Heirs Of Amparo De Los Santos, Heirs Of Ernanie Delos Santos et al. Vs.

Honorable Court Of Appeals

No. L-51165 June 21, 1990

The heirs of Delos Santos and other pauper litigants filed this on October 1968 for a complaint based on
damages due to the death of several passengers from the sinking of a vessel owned by Compania
Maritima on November 1967

The M/V 'Mindoro' sailed from pier 8 North Harbor, Manila, on November 2,1967 at about 2:00 pm
although scheduled should departure was 6:00 p.m. in the afternoon bound for New Washington, Aklan,
with many passengers aboard. The vessel met typhoon 'Welming' on the Sibuyan Sea, Aklan, at about
5:00 in the morning of November 4, 1967 causing the death of many of its passengers, although about
136 survived.

Mauricio delos Santos declared he accompanied his common-law wife, Amparo delos Santos, and his
family and all of his belongings were aboard that’s ship. Teresa Pamatian and Diego Salim, who were
also passengers also drowned. Plaintiff Ruben Reyes was one of the survivors.

Eliadora Crisostomo de Justo, one of the survivors,According to her, when she boarded the second deck
of the vessel, she saw about 200 persons therein. She tried to see whether she could be accommodated
in the third deck or first deck because the second deck was very crowded. She admitted that she was not
included in the manifest because she boarded the boat without a ticket, but she purchased one in the
vessel. She testified further that the boat was not able to reach its destination due to its sinking.

Ruben Reyes, the other survivor, declared that he paid for his ticket before boarding the M/V Mindoro.
At that time he had with him personal belongings and cash all in the amount of P2,900.00.

In alleging negligence on the part of the vessel, plaintiffs introduced in evidence a letter sent to the
Department of Social Welfare concerning the resurvey of the M/V Mindoro victims and a telegram to
the Social Welfare Administration, a resurvey of the M/V 'Mindoro', a complete list of the M/V
'Mindoro' victims a certified true copy of the Special Permit to the Compania Maritima issued by the
Bureau of Customs limiting the vessel to only 193 passengers.

It appears that in a decision of the Board of Marine Inquiry, dated February 2, 1970, it was found that
the captain and some officers of the crew were negligent in operating the vessel and imposed upon
them a suspension and/or revocation of their license certificates.

The defendant alleges that no negligence was ever established and, in fact, the shipowners and their
officers took all the necessary precautions in operating the vessel. Furthermore, the loss of lives as a
result of the drowning of some passengers, including the relatives of the herein plaintiff, was due to
force majeure because of the strong typhoon 'Welming.

It appears also that there were findings and recommendations made by the Board of Marine Inquiry,
that the captain of the M/V 'Mindoro,' Felicito Irineo, should be exonerated. Moreover, Captain Irineo
went down with the vessel and his lips are forever sealed and could no longer defend himself. This body
also found that the ship's compliment (sic) and crew were all complete and the vessel was in seaworthy
condition. If the M/V Mindoro' sank, it was through force majeure.
The trial court sustained the position of private respondent Compania Maritima was not guilty The
petitioners' heirs and Reyes brought an appeal to the Court of Appeals. As earlier mentioned, the
appellate court affirmed the decision on appeal. While it found that there was concurring negligence on
the part of the captain which must be imputable to Maritima, the Court of Appeals ruled that Maritima
cannot be held liable in damages based on the principle of limited liability of the shipowner or ship
agent under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Maritima was negligent and liable under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce

Held: Yes, Maritima was negligent and liable. The Code of Commerce provides: Art. 587. The ship agent
shall also be civilly liable for indemnities in favor of third persons which may arise from the conduct of
the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel, but he may exempt himself therefrom
by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage.

Under this provision, a shipowner or agent has the right of abandonment; and by necessary implication,
his liability is confined to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon-"the vessel with all her
equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage" . Notwithstanding the passage of the
New Civil Code, Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is still good law.

Contrary to the petitioners' claims, the limited liability doctrine applies not only to the goods but also in
all cases like death or injury to passengers wherein the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable
for the negligent or illicit acts of the captain. It must be stressed at this point that Article 587 speaks only
of situations where the fault or negligence is committed solely by the captain.

In cases where the shipowner is likewise to be blamed, Article 587 does not apply. Such a situation will
be covered by the provisions of the New Civil Code on Common Carriers. Owing to the nature of their
business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are tasked to observe extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of its passengers. Further, 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 a due regard for all the circumstances.

Whenever death or injury to a passenger occurs, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed
by Articles 1733 and Article 1756 New Civil Code.

On Maritima’s negligence

Maritima claims that it did not have any information about typhoon 'Welming' until after the boat was
already at sea. Modem technology belie such contention. For the weather bureau issued 17 warnings.

Considering the above report and the evidence on record showing the late departure of the ship at 6:00
p.m. (instead of the scheduled 2:00 p.m. departure) on November 2, 1967, We find it highly improbable
that the Weather Bureau had not yet issued any typhoon bulletin at any time during the day to the
shipping companies. Maritima submitted no convincing evidence to show this omission. It's evidence
showing the Weather Bureau's forecast of November 3, 1967 is not persuasive. It merely indicated the
weather bulletin of that day. Nowhere could We find any statement therein from the Weather Bureau
that it had not issued any forecast on November I and 2, 1967 Significantly, the appellate court found
that the ship's captain through his action showed prior knowledge of the typhoon.

If the captain knew of the typhoon beforehand, it is inconceivable for Maritima to be totally in the dark
of 'Welming.' In allowing the ship to depart late from Manila despite the typhoon advisories, Maritima
displayed lack of foresight and minimum concern for the safety of its passengers taking into account the
surrounding circumstances of the case.

We agree with the appellate court that the captain was negligent for overloading the ship, We,
however, rule that Maritima shares equally in his negligence. While the ship was already cleared by the
Bureau of Customs and the Coast Guard for departure at 2:00 p.m. the ship's departure was, however,
delayed for four hours. Maritima could not account for the delay because it neither checked from the
captain the reasons behind the delay nor sent its representative to inquire into the cause of such delay.
It was noted, a closer supervision could have prevented the overloading of the ship. Maritima could
have directed the ship's captain to immediately depart in view of the fact that as of 11:07 in the morning
of November 2, 1967, the typhoon had already attained surface winds of about 240 kilometers per hour.
As the appellate court stated, '(v)erily, if it were not for have reached (its) destination and this delay, the
vessel could thereby have avoided the effects of the storm. This conclusion was buttressed by evidence
that another ship, M/V Mangaren, an interisland vessel, sailed for New Washington, Aklan on November
2, 1967, ahead of M/V Mindoro and took the same route as the latter but it arrived safely.

Maritima presents evidence of the seaworthy condition of the ship prior to its departure to prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence in this case. M/V Mindoro was drydocked for about a month.
Necessary repairs were made on the ship. Life saving equipment and navigational instruments were
installed.

While indeed it is true that all these things were done on the vessel, Maritima, however, could not
present evidence that it specifically installed a radar which could have allowed the vessel to navigate
safely for shelter during a storm. Storms and typhoons are not strange occurrences. With the impending
threat of 'Welming,' an important device such as the radar could have enabled the ship to pass through
the river and to safety.The foregoing clearly demonstrates that Maritima's lack of extraordinary
diligence coupled with the negligence of the captain as found by the appellate court were the proximate
causes of the sinking of M/V Mindoro. Hence, Maritima is liable for the deaths and injury of the victims.