G.R. No.

113578 July 14, 1995

SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner,

FACTS:

On October 23, 1988, plaintiff Tito Duran Tabuquilde (hereinafter, "Tito") and his three-year old
daughter Jennifer Anne boarded the M/V Dona Marilyn at North Harbor, Manila, bringing with
them several pieces of luggage.

In the morning of October 24, 1988, the M/V Dona Marilyn, while in transit, encountered inclement
weather which caused huge waves due to Typhoon Unsang.

Notwithstanding the fact that Storm Signal No. 2 had been raised by the PAG-ASA authorities
over Leyte as early as 5:30 P.M. of October 23, 1988 and which signal was raised to Signal No. 3
by 10 P.M. of the same day, the ship captain ordered the vessel to proceed to Tacloban when
prudence dictated that he should have taken it to the nearest port for shelter, thus violating his
duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the carrying of passengers safely to their destination.

At about the same time, plaintiff-appellee Angelina Tabuquilde (hereinafter, "Angelina") mother of
Jennifer Anne, contacted the Sulpicio Office to verify radio reports that the vessel M/V Dona
Marilyn was missing. Employees of said Sulpicio Lines assured her that the ship was merely
"hiding" thereby assuaging her anxiety.

At around 2:00 P.M. of October 24, 1988, said vessel capsized, throwing plaintiff-appellee Tito
and Jennifer Anne, along with hundreds of passengers, into the tumultuous sea.

Tito tried to keep himself and his daughter afloat but to no avail as the waves got stronger and he
was subsequently separated from his daughter despite his efforts.

He found himself on Almagro Island in Samar the next day at round (sic) 11:00 A.M. and
immediately searched for his daughter among the survivors in the island, but the search proved
fruitless.

In the meantime, Angelina tried to seek the assistance of the Sulpicio Lines in Manila to no avail,
the latter refusing to entertain her and hundreds of relatives of the other passengers who waited
long hours outside the Manila Office. Angelina spent sleepless nights worrying about her husband
Tito and daughter Jennifer Anne in view of the refusal of Sulpicio Lines to release a verification of
the sinking of the ship.

On October 26, 1988, Tito and other survivors in the Almagro Island were fetched and were
brought to Tacloban Medical Center for treatment.

On October 31, 1988, Tito reported the loss of his daughter, was informed that the corpse of a
child with his daughter's description had been found. Subsequently, Tito wrote a letter to his wife,
reporting the sad fact that Jennifer Anne was dead. Angelina suffered from shock and severe grief
upon receipt of the news.

On November 3, 1988, the coffin bearing the corpse of Jennifer Anne was buried in Tanauan,
Leyte.

On November 24, 1988, a claim for damages was filed by Tito with the defendant Sulpicio Lines in
connection with the death of the plaintiff-appellee's daughter and the loss of Tito's belongings
worth P27,580.00. (Appellees' Brief, pp. 2-4) ( Rollo, pp. 52-54).

On January 3, 1991, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. Q-89-3048 in favor of the plaintiffs Tito
Duran Tabuquilde and Angelina de Paz Tabuquilde (private respondents herein) and against defendant Sulpicio
Lines, Inc. (petitioner herein) ordering defendant to pay P27,580.00 as actual damages, P30,000.00 for the death
of Jennifer Tabuquilde, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as
attorney's fees, and costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner then filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Is there basis to award actual damages? NO.

RULING:

Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and not disturbed except for cogent
reasons (Gatmaitan v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 37 [1991]). One of the accepted reasons is when the findings
of fact are not supported by the evidence (Sandoval Shipyard, Inc. v. Clave, 94 SCRA 472 [1979]). Corollary to
this is the rule that actual or compensatory damages, to be recovered, must be proved; otherwise, if the proof is
flimsy, no damages will be awarded (Dichoso v. Court of Appeals, 192 SCRA 169 [1990]).

In the case at bench, the trial court merely mentioned the fact of the loss and the value of the contents of the
pieces of baggage without stating the evidence on which it based its findings. There is no showing that the value
of the contents of the lost pieces of baggage was based on the bill of lading or was previously declared by
respondent Tito D. Tabuquilde before he boarded the ship. Hence, there can be no basis to award actual
damages in the amount of P27,850.00.

The Court of Appeals was correct in confirming the award of damages for the death of the daughter of private
respondents, a passenger on board the stricken vessel of petitioner. It is true that under Article 2206 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, only deaths caused by a crime as quasi delict are entitled to actual and compensatory
damages without the need of proof of the said damages. Said Article provides:

The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi delict shall be at least Three
Thousand Pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. . . .

Deducing alone from said provision, one can conclude that damages arising from culpa contractual are not
compensable without proof of special damages sustained by the heirs of the victim.

However, the Civil Code, in Article 1764 thereof, expressly makes Article 2206 applicable "to the death of a
passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier." Accordingly, a common carrier is liable for
actual or compensatory damages under Article 2206 in relation to Article 1764 of the Civil Code for deaths of its
passengers caused by the breach of the contract of transportation.

The trial court awarded an indemnity of P30,000.00 for the death of the daughter of private respondents. The
award of damages under Article 2206 has been increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Flores, 237 SCRA 653
[1994]).

With respect to the award of moral damages, the general rule is that said damages are not recoverable in culpa
contractual except when the presence of bad faith was proven (Trans World Air Lines v. Court of Appeals, 165
SCRA 143 [1988]). However, in breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may be recovered when it results
in the death of a passenger (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Esguerra, 117 SCRA 741 [1982]; Vasquez v.
Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 [1985]).

With respect to the award of exemplary damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code of the Philippines gives the Court
the discretion to grant said damages in breach of contract when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent and
reckless manner (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 [1966]).

Furthermore, in the case of Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 83 (1989), we ruled that:

. . . . The Court will take judicial notice of the dreadful regularity with which grievous maritime
disasters occur in our waters with massive loss of life. The bulk of our population is too poor to
afford domestic air transportation. So it is that notwithstanding the frequent sinking of passenger
in our waters, crowds of people continue to travel by sea. This Court is prepared to use the
instruments given to it by the law for securing the ends of law and public policy. One of those
instruments is the institution of exemplary damages; one of those ends, of special importance in
an archipelagic state like the Philippines, is the safe and reliable carriage of people and goods by
sea. . . . (at p. 100).

A common carrier is obliged to transport its passengers to their destinations with the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person (Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Tiongson, 16 SCRA 940 [1966]). The trial court found that petitioner
failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, which resulted in the sinking of the
M/V Dona Marilyn.
The trial court correctly concluded that the sinking of M/V Dona Marilyn was due to gross negligence, thus:

. . . [i]t is undisputed that Typhoon Unsang entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility on
October 21, 1988. The rain in Metro Manila started after lunch of October 23, 1988, and at about
5:00 p.m. Public Storm Signal No. 1 was hoisted over Metro Manila, Signal No. 2 in Leyte and
Signal No. 3 in Samar. But at 10:00 o'clock (sic) in the morning of October 23, 1988, Public Storm
Signal No. 1 was already hoisted over the province of Leyte, which is the destination of M/V Dona
Marilyn. This was raised to Signal No. 2 at 4:00 p.m. and Signal No. 3 at 10:00 p.m. on the same
date. The following day, October 24, 1988, at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Storm Signal No. 3
remained hoisted in Leyte. At 4 p.m. on October 24, 1988, Storm Signal No. 3 remained hoisted in
Leyte but was reduced to Storm Signal No. 2 (Exh. G). Signal No. 1 has maximum winds at 60
kph within 36 hours; Signal No. 2 has maximum winds of from 60 kph to 100 kph within a period
of 24 hours; and Signal No. 3 has maximum winds of 100 kph and above within a period of 12
hours.

Warnings of the storm signal are issued by PAG-ASA thru DZZA, Office of Civil Defense,
Philippine Navy, Coast Guard, Radio Stations, and other offices, every six (6) hours as soon as a
cyclone enters the Philippine Area of Responsibility.

At 10:30 a.m. on October 24, 1988, the vessel was estimated to be between Mindoro and
Masbate, and the center of the typhoon then was around 130 degrees longitude with maximum
winds of 65 kph (Exh. G-3), with a "radius of rough to phenomenal sea at that time of 450 kms.
North and 350 kms. elsewhere; 350 kms. North center and all throughout the rest" (p. 12, TSN,
Lumalda, Feb. 19, 1990).

xxx xxx xxx

In the same manner, (referring to the negligence of the crew of the ship that sank in Vasquez v.
Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 [1985]) the crew of the vessel M/V Dona Marilyn took a
calculated risk when it proceeded despite the typhoon brewing somewhere in the general
direction to which the vessel was going. The crew assumed a greater risk when, instead of
dropping anchor in or at the periphery of the Port of Calapan, or returning to the port of Manila
which is nearer, proceeded on its voyage on the assumption that it will be able to beat and race
with the typhoon and reach its destination before it (Unsang) passes ( Rollo, pp. 45-47).

The award of attorney's fees by the trial court to respondents is also assailed by petitioner, citing Mirasol v. De la
Cruz, 84 SCRA 337 (1978). In this case, the petitioner filed before the Municipal Court an action for forcible entry
against the private respondent. The said court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur sustained the decision of the lower court, dismissed the appeal and awarded attorney's fees in
the sum of not less than P500.00 in favor of private respondent. Upon appeal to us, we deleted the award of
attorney's fees because the text of the appealed decision was bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify such
an award. Moreover, there was no proof, other than the bare allegation of harassment that the adverse party had
acted in bad faith. The aforementioned decision is inapposite to the instant case where the decision clearly
mentions the facts and the law upon which the award of attorney's fees were based.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of
P27,580.00 as actual damages for the loss of the contents of the pieces of baggage is deleted and that the award
of P30,000.00 under Article 2206 in relation Article 1764 is increased to P50,000.00.