GR L 42926; (September, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42926 September 13, 1985
PEDRO VASQUEZ, SOLEDAD ORTEGA, CLETO B. BAGAIPO, AGUSTINA VIRTUDES, ROMEO VASQUEZ and MAXIMINA CAINAY, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS PIONEER LINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the parents of passengers who perished when the MV Pioneer Cebu, owned by private respondent Filipinas Pioneer Lines, Inc., sank after striking a reef near Malapascua Island during typhoon “Klaring” on May 16, 1966. The vessel had departed Manila on May 15, 1966, despite its officers’ prior knowledge of the typhoon’s existence. It sailed under a special permit from customs authorities due to a deficiency in its emergency electrical system, which limited its authorized passenger capacity. During the voyage, the crew monitored the weather and held conferences but chose not to seek shelter at Romblon Island, believing conditions were favorable. The weather deteriorated suddenly after passing Tanguingui island, leading the captain to attempt to weather the storm in open sea, which resulted in the shipwreck.
The parents sued for damages. The trial court ruled in their favor, finding the carrier negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed, absolving the carrier on the grounds of force majeure and holding that its liability was extinguished by the total loss of the vessel under the Code of Commerce. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the carrier is liable for damages arising from the deaths of the passengers despite the occurrence of a typhoon.
RULING
Yes, the carrier is liable. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. The defense of force majeure or fortuitous event is unavailing. For an event to be considered fortuitous, it must be the sole and proximate cause of the loss, and the obligor must be free from any negligence. The carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers. Here, the carrier’s crew was admittedly aware of the typhoon before departure and during the voyage, receiving regular weather bulletins. Their decision to proceed and not to take shelter at available ports constituted a calculated risk, failing to exercise the required extraordinary diligence. This negligence overcame the presumption of force majeure.
Regarding the defense of extinguished liability due to the vessel’s total loss under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce, the Court clarified that such provision does not absolve liability but merely limits it to the value of the vessel or its insurance proceeds. Thus, the insurer should answer for the adjudged damages. The carrier’s liability stands.