SPOUSES CRUZ V, SUN HOLIDAYS, INC.

(Aplasca)
June 29, 2010 | Carpio Morales,J. | Transportation Law DOCTRINE: 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. They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care
and foresight can provide, using utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with
Petitioner: Spouses Dante Cruz and Leonora Cruz, petitioners. due regard for all the circumstances.
Respondents: Sun Holidays, Inc., respondents.

SUMMARY: Spouses Cruz filed a Complaint for damages against Sun Holidays FACTS:
due to the death of their son Ruelito and his wife, who boarded M/B Coco Beach 1. Petitioners Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz filed a complaint against
III which capsized en route to Batangas. Ruelito and his wife stayed at the Coco respondent Sun Holidays, Inc. for damages arising from the death of their
Beach Resort, owned by Sun Holidays. Matute, one of the survivors testified that son Ruelito who perished with his wife on board the boat M/B Coco Beach
they were originally scheduled to leave on September 10, but because of the III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Mindoro on
strong winds, they were advised to stay for another night. The following day, they September 11, 2000.
trekked to the other side of Coco Beach Mountain, which was sheltered from the 2. At the time of Ruelito’s death, he was 28 years old and employed as a
wind and from that place, they boarded M/B Coco Beach. After being hit by 2 big contractual worker for Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Arabia in Saudi
waves, M/B Coco Beach capsized, putting all passengers underwater. Upon Arabia, with a basic monthly salary of $900.
seeing the captain, Matute and the other passengers who reached the surface 3. The couple were newly wed and they stayed at the Coco Beach Resort,
asked the former what they could do to save the people who were trapped, but the owned by Sun Holidays, as part of a tour package contract that includes
captain just told them to save themselves. They were eventually rescued by 2 transportation to and from the resort.
boats that passed by, but 8 passengers including Ruelito and his wife died during 4. Miguel Matute, a scuba diving instructor and one of the survivors testified
the incident. Spouses Cruz are alleging that Sun Holidays was a common carrier, that he was originally scheduled to leave the resort in the afternoon of
and is guilty of negligence. September 10, 2000, but was advised to stay for another night because of
strong winds and heavy rains.
W/N Sun Holidays is a common carrier? Yes. In the case of De Guzman v. CA, a. The following day, it was still windy, Matute and 25 other guests
the Court stated that the Civil Code deliberately refrained from making distinctions including Ruelito and his wife trekked to the other side of Coco
on whether the carrying of persons or goods is the carrier’s principal business, Beach Mountain which was sheltered from the wind. They boarded
where it is offered on a regular basis, or whether it is offered to the general public. M/B Coco Beach III from that area, and were supposed to go to
Sun Holidays is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so intertwined with its Batangas.
main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of b. The waves got more unwieldy. After being hit by 2 big waves, M/B
respondent’s ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by having its Coco Beach capsized, putting all passengers underwater.
own Coco Beach boats, and the tour packages it offers, which include the ferry c. The passengers wearing life vests struggled to get out of the boat.
services, may be availed of by the general public. Moreover, evidence shows that Upon seeing the captain, Matute and the other passengers who
PAGASA issued 24-hour public weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings reached the surface asked the former what they could do to save
for shipping on September 10 and 11 advising of tropical depressions in Northern the people who were trapped, but the captain just told them to
Luzon which would also affect Mindoro. From the nature of the business of save themselves.
common carriers and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to observe d. Help came after 45 minutes when 2 boats by Asia Divers passed
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them. They by. Boarded on those 2 boats were 18 passengers and 4 crew
are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can members, who were brought to Pisa Island. But 8 passengers
provide, using utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all including Ruelito and his wife died during the incident.
the circumstances. When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a 5. Sun Holidays denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered
contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. to be a fortuitous event, but it offered the amount of Php 10,000.
There is no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on 6. This was declined by the spouses, and they filed a Complaint, alleging that
the part of the common carrier. This presumption may only be overcome by Sun Holidays, as a common carrier was guilty of negligence in allowing M/B
evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence. Coco Beach to sail notwithstanding the storm warning bulletins issued by
PAGASA.
