GR L 51165; (June, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-51165 June 21, 1990
HEIRS OF AMPARO DELOS SANTOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND COMPANIA MARITIMA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the heirs of passengers who perished, and a surviving passenger, Ruben Reyes, from the sinking of M/V Mindoro, a vessel owned by respondent Compania Maritima, on November 4, 1967, after encountering Typhoon Welming. They filed an action for damages alleging negligence on the part of the carrier. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the sinking was due to a fortuitous event, a typhoon. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
The evidence established that the vessel sailed with passengers exceeding the limit stated in a special permit from the Bureau of Customs. A decision from the Board of Marine Inquiry found the captain and certain crew members negligent in operating the vessel. Petitioners also presented proof of the deaths and their resulting pecuniary losses.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Compania Maritima is liable for damages arising from the death of its passengers and the losses suffered by a survivor despite the occurrence of a typhoon.
RULING
Yes, the respondent carrier is liable. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic is grounded in the nature of a common carrier’s obligation. Under the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and passengers they transport. This liability persists even in cases of fortuitous events, unless the carrier proves that the fortuitous event was the sole and proximate cause of the loss, and that it had exercised such extraordinary diligence.
Here, the carrier failed to overcome this presumption of negligence. The vessel was overloaded, violating the conditions of its special permit. This fact alone constitutes a breach of its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence. The typhoon, therefore, cannot be considered the sole cause of the disaster. The carrier’s own negligence contributed to the loss. Consequently, it is liable for breach of contract of carriage. The Court awarded indemnity for death, moral damages to the heirs, and proven actual damages. However, the surviving passenger, Reyes, was not awarded moral damages as such damages are generally not recoverable in a breach of contract case absent fraud or bad faith, which was not proven.