G.R. No. 172682 July 27, 2016
SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner vs. NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO, KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE, Respondents

FACTS

On September 18, 1998, the M/V Princess of the Orient, owned and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., sank near Fortune Island in Batangas. Napoleon Sesante, a passenger who survived, sued for breach of contract of carriage and damages. He alleged the vessel sailed despite stormy weather, that the officers and crew were negligent (e.g., no immediate distress signal, no “abandon ship” protocol), and that he suffered physical injuries, mental anguish, and lost personal belongings including money, jewelry, documents, and a PNP-issued firearm. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Sulpicio Lines liable and awarded temperate and moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, reducing the temperate damages. Sulpicio Lines appealed, arguing, among others, that the action was personal and did not survive Sesante’s death, that it was not liable under Article 1759 of the Civil Code absent bad faith, and that the awards of moral and temperate damages were improper.

ISSUE

1. Is the complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages a personal action that does not survive the death of the plaintiff?
2. Is the petitioner liable for damages under Article 1759 of the Civil Code?
3. Is there sufficient basis for awarding moral and temperate damages?

RULING

1. The action survives the death of the plaintiff. An action for breach of contract of carriage involving personal injury is an action for recovery of damages for injury to person under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, which survives death. Substitution by the heirs is a requirement of due process to protect the deceased’s interests.
2. The petitioner is liable for breach of contract of carriage. Article 1759 of the Civil Code makes common carriers liable for death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, and this liability does not cease even if the carrier exercised diligence in selecting and supervising employees. Furthermore, under Article 1756, common carriers are presumed negligent in case of death or injury to passengers unless they prove they observed extraordinary diligence. The RTC and CA found negligence based on the Board of Marine Inquiry report, which cited the captain’s erroneous maneuvering as the proximate cause of the sinking. The defense of force majeure was rejected.
3. The awards of moral and temperate damages are justified.
* Moral Damages: The Court found sufficient basis for moral damages due to the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and trauma experienced by Sesante during the sinking, which constituted a breach of contract in a wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner. The amount of ₱1,000,000.00 was deemed reasonable and not unconscionable.
* Temperate Damages: The award of temperate damages (modified by the CA to ₱120,000.00) was proper as some pecuniary loss was suffered for lost personal belongings, but the exact amount could not be proven with certainty. The requirement of prior notice under Article 2000 of the Civil Code for lost luggage was deemed inapplicable as the loss occurred during a shipwreck, not due to mere negligence in baggage handling.