This Supreme Court case clarifies that even if a vessel is deemed seaworthy, a common carrier can still be held liable for damages if its officers and crew are negligent, leading to passenger injury or death. The ruling emphasizes that extraordinary diligence is required of common carriers to ensure passenger safety, and negligence in performing duties overrides claims of due diligence in maintaining a seaworthy vessel. This decision reinforces the responsibility of transportation companies to prioritize passenger safety through proper training and vigilant oversight of their employees’ actions.

Sinking Standards: Can a Seaworthy Ship Sink a Carrier’s Defense Against Negligence?

The case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Napoleon Sesante arose from the tragic sinking of the M/V Princess of the Orient in 1998. Napoleon Sesante, a passenger who survived, sued Sulpicio Lines for breach of contract and damages. The central legal question was whether Sulpicio Lines could be held liable despite claiming the vessel was seaworthy and the sinking was due to a fortuitous event (severe weather). This case examines the extent to which a common carrier’s responsibility extends beyond merely providing a seaworthy vessel, focusing on the actions and decisions of its crew during a crisis.

Sulpicio Lines argued that the M/V Princess of the Orient was cleared to sail and that the sinking was an unavoidable event due to force majeure. They contended that their crew had taken appropriate measures to abandon ship and assist passengers. However, Sesante argued that the vessel sailed despite stormy weather and that the crew’s negligence contributed to the sinking and his subsequent injuries. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Sesante, awarding temperate and moral damages, a decision that was later modified and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Supreme Court (SC) ultimately upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that Article 1759 of the Civil Code explicitly holds common carriers liable for death or injuries to passengers resulting from the negligence or willful acts of their employees. It stated:

Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

The SC clarified that this liability stems from the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers. Furthermore, Article 1756 of the Civil Code creates a presumption of negligence against the carrier in cases of passenger death or injury:

Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.

This presumption shifts the burden to the carrier to prove they observed extraordinary diligence and that the incident was caused by an unforeseen event or force majeure. The court found that Sulpicio Lines failed to overcome this presumption, as the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) report indicated that the captain’s erroneous maneuvers were a direct cause of the sinking. Even if the weather conditions were a factor, the captain’s negligence in handling the vessel under those conditions contributed significantly to the disaster.

Regarding the defense of force majeure, the SC reiterated that human intervention must be excluded for a common carrier to be absolved of liability. In Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., the Court elaborated:

[T]he principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be occasioned solely by the violence of nature. Human intervention is to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether due to his active intervention or neglect or failure to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.

Since the captain’s negligence was a contributing factor, the defense of force majeure was untenable. The Court highlighted specific negligent acts of the officers and crew, including the Chief Mate’s failure to perform stability calculations and the Captain’s misjudgment in maneuvering the ship. These failures demonstrated a lack of the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.

The SC also addressed the issue of damages. It affirmed the award of moral damages, noting that such damages are justified in breach of contract cases when the carrier acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Given the totality of the negligence displayed by the officers and crew, and the seeming indifference of Sulpicio Lines in rendering assistance, the award of moral damages was deemed appropriate. The Court maintained the P1,000,000.00 moral damages and awarded an additional P1,000,000.00 in exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent and a reminder of the high standard of care required in the business of transporting passengers by sea. It ruled that in contracts and quasi-contracts, the Court has the discretion to award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. It explained that exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to “permit the courts to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behavior.”

The Court also upheld the award of temperate damages for the loss of Sesante’s personal belongings. Even though the exact value of the lost items could not be proven with certainty, the CA estimated the value at P120,000.00, which the SC considered a reasonable approximation of the loss. The Court stated that the award of temperate damages was proper because temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that seaworthiness alone does not absolve common carriers of their responsibility to ensure passenger safety. The actions and decisions of the crew, particularly in emergency situations, are paramount. Common carriers must invest in proper training and oversight to prevent negligence that could lead to catastrophic consequences.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a common carrier could be held liable for damages despite claiming the vessel was seaworthy and the sinking was due to severe weather. The court examined the extent to which a carrier’s responsibility extends beyond seaworthiness.
What is extraordinary diligence in the context of common carriers?	Extraordinary diligence means the highest degree of care and foresight that very cautious persons would use, taking into account all the circumstances. This includes ensuring the safety of passengers and their belongings.
What is the significance of Article 1759 of the Civil Code?	Article 1759 explicitly holds common carriers liable for passenger death or injuries caused by the negligence or willful acts of their employees. This liability exists even if the employees acted beyond their authority.
How does the presumption of negligence work against common carriers?	Under Article 1756, common carriers are presumed negligent in cases of passenger injury or death. This shifts the burden to the carrier to prove they exercised extraordinary diligence.
What is the defense of force majeure, and how does it apply to common carriers?	Force majeure refers to unforeseen events that are impossible to avoid. For a carrier to use this defense, human negligence must be completely excluded as a contributing factor.
What are moral damages, and when can they be awarded in breach of contract cases?	Moral damages compensate for mental anguish, suffering, and similar injuries. They can be awarded in breach of contract cases if there is death or if the carrier acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
What are temperate damages, and how are they determined?	Temperate damages are awarded when some pecuniary loss is proven, but the exact amount cannot be determined with certainty. Courts estimate a reasonable amount based on available evidence.
Why were exemplary damages awarded in this case?	Exemplary damages were awarded to deter similar conduct in the future. The court found the carrier’s actions and those of its employees to be wanton and reckless, justifying the award.
Does the death of the plaintiff affect the case?	No, the action for breach of contract of carriage survives the death of the plaintiff. The heirs of the deceased may be substituted for the deceased.
Do passengers need to declare their personal belongings to the carrier to be compensated for loss?	The actual delivery of the goods to the innkeepers or their employees is unnecessary before liability could attach to the hotelkeepers in the event of loss of personal belongings of their guests considering that the personal effects were inside the hotel or inn because the hotelkeeper shall remain accountable

This landmark decision reinforces the high standards of care expected from common carriers in the Philippines. It clarifies that maintaining a seaworthy vessel is not enough; carriers must also ensure their employees act with the utmost diligence and prudence to protect passenger safety. This ruling serves as a strong deterrent against negligence and underscores the importance of prioritizing passenger well-being in the transportation industry.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SULPICIO LINES, INC. VS. NAPOLEON SESANTE, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016