[77] SPOUSES CRUZ V.

SUN HOLIDAYS of September 10, 2000, but was advised to stay for another night because
G.R. No. 186312 | June 29, 2010 | Carpio-Morales, J. of strong winds and heavy rains.
o The following day, it was still windy, Matute and 25 other guests
TOPIC: Uncommon Carriers including Ruelito and his wife trekked to the other side of Coco
Beach Mountain which was sheltered from the wind. They boarded
SUMMARY: Spouses Cruz filed a Complaint for damages against Sun Holidays due M/B Coco Beach III from that area, and were supposed to go to
to the death of their son Ruelito and his wife, who boarded M/B Coco Beach III which Batangas.
capsized en route to Batangas. Spouses Cruz are alleging that Sun Holidays was a o Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain. As it moved farther
common carrier, and is guilty of negligence. Sun Holidays denied liability claiming that away from Puerto Galera and into the open seas, the rain and wind
they are not a common carrier and that they exercised utmost diligence. The Court got stronger, causing the boat to tilt from side to side and the
held that respondent is a common carrier. captain to step forward to the front, leaving the wheel to one of the
crew members.
DOCTRINE: The extraordinary diligence required of common carriers demands that o The waves got more unwieldy. After being hit by 2 big waves,
they take care of the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own. M/B Coco Beach capsized, putting all passengers underwater.
They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight o The passengers wearing life vests struggled to get out of the
can provide, using utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all boat. Upon seeing the captain, Matute and the other passengers
the circumstances. who reached the surface asked the former what they could do to
save the people who were trapped, but the captain just told them
PROVISIONS: to save themselves.
Article 1732 Civil Code. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or o Help came after 45 minutes when 2 boats by Asia Divers passed
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods by. Boarded on those 2 boats were 18 passengers and 4 crew
or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. members, who were brought to Pisa Island. But 8 passengers
including Ruelito and his wife died during the incident.
Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, “public service” includes: ● Sun Holidays denied any responsibility for the incident which it
. . . every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the considered to be a fortuitous event, but it offered the amount of Php
Philippines, for hire or compensation, withgeneral or limited clientele, whether 10,000.
permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any o This was declined by the spouses, and they filed a Complaint,
common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either
alleging that Sun Holidays, as a common carrier was guilty of
for freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and whatever may be its
negligence in allowing M/B Coco Beach to sail notwithstanding
classification, freight or carrier serviceof any class, express service, steamboat, or
the storm warning bulletins issued by PAGASA.
steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of
● Sun Holidays denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are
passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock, ice plant,
not available to the general public as they only ferry guests and crew
ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power,
members.
water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
o It also claimed that it exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring
communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar
the safety of its passengers, and contrary to petitioners’ allegation,
public services . . .
there was no storm on September 11, 2000 as the Coast Guard in
fact cleared the voyage and M/B Coco Beach was not filled to
FACTS
capacity and had sufficient life jackets for its passengers.
● Petitioners Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz filed a complaint against
● Carlos Bonquin, the captain, averred that the resort customarily requires 4
respondent Sun Holidays, Inc. for damages arising from the death of their
conditions to be met before a boat is allowed to sail: (1) the sea is calm,
son Ruelito who perished with his wife on board the boat M/B Coco
(2) there is clearance from the Coast Guard, (3) there is clearance from the
Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Mindoro
captain, and (4) there is clearance from the Resort’s assistance manager.
on September 11, 2000.
o According to him, M/B Coco Beach met all the conditions, but a
● At the time of Ruelito’s death, he was 28 years old and employed as a
contractual worker for Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Arabia in Saudi subasco or squall, characterized by strong winds and big
Arabia, with a basic monthly salary of $900. waves suddenly occurred, causing the boat to capsize.
● The couple were newly wed and they stayed at the Coco Beach Resort, ● RTC: dismissed the Complaint and the MR filed by the spouses, so they
owned by Sun Holidays, as part of a tour package contract that includes appealed to the Court of Appeals.
transportation to and from the resort. ● The CA likewise denied the appeal, holding that the RTC correctly ruled that
● Miguel Matute, a scuba diving instructor and one of the survivors respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary
testified that he was originally scheduled to leave the resort in the afternoon diligence; that Sun Holidays in fact observed extraordinary diligence in
 transporting its guests on board M/B Coco Beach, and that the proximate o There is no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or
cause of the incident was a squall,1 a fortuitous event. negligence on the part of the common carrier.
● The Spouses filed this Petition for Review. o This presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the
● Arguments: carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.
o Spouses Cruz – Sun Holidays is a common carrier, since by its ● Moreover, evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24-hour public weather
tour package, the transporting of its guests is an integral part forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for shipping on September 10
of its resort business. and 11 advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon which would also
o Sun Holidays – Petitioners failed to present evidence to prove that it affect Mindoro. As testified by Dr. Nilo, supervising weather specialist of
is a common carrier. The resort’s ferry services cannot be PAGASA, squalls are to be expected under such weather condition.
considered as ancillary to its business as no income is derived ● A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave
therefrom. It exercised extraordinary diligence when it imposed such stormy weather and put other people’s lives at risk. The extraordinary
conditions before allowing M/B Coco Beach to sail, and the incident diligence required of common carriers demands that they take care of
was a fortuitous event without any contributory negligence on its the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own.
part. This respondent failed to do.

