TRANSPORTATION
LAW
DIGESTS
(2014
2015)
G.R.
No.
157009
March
17,
2010
SULPICIO
LINES,
INC.
v.
DOMINGO
E.
CURSO,
LUCIA
E.
CURSO,
MELECIO
E.
CURSO,
SEGUNDO
E.
CURSO,
VIRGILIO
E.
CURSO,
DIOSDADA
E.
CURSO,
and
CECILIA
E.
CURSO
PETITIONERS:
Sulpicio
Lines
(operator
of
inter-island
sea
carriers)
RESPONDENTS:
(the
respondents
named
herein
are
allegedly
the
brothers
and
sisters
of
a
deceased
victim
of
the
sinking
of
a
ship
of
Sulpicio)
CASE:
Dr.
Curso
was
among
those
who
died
when
MVDoa
Marilyn
sank
while
traversing
the
seas
to
Tacloban.
His
brothers
and
sisters
filed
a
case
for
damages
based
on
breach
of
contract
by
carriage
of
sea
against
Sulpicio
Lines
on
the
ground
that
its
negligence
was
the
cause
of
Dr.
Cursos
death.
The
respondents
here
claim
that
they
were
they
only
living
heirs
of
Dr.
Curso,
and
as
such
entitled
to
recover
damages.
The
Trial
Court
initially
absolved
Sulpicio
Lines,
but
this
was
reversed
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
who
then
awarded
in
favor
of
the
respondents
the
following:
death
indemnity,
loss
of
earning
capacity,
moral
damages
and
costs
of
suit.
Sulpicio
Lines
then
came
to
the
Supreme
Court
questioning
ONLY
the
capacity
of
respondents
to
receive
moral
damages
(so
the
other
awards
were
no
longer
questioned).
The
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
the
respondents,
being
only
brothers
and
sisters,
are
not
entitled
to
receive
moral
damages
in
accordance
with
Article
2206
of
the
Civil
Code.
Also,
to
be
entitled
to
moral
damages,
one
must
have
a
right
founded
in
law.
In
this
case,
the
respondents
have
no
right
under
Article
2219
either.
DOCTRINE:
Moral
damages
may
be
recovered
in
an
action
upon
breach
of
contract
of
carriage
only
when:
(a)
where
death
of
a
passenger
results,
or
(b)
it
is
proved
that
the
carrier
was
guilty
of
fraud
and
bad
faith,
even
if
death
does
not
result.
Article
2206
of
the
Civil
Code
ATTY.
NORIANNE
TAN
entitles
the
descendants,
ascendants,
illegitimate
children,
and
surviving
spouse
of
the
deceased
passenger
to
demand
moral
damages
for
mental
anguish
by
reason
of
the
death
of
the
deceased.
NOTE:
There
is
no
mention
of
brothers
and
sisters
here!
BACKGROUND:
October
23,
1988
Dr.
Curso
boarded
MVDoa
Marilyn,
an
inter-island
vessel
owned
and
operated
by
petitioner
Sulpicio
Lines,
Inc.,
bound
for
Tacloban.
October
24,
1988
(afternoon)
the
ship
sank
while
at
sea
and
many
bodies
of
its
ill-fated
passengers
(including
Dr.
Curso)
were
never
found.
o Dr.
Curso
was
48
years
old,
and
employed
as
a
resident
physician
at
the
Naval
District
Hospital
in
Naval,
Biliran.
He
had
a
basic
monthly
salary
of
P3,940.00,
and
would
have
retired
from
government
service
by
December
20,
2004
at
the
age
of
65.
January
21,
1993
Respondents
sued
the
petitioner
in
the
RTC
in
Naval,
Biliran
to
claim
damages
based
on
breach
of
contract
of
carriage
by
sea,
averring
that
the
petitioner
had
acted
negligently
in
transporting
Dr.
Curso
and
the
other
passengers.
o They
claim
that
since
Dr.
Curso
died
single
and
with
out
issue,
they
were
his
surviving
heirs
and
successors
in
interest
who
are
entitled
to
recover
moral
and
other
damages
(their
claims
are:
compensatory,
exemplary,
expenses
of
litigation,
costs
of
suit).
The
petitioner
denied
liability,
insisting
that
the
sinking
of
the
vessel
was
due
to
force
majeure
(i.e.,
Typhoon
Unsang),
which
exempted
a
common
carrier
from
liability.
It
averred
that
the
MV
Doa
Marilyn
was
seaworthy
in
all
respects,
and
was
in
fact
cleared
by
the
Philippine
Coast
Guard
for
the
voyage;
and
that
after
the
accident
it
conducted
intensive
search
and
rescue
operations
and
extended
assistance
and
aid
to
the
victims
and
their
families.
