Vasquez vs CA (138 SCRA 553)

FACTS:

This litigation involves a claim for damages for the loss at sea of petitioners' respective children after the
shipwreck of MV Pioneer Cebu due to typhoon "Klaring" in May of 1966.

When the inter-island vessel MV "Pioneer Cebu" left the Port of Manila in the early morning of May 15,
1966 bound for Cebu, it had on board the spouses Alfonso Vasquez and Filipinas Bagaipo and a four-year
old boy, Mario Marlon Vasquez, among her passengers. The MV "Pioneer Cebu" encountered typhoon
"Klaring" and struck a reef on the southern part of Malapascua Island, located somewhere north of the
island of Cebu and subsequently sunk. The aforementioned passengers were unheard from since then.

Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad Ortega are the parents of Alfonso Vasquez; plaintiffs Cleto Bagaipo
and Agustina Virtudes are the parents of Filipinas Bagaipo; and plaintiffs Romeo Vasquez and Maxima
Cainay are the parents of the child, Mario Marlon Vasquez. They seek the recovery of damages due to the
loss of Alfonso Vasquez, Filipinas Bagaipo and Mario Marlon Vasquez during said voyage.

At the pre-trial, the defendant admitted its contract of carriage with Alfonso Vasquez, Filipinas Bagaipo
and Mario Marlon Vasquez, and the fact of the sinking of the MV "Pioneer Cebu". The issues of the case
were limited to the defenses alleged by the defendant that the sinking of the vessel was caused by force
majeure, and that the defendant's liability had been extinguished by the total loss of the vessel.

ISSUES: 1) W/n it is a fortuitous event

2) W/n respondents are liable

HELD:

1) No. It is not a caso fortuito. The elements to consider in sustaining a case of caso
fortuito are the ff: a) the event must be independent of the human will, b) the occurrence must
render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, c) the obligor must
be free of participation in, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor.

Under the circumstances, while, indeed, the typhoon was an inevitable occurrence, yet,
having been kept posted on the course of the typhoon by weather bulletins at intervals of six
hours, the captain and crew were well aware of the risk they were taking as they hopped from
island to island from Romblon up to Tanguingui. They held frequent conferences, and oblivious
of the utmost diligence required of very cautious persons, they decided to take a calculated risk.
In so doing, they failed to observe that extraordinary diligence required of them explicitly by law
for the safety of the passengers transported by them with due regard for an circumstances and
unnecessarily exposed the vessel and passengers to the tragic mishap. They failed to overcome
that presumption of fault or negligence that arises in cases of death or injuries to passengers.

While the Board of Marine Inquiry, which investigated the disaster, exonerated the
captain from any negligence, it was because it had considered the question of negligence as
 "moot and academic," the captain having "lived up to the true tradition of the profession." While
we are bound by the Board's factual findings, we disagree with its conclusion since it obviously
had not taken into account the legal responsibility of a common carrier towards the safety of the
passengers involved

2) Yes. With respect to private respondent's submission that the total loss of the vessel
extinguished its liability pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce 12 as construed in
Yangco vs. Laserna, 73 Phil. 330 [1941], suffice it to state that even in the cited case, it was held
that the liability of a shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel or to the insurance thereon.
Despite the total loss of the vessel therefore, its insurance answers for the damages that a
shipowner or agent may be held liable for by reason of the death of its passengers.

Full Text Ahead!

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-42926 September 13, 1985

PEDRO VASQUEZ, SOLEDAD ORTEGA, CLETO B. BAGAIPO, AGUSTINA

VIRTUDES, ROMEO VASQUEZ and MAXIMINA CAINAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS PIONEER LINES, INC., respondents.

Emilio D. Castellanes for petitioners.

Apolinario A. Abantao for private respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This litigation involves a claim for damages for the loss at sea of petitioners' respective
children after the shipwreck of MV Pioneer Cebu due to typhoon "Klaring" in May of
1966.

The factual antecedents, as summarized by the trial Court and adopted by respondent
Court, and which we find supported by the record, read as follows:

When the inter-island vessel MV "Pioneer Cebu" left the Port of Manila in
the early morning of May 15, 1966 bound for Cebu, it had on board the
spouses Alfonso Vasquez and Filipinas Bagaipo and a four-year old boy,
Mario Marlon Vasquez, among her passengers. The MV "Pioneer Cebu"
encountered typhoon "Klaring" and struck a reef on the southern part of
Malapascua Island, located somewhere north of the island of Cebu and
subsequently sunk. The aforementioned passengers were unheard from
since then.

Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad Ortega are the parents of Alfonso
Vasquez; plaintiffs Cleto Bagaipo and Agustina Virtudes are the parents of
Filipinas Bagaipo; and plaintiffs Romeo Vasquez and Maxima Cainay are
the parents of the child, Mario Marlon Vasquez. They seek the recovery of
damages due to the loss of Alfonso Vasquez, Filipinas Bagaipo and Mario
Marlon Vasquez during said voyage.

At the pre-trial, the defendant admitted its contract of carriage with Alfonso
Vasquez, Filipinas Bagaipo and Mario Marlon Vasquez, and the fact of the
sinking of the MV "Pioneer Cebu". The issues of the case were limited to
the defenses alleged by the defendant that the sinking of the vessel was
caused by force majeure, and that the defendant's liability had been
extinguished by the total loss of the vessel.

The evidence on record as to the circumstances of the last voyage of the

MV "Pioneer Cebu" came mainly, if not exclusively, from the defendant.
The MV "Pioneer Cebu" was owned and operated by the defendant and
used in the transportation of goods and passengers in the inter-island
shipping. Scheduled to leave the Port of Manila at 9:00 p.m. on May 14,
1966, it actually left port at 5:00 a.m. the following day, May 15, 1966. It
had a passenger capacity of three hundred twenty-two (322) including the
crew. It undertook the said voyage on a special permit issued by the
Collector of Customs inasmuch as, upon inspection, it was found to be
without an emergency electrical power system. The special permit
authorized the vessel to carry only two hundred sixty (260) passengers
due to the said deficiency and for lack of safety devices for 322
passengers (Exh. 2). A headcount was made of the passengers on board,
resulting on the tallying of 168 adults and 20 minors, although the
passengers manifest only listed 106 passengers. It has been admitted,
 however, that the headcount is not reliable inasmuch as it was only done
by one man on board the vessel.

When the vessel left Manila, its officers were already aware of the typhoon
Klaring building up somewhere in Mindanao. There being no typhoon
signals on the route from Manila to Cebu, and the vessel having been
cleared by the Customs authorities, the MV "Pioneer Cebu" left on its
voyage to Cebu despite the typhoon. When it reached Romblon Island, it
was decided not to seek shelter thereat, inasmuch as the weather
condition was still good. After passing Romblon and while near Jintotolo
island, the barometer still indicated the existence of good weather
condition continued until the vessel approached Tanguingui island. Upon
passing the latter island, however, the weather suddenly changed and
heavy rains felt Fearing that due to zero visibility, the vessel might hit
Chocolate island group, the captain ordered a reversal of the course so
that the vessel could 'weather out' the typhoon by facing the winds and the
waves in the open. Unfortunately, at about noontime on May 16, 1966, the
vessel struck a reef near Malapascua island, sustained leaks and
eventually sunk, bringing with her Captain Floro Yap who was in command
of the vessel.

Due to the loss of their children, petitioners sued for damages before the Court of First
Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 67139). Respondent defended on the plea of force
majeure, and the extinction of its liability by the actual total loss of the vessel.

After proper proceedings, the trial Court awarded damages, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to

pay:

(a) Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad Ortega the sums of P15,000.00
for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased Alfonso Vasquez,
P2,100.00 for support, and P10,000.00 for moral damages;

(b) Plaintiffs Cleto B. Bagaipo and Agustina Virtudes the sum of

P17,000.00 for loss of earning capacity of deceased Filipinas Bagaipo,
and P10,000.00 for moral damages; and

(c) Plaintiffs Romeo Vasquez and Maximina Cainay the sum of

P10,000.00 by way of moral damages by reason of the death of Mario
Marlon Vasquez.

On appeal, respondent Court reversed the aforementioned judgment and absolved

private respondent from any and all liability.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, the basic issue being the liability for
damages of private respondent for the presumptive death of petitioners' children.

The trial Court found the defense of caso fortuito untenable due to various decisive
factors, thus:

... It is an admitted fact that even before the vessel left on its last voyage,
its officers and crew were already aware of the typhoon brewing
somewhere in the same general direction to which the vessel was going.
The crew of the vessel took a calculated risk when it proceeded despite
the typhoon advisory. This is quite evident from the fact that the officers of
the vessel had to conduct conferences amongst themselves to decide
whether or not to proceed. The crew assumed a greater risk when, instead
of seeking shelter in Romblon and other islands the vessel passed en
route, they decided to take a change on the expected continuation of the
good weather the vessel was encountering, and the possibility that the
typhoon would veer to some other directions. The eagerness of the crew
of the vessel to proceed on its voyage and to arrive at its destination is
readily understandable. It is undeniably lamentable, however, that they did
so at the risk of the lives of the passengers on board.

Contrariwise, respondent Appellate Court believed that the calamity was caused solely
and proximately by fortuitous event which not even extraordinary diligence of the
highest degree could have guarded against; and that there was no negligence on the
part of the common carrier in the discharge of its duties.

Upon the evidence and the applicable law, we sustain the trial Court. "To constitute a
caso fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the
event must be independent of the human will; (2) the occurrence must render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and that (3) the
obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor." 1 In
the language of the law, the event must have been impossible to foresee, or if it could be foreseen, must
have been impossible to avoid. 2 There must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of
injury or loss. 3

Turning to this case, before they sailed from the port of Manila, the officers and crew were aware of
typhoon "Klaring" that was reported building up at 260 kms. east of Surigao. In fact, they had lashed all
the cargo in the hold before sailing in anticipation of strong winds and rough waters. 4 They proceeded on
their way, as did other vessels that day. Upon reaching Romblon, they received the weather report that
the typhoon was 154 kms. east southeast of Tacloban and was moving west northwest. 5 Since they were
still not within the radius of the typhoon and the weather was clear, they deliberated and decided to
proceed with the course. At Jintotolo Island, the typhoon was already reported to be reaching the
mainland of Samar. 6 They still decided to proceed noting that the weather was still "good" although,
according to the Chief Forecaster of the Weather Bureau, they were already within the typhoon zone. 7 At
Tanguingui Island, about 2:00 A.M. of May 16, 1966, the typhoon was in an area quite close to
Catbalogan, placing Tanguingui also within the typhoon zone. Despite knowledge of that fact, they again
decided to proceed relying on the forecast that the typhoon would weaken upon crossing the mainland of
Samar. 8 After about half an hour of navigation towards Chocolate Island, there was a sudden fall of the
barometer accompanied by heavy downpour, big waves, and zero visibility. The Captain of the vessel
decided to reverse course and face the waves in the open sea but because the visibility did not improve
they were in total darkness and, as a consequence, the vessel ran aground a reef and sank on May 16,
1966 around 12:45 P.M. near Malapascua Island somewhere north of the island of Cebu.

Under the circumstances, while, indeed, the typhoon was an inevitable occurrence, yet, having been kept
posted on the course of the typhoon by weather bulletins at intervals of six hours, the captain and crew
were well aware of the risk they were taking as they hopped from island to island from Romblon up to
Tanguingui. They held frequent conferences, and oblivious of the utmost diligence required of very
cautious persons, 9 they decided to take a calculated risk. In so doing, they failed to observe that
extraordinary diligence required of them explicitly by law for the safety of the passengers transported by
them with due regard for an circumstances 10 and unnecessarily exposed the vessel and passengers to
the tragic mishap. They failed to overcome that presumption of fault or negligence that arises in cases of
death or injuries to passengers. 11

While the Board of Marine Inquiry, which investigated the disaster, exonerated the captain from any
negligence, it was because it had considered the question of negligence as "moot and academic," the
captain having "lived up to the true tradition of the profession." While we are bound by the Board's factual
findings, we disagree with its conclusion since it obviously had not taken into account the legal
responsibility of a common carrier towards the safety of the passengers involved.

With respect to private respondent's submission that the total loss of the vessel extinguished its liability
pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce 12 as construed in Yangco vs. Laserna, 73 Phil. 330
[1941], suffice it to state that even in the cited case, it was held that the liability of a shipowner is limited to
the value of the vessel or to the insurance thereon. Despite the total loss of the vessel therefore, its
insurance answers for the damages that a shipowner or agent may be held liable for by reason of the
death of its passengers.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby REVERSED and the judgment of the then Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 67139, is hereby reinstated. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Patajo, JJ., concur.