35 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs.

Sesante (JH)
its employees. The presumption of negligence applies so long as there is
July 27, 2016 | Bersamin, J. | OBLI. OF THE CC A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OF evidence showing that:
PASSENGERS a. a contract exists between the passenger and the common carrier; and
Petitioner: SULPICIO LINES, INC. b. the injury or death took place during the existence of such contract.
Respondents: NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL 2) A contract of carriage generates a relation attended with public duty, neglect or
ATILANO, KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND malfeasance of the carrier's employees and gives ground for an action for
KARISNA KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE damages.

SUMMARY: FACTS:
The M/V Princess of the Orient, a passenger vessel owned and operated by the 1. On September 18, 1998, at around 12:55 p.m., the M/V Princess of the
petitioner, sank near Fortune Island in Batangas. Of the 388 recorded Orient, a passenger vessel owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
passengers, 150 were lost. Napoleon Sesante, then a member of the Philippine (Petitioner), sank near Fortune Island in Batangas. There were 388
National Police (PNP) and a lawyer, was one of the passengers who survived the recorded passengers, 150 were lost.
sinking. He sued the petitioner for breach of contract and damages. 2. Napoleon Sesante, then a member of the Philippine National Police and
PETITIONER’S DEFENSE: it insisted on the seaworthiness of the M/V Princess a lawyer, was one of the passengers who survived the sinking. He sued
of the Orient due to its having been cleared to sail from the Port of Manila by the the petitioner for breach of contract and damages.
proper authorities; that the sinking had been due to force majeure; that it had not 3. Sesante alleged in his complaint:
been negligent. Lower courts held SUlpicio liable because of the negligence of the a. that the M/V Princess of the Orient left the Port of Manila while Metro
officers and crew. Hence this appeal. ISSUE/S: WoN the petitioner is liable for Manila was experiencing stormy weather;
breach of contract of carriage? YES Sulpicio Lines Inc. is liable for breach of b. that he had gone to the uppermost deck where he witnessed the strong
contract of carriage. The petitioner was directly liable to Sesante and his heirs. winds and big waves pounding the vessel;
Article 1759 of the Civil Code does not establish a presumption of negligence c. that at the same time, he had seen how the passengers had been
because it explicitly makes the common carrier liable in the event of death or panicking, crying for help and frantically scrambling for life jackets in the
injury to passengers due to the negligence or fault of the common carrier's absence of the vessel's officers and crew.
employees. Even the mere proof of injury relieves the passengers from d. thereafter, big waves had rocked the vessel, tossing him to the floor
where he was pinned by a long steel bar;
establishing the fault or negligence of the carrier or its employees. In such event,
e. that he had freed himself only after another wave had hit the vessel;
the burden shifts to the common carrier to prove its observance of extraordinary that he had managed to stay afloat after the vessel had sunk, and had
diligence, and that an unforeseen event or force majeure had caused the injury been carried by the waves to the coastline of Cavite and Batangas until
Even assuming the seaworthiness of the M/V Princess of the Orient, the petitioner he had been rescued;
could not escape liability considering that the immediate and proximate cause of f. that he had suffered tremendous hunger, thirst, pain, fear, shock,
the sinking of the vessel had been the gross negligence of its captain in serious anxiety and mental anguish;
maneuvering the vessel. g. that he had sustained injuries, and had lost money, jewelry, important
WoN the complaint for breach of contract and damages is a personal action documents, police uniforms and the .45 caliber pistol issued to him by
the PNP; and
that does not survive the death of the plaintiff? NO Substitution by the heirs is
h. that because it had committed bad faith in allowing the vessel to sail
not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. A contract of despite the storm signal, the petitioner should pay him actual and moral
carriage generates a relation attended with public duty, neglect or malfeasance of damages of P500,000.00 and P1,000,000.00, respectively.
the carrier's employees and gives ground for an action for damages. Sesante's 4. PETITIONER’S DEFENSE: it insisted on the seaworthiness of the M/V
claim against the petitioner involved his personal injury caused by the breach of Princess of the Orient due to its having been cleared to sail from the Port
the contract of carriage. Pursuant to the aforecited rules, the complaint survived of Manila by the proper authorities; that the sinking had been due to
his death, and could be continued by his heirs following the rule on substitution. force majeure; that it had not been negligent; and that its officers and
crew had also not been negligent because they had made preparations
DOCTRINE: Not sure which issue to focus on. 1) Even the mere proof of injury to abandon the vessel because they had launched life rafts and had
relieves the passengers from establishing the fault or negligence of the carrier or provided the passengers assistance in that regard.

