Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v CA (1996)

Petitioners: Trans-Asia Shipping Lines

Respondents: Court of Appeals
Doctrine: A common carrier is bound to carry passengers 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.
FACTS:
1. Arroyo (Respondent) bought a ticket from Trans-Asia to travel from
Cebu to CDO. Arroyo upon boarding noticed some repairs being
undertaken on the engine. The vessel departed with only one engine
running.
2. After an hour of slow voyage, the passengers demanded to be
returned to Cebu and such request was granted.
3. Arroyo together with other passengers disembarked the vessel. The
ship then went back to CDO.
4. Because of this failure to transport, Arroyo filed a case for damages,
saying that they were arrogantly told to disembark without necessary
precautions with possible injury to them. He also contended that
Trans-Asia was negligent and acted in bad faith in voyaging with one
engine.
5. RTC ruled that it was for a breach of contract and that Trans-Asia did
not act in bad faith. CA reversed and used Article 1755 of the Civil
Code to grant compensatory, moral and exemplary damages. CA
based its decision because the utmost diligence stated in 1755 was
not complied with when the ship set sail even with one engine
running.
ISSUES:
1. WoN Trans-Asia is liable to Arroyo for having to disembark upon its
return to the vessels port of origin for travelling even though it is
unseaworthy.

RULING + RATIO:
Undoubtedly, there was, between the petitioner and the private
respondent, a contract of common carriage; in which case, the laws
applicable are the provisions on common carriers.
Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that petitioner common carrier is
bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its
passengers. Pursuant to 1755 of the same Code, petitioner is bound to
carry Arroyo safely as far as human care and foresight could provide,
using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard
for all the circumstances.
Utmost diligence of a very cautious person states that the voyage should
have commenced only when the vessel was fit to sail.
Trans-Asia failed in this duty because before commencing the voyage, it
conducted some repairs on one of its engines. However, before it could
even finish repairing, it allowed the vessel to leave with only one engine
functioning. This lone engine was not even working in perfect condition.
Clearly the vessel was not seaworthy even before the voyage began and
the only reason it did not capsize was because of the anchor drop. For a
vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for voyage and
manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew.
The failure of Trans-Asia to maintain the ship in seaworthy condition is a
breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
DISPOSITION: Petition is denied and the CA decision is affirmed.