as actual damages; P109,038.96 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity of his wife; P150,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death of three victims; P300,000.00 as moral damages; P300,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P40,000.00 as attorney’s fees. To private respondents Spouses Ricardo and Virginia de la Victoria: P12,000.00 as actual damages; P111,456.00 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity; P50,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P15,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The awards are justified given the gross negligence of petitioner’s crew and the resultant deaths.