1
 5. RTC: Ruled in favor of Sesante. Based on the report of the Board of Marine 5. The RTC is not required to make an express finding of the common
Inquiry (BMI), the erroneous maneuvering of the vessel by the captain carrier's fault or negligence. Even the mere proof of injury relieves the
during the extreme weather condition had been the immediate and passengers from establishing the fault or negligence of the carrier
proximate cause of the sinking. The petitioner, being negligent, was liable to or its employees. The presumption of negligence applies so long as
Sesante pursuant to Articles 1739 and 1759 of the Civil Code; there is evidence showing that:
6. CA: Lowered temperate damages. Held that despite the seaworthiness of a. a contract exists between the passenger and the common
the vessel, the petitioner remained civilly liable because its officers and carrier; and
crew had been negligent in performing their duties. b. the injury or death took place during the existence of such
7. Still aggrieved, Sulpicio Lines moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied contract.
the motion. Hence, this appeal. 6. In such event, the burden shifts to the common carrier to prove its
observance of extraordinary diligence, and that an unforeseen event or
ISSUE/S: NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS IMPORTANT CAUSE BOTH CAN BE force majeure had caused the injury.
CONNECTED TO THE TOPIC IN SYLLABUS 7. Sesante sustained injuries due to the buffeting by the waves and
1. WoN the petitioner is liable for breach of contract of carriage? YES consequent sinking of M/V Princess of the Orient where he was a
2. WoN the complaint for breach of contract and damages is a personal passenger. To exculpate itself from liability, the common carrier vouched
action that does not survive the death of the plaintiff? NO for the seaworthiness of M/V Princess of the Orient, and referred to the
BMI report to the effect that the severe weather condition — a force
3. WoN there is sufficient basis for awarding moral and temperate damages?
majeure — had brought about the sinking of the vessel.
YES 8. A common carrier may be relieved of any liability arising from a fortuitous
RATIO: event pursuant to Article 1174 of the Civil Code. But while it may free a
On whether the petitioner is liable for breach of contract of carriage? YES common carrier from liability, the provision still requires exclusion of
1. Sulpicio Lines Inc. is liable for breach of contract of carriage. The petitioner human agency from the cause of injury or loss. Else stated, for a
was directly liable to Sesante and his heirs. common carrier to be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it
2. The petitioner submits that an action for damages based on breach of is not enough that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The
contract of carriage under Article 1759 of the Civil Code should be read in common carrier must still prove that it did not contribute to the
conjunction with Article 2201 of the same code; that although Article 1759 occurrence of the incident due to its own or its employees' negligence.
only provides for a presumption of negligence, it does not envision 9. The Court explained in Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v.
automatic liability; and that it was not guilty of bad faith considering that the Transport Venture, Inc.,
sinking of M/V Princess of the Orient had been due to a fortuitous event, an a. “In order to be considered a fortuitous event, however, (1)
exempting circumstance under Article 1174 of the Civil Code. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence,
3. Article 17591 of the Civil Code does not establish a presumption of or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation,
negligence because it explicitly makes the common carrier liable in must be independent of human will; (2) it must be
the event of death or injury to passengers due to the negligence or impossible to foresee the event which constitute the caso
fault of the common carrier's employees. fortuito, or if it can be foreseen it must be impossible to
4. The liability of common carriers under Article 1759 is demanded by the duty avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it
of extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in safely carrying impossible for the debtor to ful􏰀ll his obligation in any
their passengers. manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to
1
Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death or injuries to passengers through the creditor.”
the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may 10. The petitioner has attributed the sinking of the vessel to the storm
have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common notwithstanding its position on the seaworthiness of M/V Princess of the
carriers. This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all Orient. Yet, the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry directly
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. contradicted the petitioner's attribution.
11. Even assuming the seaworthiness of the M/V Princess of the
Orient, the petitioner could not escape liability considering that the