RACHELLE
ANNE
D.
GUTIERREZ
TRANSPORTATION
LAW
DIGESTS
(2014
2015)
July
28,
1995
the
Regional
Trial
Court
dismissed
the
complaint
finding
that
the
vessel
sank
due
to
force
majeure,
and
that
the
ship
was
seaworthy.
September
16,
2002
The
Court
of
Appeals
reversed
the
decision
stating
that
there
was
inadequate
proof
to
show
that
Sulpicio
Lines,
Inc.,
or
its
officers
and
crew,
had
exercised
the
required
degree
of
diligence
to
acquit
the
appellee
of
liability.
It
claims
that
the
mishap
would
not
have
occurred
if
the
crew
had
been
monitoring
the
weather
reports.
As
such,
Sulpicio
Lines
Inc.
was
ordered
to
pay
death
indemnity,
loss
of
earning
capacity,
moral
damages
and
costs
of
suit.
ISSUES
TO
BE
RESOLVED:
1. Whether
or
not
the
surviving
brothers
and
sisters
of
a
passenger
of
a
vessel
that
sinks
during
a
voyage
is
entitled
to
recover
moral
damages
from
the
vessel
owner
as
common
carrier.
RESOLUTIONS
AND
ARGUMENTS:
ISSUE
1
Whether
or
not
the
surviving
brothers
and
sisters
of
a
passenger
of
a
vessel
that
sinks
during
a
voyage
is
entitled
to
recover
moral
damages
from
the
vessel
owner
as
common
carrier.
NO.
They
are
not
included
in
the
law.
MAJOR
POINT
1:
As
a
general
rule,
moral
damages
are
not
recoverable
in
actions
for
damages
predicated
on
a
breach
of
contract,
unless
there
is
fraud
or
bad
faith.
As
an
exception,
moral
damages
may
be
awarded
in
case
of
breach
of
contract
of
carriage
that
results
in
the
death
of
a
passenger,
in
accordance
with
Article
1764,
in
relation
to
Article
2206
(3),
of
the
Civil
Code,
which
states:
The
spouse,
legitimate
and
illegitimate
descendants
and
ascendants
of
the
deceased
may
demand
moral
damages
for
mental
anguish
by
reason
of
the
death
of
the
deceased.
The
foregoing
legal
provisions
set
forth
the
persons
entitled
to
moral
damages.
The
omission
from
Article
2206
(3)
of
the
brothers
and
sisters
of
the
deceased
passenger
reveals
the
ATTY.
NORIANNE
TAN
legislative
intent
to
exclude
them
from
the
recovery
of
moral
damages
for
mental
anguish
by
reason
of
the
death
of
the
deceased.
Receiver
for
North
Negros
Sugar
Company,
Inc.
v.
Ybaez
in
case
of
death
caused
by
quasi-delict,
the
brother
of
the
deceased
was
not
entitled
to
the
award
of
moral
damages
based
on
Article
2206
of
the
Civil
Code.
MAJOR
POINT
2:
To
be
entitled
to
moral
damages,
the
respondents
must
have
a
right
based
upon
law.
It
is
true
that
under
Article
1003
of
the
Civil
Code
they
succeeded
to
the
entire
estate
of
the
late
Dr.
Curso
in
the
absence
of
the
latters
descendants,
ascendants,
illegitimate
children,
and
surviving
spouse.
However,
they
were
not
included
among
the
persons
entitled
to
recover
moral
damages,
as
enumerated
in
Article
2219
of
the
Civil
Code.
Article
2219
circumscribes
the
instances
in
which
moral
damages
may
be
awarded.
The
provision
does
not
include
succession
in
the
collateral
line
as
a
source
of
the
right
to
recover
moral
damages.
OTHER
DOCTRINES:
Conditions
for
awarding
moral
damages
are:
(a) There
must
be
an
injury,
whether
physical,
mental,
or
psychological,
clearly
substantiated
by
the
claimant;
(b) There
must
be
a
culpable
act
or
omission
factually
established;
(c) The
wrongful
act
or
omission
of
the
defendant
must
be
the
proximate
cause
of
the
injury
sustained
by
the
claimant;
and
(d) The
award
of
damages
is
predicated
on
any
of
the
cases
stated
in
Article
2219
of
the
Civil
Code.
FINAL
VERDICT:
The
award
of
moral
damages
is
deleted
and
set
aside.
NO
SEPARATE
OPINIONS
RACHELLE
ANNE
D.
GUTIERREZ