ISSUE/ RATIO
1. W/N respondent Sun Holidays Inc. is a common carrier? Yes. 2. W/N whether the incident was caused by a fortuitous event. NO.

● In the case of De Guzman v. CA, as cited by the spouses, the Court stated ● The elements of a fortuitous event are: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and
that the Civil Code (Article 1732) deliberately refrained from making unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtors to comply with their
distinctions on whether the carrying of persons or goods is the obligations, must have been independent of human will; (b) the event that
carrier’s principal business, where it is offered on a regular basis, or constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee, or if
whether it is offered to the general public. The intent of the law is thus to foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have been such as
not consider such distinctions. to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal
● So understood, the concept of “common carrier” under Article 1732 may be manner; and (d) obligor must have been free from any participation in the
seen to coincide neatly with the notion of “public service,” under the aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor.
Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended) which at ● To absolve a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous event must
least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and it should have
Code. exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and
● It is clear that Sun Holidays is a common carrier. Its ferry services are after the occurrence of the fortuitous event.
so intertwined with its main business as to be properly considered ● The occurrence of the squalls was expected under the weather condition of
ancillary thereto. September 11. Evidence also shows that M/B Coco Beach suffered engine
o The constancy of respondent’s ferry services in its resort operations trouble before it capsized and sank. The incident was therefore not free from
is underscored by having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour human intervention.
packages it offers, which include the ferry services, may be availed ● Article 1764 vis-à-vis Article 2206 of the Civil Code holds the common carrier
of by anyone who can afford to pay the same. in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger
o These services are thus available to the public. liable to pay the following: (1) indemnity for death, (2) indemnity for loss of
earning capacity and (3) moral damages.
● It also does not matter that respondent does not charge a separate fee or
fare for its ferry services. The practice of beach resort operators is to
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of August 19, 2008 is
offer tour packages which already include the transportation fee/s.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is rendered in favor of petitioners ordering
● Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature of the business of
respondent to pay petitioners the following: (1) ₱50,000 as indemnity for the death of
common carriers and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to observe
Ruelito Cruz; (2) ₱8,316,000 as indemnity for Ruelito’s loss of earning capacity; (3)
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by
₱100,000 as moral damages; (4) ₱100,000 as exemplary damages; (5) 10% of the
them. They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
total amount adjudged against respondent as attorneys fees; and (6) the costs of suit.
care and foresight can provide, using utmost diligence of very cautious
The total amount adjudged against respondent shall earn interest at the rate of 12%
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.
per annum computed from the finality of this decision until full payment
● 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.

1
A sudden violent gust of wind or a localized storm, especially one bringing rain, snow, or
sleet.