2
 immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel had been 1. The Court agree with the petitioner that moral damages may be
the gross negligence of its captain in maneuvering the vessel. recovered in an action upon breach of contract of carriage only when: (a)
12. The Court also notes that Metro Manila was experiencing Storm Signal No. death of a passenger results, or (b) it is proved that the carrier was guilty
1 during the time of the sinking. The BMI observed that a vessel like the of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result.
M/V Princess of the Orient, which had a volume of 13.734 gross tons, 2. However, moral damages may be awarded if the contractual breach is
should have been capable of withstanding a Storm Signal No. 1 found to be wanton and deliberately injurious, or if the one responsible
considering that the responding fishing boats of less than 500 gross tons acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith.
had been able to weather through the same waves and winds to go to the 3. The totality of the negligence by the officers and crew of M/V
succor of the sinking vessel and had actually rescued several of the latter's Princess of the Orient, coupled with the seeming indifference of the
distressed passengers. petitioner to render assistance to Sesante, warranted the award of
moral damages.
On whether the complaint for breach of contract and damages is a personal action 4. While there is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what is a fair and
that does not survive the death of the plaintiff? - NO reasonable amount of moral damages, the discretion to make the
1. An action for breach of contract of carriage survives the death of the determination is lodged in the trial court with the limitation that the
plaintiff. amount should not be palpably and scandalously excessive. The trial
2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: The petitioner urges that Sesante's court then bears in mind that moral damages are not intended to impose
complaint for damages was purely personal and cannot be transferred to a penalty on the wrongdoer, or to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of
his heirs upon his death. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed the defendant. The amount of the moral damages must always
because the death of the plaintiff abates a personal action. reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the
3. Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the proper procedure in wrong committed.
the event of the death of a litigant. 5. Temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss
4. Substitution by the heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
requirement of due process. It protects the right of due process belonging be proven with certainty. Article 2224 of the Civil Code expressly
to any party, that in the event of death the deceased litigant continues to be authorizes the courts to award temperate damages despite the lack of
protected and properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed certain proof of actual damages.
legal representative of his estate. 6. Indubitably, Sesante suffered some pecuniary loss from the sinking of
5. The application of the rule on substitution depends on whether or not the the vessel, but the value of the loss could not be established with
action survives the death of the litigant. Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of certainty. The CA, which can try facts and appreciate evidence, pegged
Court enumerates the following actions that survive the death of a party, the value of the lost belongings as itemized in the police report at
namely: (1) recovery of real or personal property, or an interest from the P120,000.00. The valuation approximated the costs of the lost
estate; (2) enforcement of liens on the estate; and (3) recovery of damages belongings. In that context, the valuation of P120,000.00 is correct, but
for an injury to person or property. On the one hand, Section 5, Rule 86 of to be regarded as temperate damages.
the Rules of Court lists the actions abated by death as including: (1) claims
for funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent; (2) OTHER NOTES:
judgments for money; and (3) all claims for money against the deceased, 7. Is notification required before the common carrier becomes liable for lost
arising from contract, express or implied. belongings that remained in the custody of the passenger? NO
a. The rule that the common carrier is always responsible for the
6. A contract of carriage generates a relation attended with public duty,
passenger's baggage during the voyage needs to be emphasized.
neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees and gives ground Article 1754 of the Civil Code does not exempt the common carrier from
for an action for damages. Sesante's claim against the petitioner involved liability in case of loss, but only highlights the degree of care required of
his personal injury caused by the breach of the contract of carriage. it depending on who has the custody of the belongings. Hence, the law
Pursuant to the aforecited rules, the complaint survived his death, and requires the common carrier to observe the same diligence as the hotel
could be continued by his heirs following the rule on substitution. keepers in case the baggage remains with the passenger; otherwise,
extraordinary diligence must be exercised. Furthermore, the liability of
On there is sufficient basis for awarding moral and temperate damages? YES the common carrier attaches even if the loss or damage to the
belongings resulted from the acts of the common carrier's employees,

3
 the only exception being where such loss or damages is due to force
majeure.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on June 27, 2005 with
the MODIFICATIONS that: (a) the amount of moral damages is fixed at
P1,000,000.00; (b) the amount of P1,000,000.00 is granted as exemplary damages;
and (c) the sum of P120,000.00 is allowed as temperate damages, all to be paid to
the heirs of the late Napoleon Sesante. In addition, all the amounts hereby awarded
shall earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioner.