Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Trans-Asia Shipping vs. Court of Appeals (254 SCRA 260) Facts: Plaintiff (herein private respondent Atty.

Renato Arroyo) bought a ticket from herein petitioner for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand Vessel to Cagayan de Oro from Cebu City. Arroyo boarded the vessel in the evening of November 12, 1991 at around 5:30. At that instance, plaintiff noticed that some repair works were being undertaken on the evening of the vessel. The vessel departed at around 11:00 in the evening with only one engine running. After an hour of slow voyage, vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor threat. After an hour of stillness, some passenger demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceded to their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City. At Cebu City, the plaintiff together with the other passengers who requested to be brought back to Cebu City was allowed to disembark. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City. Plaintiff, the next day boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of the defendant. On account of this failure of defendant to transport him to the place pf destination on November 12, 1991, plaintiff filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against the defendant. Issue: Whether or not the failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage a breach of its duty? Held: Undoubtedly, there was, between the petitioner and private respondent a contract of carriage. Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, the petitioner was bound to observed extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the private respondent. That meant that the petitioner was pursuant to the Article 1755 off the said Code, bound to carry the private respondent safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. In this case, the Supreme Court is in full accord with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner failed or discharged this obligation. Before commencing the contact of voyage, the petitioner undertook some repairs on the cylinder head of one of the vessels en gines. But even before it could finish these repairs it allowed the vessel to leave the port of origin on only one functioning engine, instead of two. Moreover, even the lone functioning engine was not in perfect condition at sometime after it had run its course, in conked out. Which cause the vessel to stop and remain adrift at sea, thus in order to prevent the ship from capsizing, it had to drop anchor. Plainly, the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage begun. For the vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with the sufficient number of competent officers and crew. The Failure of the common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.