 7. Sun Holidays denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are not Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
available to the general public as they only ferry guests and crew members. associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
It also claimed that it exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation,
of its passengers, and contrary to petitioners’ allegation, there was no storm offering their services to the public.
on September 11, 2000 as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage and 2. In the case of De Guzman v. CA, as cited by the spouses, the Court stated
M/B Coco Beach was not filled to capacity and had sufficient life jackets for that the Civil Code deliberately refrained from making distinctions on
its passengers. whether the carrying of persons or goods is the carrier’s principal business,
8. Carlos Bonquin, the captain, averred that the resort customarily requires 4 where it is offered on a regular basis, or whether it is offered to the general
conditions to be met before a boat is allowed to sail: (1) the sea is calm, (2) public. The intent of the law is thus to not consider such distinctions.
there is clearance from the Coast Guard, (3) there is clearance from the 3. It is clear that Sun Holidays is a common carrier. Its ferry services are
captain, and (4) there is clearance from the Resort’s assistance manager. so intertwined with its main business as to be properly considered
According to him, M/B Coco Beach met all the conditions, but a subasco or ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondent’s ferry services in its resort
squall, characterized by strong winds and big waves suddenly occurred, operations is underscored by having its own Coco Beach boats. And the
causing the boat to capsize. tour packages it offers, which include the ferry services, may be availed of
9. The RTC dismissed the Complaint and the MR filed by the spouses, so they by anyone who can afford to pay the same. These services are thus
appealed to the Court of Appeals. available to the public.
10. The CA likewise denied the appeal, holding that the RTC correctly ruled that 4. It also does not matter that respondent does not charge a separate fee or
respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary fare for its ferry services. The practice of beach resort operators is to offer
diligence; that Sun Holidays in fact observed extraordinary diligence in tour packages which already include the transportation fee/s.
transporting its guests on board M/B Coco Beach, and that the proximate 5. From the nature of the business of common carriers and for reasons of
cause of the incident was a squall,1 a fortuitous event. public policy, they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the
11. The Spouses filed this Petition for Review. safety of the passengers transported by them. They are bound to carry
the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
POINTS OF CONTENTION using utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for
all the circumstances.
Spouses Cruz – Sun Holidays is a common carrier, since by its tour package, the 6. When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of
transporting of its guests is an integral part of its resort business. carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent.
There is no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or
Sun Holidays - The resort’s ferry services cannot be considered as ancillary to its negligence on the part of the common carrier. This presumption may only
business as no income is derived therefrom. It exercised extraordinary diligence be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.
when it imposed conditions before allowing M/B Coco Beach to sail, and the incident 7. Moreover, evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24-hour public weather
was a fortuitous event without any contributory negligence on its part. forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for shipping on September 10 and
11 advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon which would also
ISSUE/S: affect Mindoro. As testified by Dr. Nilo, supervising weather specialist of
1. W/N respondent Sun Holidays is a common carrier? Yes. PAGASA, squalls are to be expected under such weather condition.
2. W/N the incident was caused by a fortuitous event? No. 8. A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave
such stormy weather and put other people’s lives at risk. The extraordinary
RATIO: diligence required of common carriers demands that they take care of
On whether respondent Sun Holidays Inc. is a common carrier? Yes. the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own.
1. The Civil Code defines “common carriers”:
On whether the incident was caused by a fortuitous event. NO.
1. The elements of a fortuitous event are: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtors to comply with their
1A sudden violent gust of wind or a localized storm, especially one bringing rain, obligations, must have been independent of human will; (b) the event that
snow, or sleet. constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee, or if
 foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have been such
as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal
manner; and (d) obligor must have been free from any participation in the
aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor.
2. To absolve a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous event must
have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and it should have
exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and
after the occurrence of the fortuitous event.
3. The occurrence of the squalls was expected under the weather condition of
September 11. Evidence also shows that M/B Coco Beach suffered engine
trouble before it capsized and sank. The incident was therefore not free
from human intervention.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of August 19, 2008