Sps. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc., G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010

 

Spouses Cruz vs Sun Holiday, Inc. NA AT TU R RE E

ther theree is clearanc clearancee from the captain captain and (4) there is clearanc clearancee from the Resorts Resorts assista assistant nt

G.R. No. 186312 / JUNE 29, 2010 / CARPIO MORALES, J./SUBJECT-TOPIC C om om pl pla iin nt fo orr D am amag es es

PETITIONERS

SPS Dante & Leonora Cruz

RESPONDENTS

Sun Holidays, Inc.

SUMMARY . Spouses Cruz filed a complaint for damages against respondent for the death of their son who died on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized. Respon Respondent dent said they cannot be held liable

 

manager. RTC: dismissed the Petitioners complaint. MR also dismissed. CA: affirmed RTC. It stated that respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence. MR by petitioners – denied.

 ISSUES & RATIO. 1. WON respon respondent dent is a common ca carrier rrier – YES.

since they are not common carrier. RTC and CA ruled in favor of Respondents. SC reversed and set aside the lower court’s decision stating that respondent is a common carrier.



 DOCTRINE.. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged  DOCTRINE engaged in the business of  carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.

The Civil Code defines common carriers in the following terms: Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.



Art 1732 made no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of  persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity .

 FACTS. 









Spouses Cruz filed a Complaint for damages against Sun Holiday arising from the death of  their son Ruelito C. C. Cruz & his wife (NEWLY WED) on board the boat  M/B Coco Beach

an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis . Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a

 III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple

carrier offering its services to the general public, i.e., the general community or population, and

had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort) owned and operated by respondent.

one who offer offerss services or solicits business business only from a narrow segment segment of the general

The stay of the NEWLY WED at the Resort was a tour package-contract with respondent that included transportation.



Miguel C. Matute (Matute), a scuba diving instructor and one of the survivors, narrated that on the day of tragedy, Matute and 25 other Resort guests including the NEWLY WED trekked to the other side of the Coco Beach Beach mountain to board M/B Coco Beach III .

After getting getting hit by two big waves which came one after the other, M/B Coco Beach

Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, public service includes: . . . every person that  now or herea hereafter fter may own, operat operate, e, manag manage, e, or control in the Philippi Philippines nes ,  for hire or  compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental , and 

The passengers with life jackets struggled to get out of the boat. When they saw and asked the

which include include the ferry service services, s, may be availed availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the

captain what they can do to save the people trapped under the boat that captain replied “ Iligtas niyo na lang ang sarili niyo .” 

When help came after about 45 mins, only 22 persons were saved, the other 8 including the



NEWLY WED died during the incident. Petitioners demanded indemnification indemnification form the death of their son. However, respondent denied any responsibility because the incident was because of fortuituous event.



Respondents offer a money as an act of commiseration which was denied by Petitioners. Peti Petitione tioners rs alle alleged ged that respondent respondent,, as a common common carrier, carrier, was guilt guilty y of negl negligenc igencee of  negligence in allowing  M/B Coco Beach III to sail despite storm warning bulletins issued by





same. These services are thus available to the public. 2. WON Respond Respondent ent is liable– YES. YES. 



the PAGASA. Respondent denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are not available to the general public as they only ferry Resort guests and crew members. Also, it claimed that it exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers (by providing sufficient life jackets, clearance from the Coast guard & that there is no storm that day). Carlos Bonquin, the captain, said that the all Resort customarily 4 conditions before a boat to be allowed to sail was met, (1) the sea is calm, (2) there is clearance from the Coast Guard, (3)

done for general business purposes . . Respondent is a common carrier because its ferry services are intertwined with its main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondents ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by its having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour packages it offers,

 III capsized putting all passengers underwater. 

population. the concept of common carrier under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of 

public service, under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended). Under

Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain. The weather got worse when they reached the open seas that caused the boat to tilt from side to side and the captain to step forward to the front, leaving the wheel to one of the crew members.



Articlee 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction Articl distinction between   a person or enterprise enterprise

offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on



When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence. Under the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them. They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. The evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24-hour public weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for shipping on September 10 and 11, 2000 advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon which would also affe affect ct the provi province nce of M Mindor indoro. o. By By the test testimon imony y of Dr. Frisc Frisco o Nilo, supervising weather specialist of PAGASA, squalls are to be expected under such weather condition.



A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave such stormy weather and put other peoples lives at r isk. The extraordinary diligence required of common carriers demands

 

that they take care of the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own. This respondent failed to do  DECISION . Petition granted. CA decision set aside.