SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

VOL. 138, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 553

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

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.

Torts; Common Carriers; Damages; Elements to consider in

sustaining a case of „caso fortuito.‰·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.‰
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. There must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the
cause of injury or loss.
Same; Same; Same; There is no „caso fortuito‰ where a ship
captain proceeded en route despite a typhoon advice close to the area
where vessel will pass.·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

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 1 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

law for the safety of the passengers transported by them with due
regard for all 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
injures to passengers.
Same; Same; Same; Board of Marine InquiryÊs conclusion that
ship captain was not negligent is not binding on the Court where
said finding is not complete.·While the Board of Marine Inquiry,
which investigated the disaster, exonerated the captain from any

__________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

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
BoardÊs 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.
Same; Same; Same; Liability of shipowner extends to value of
vessel and insurance proceeds thereon.·With respect to private
respondentÊs submission that the total loss of the vessel
extinguished its liability pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of
Commerce 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.

PETITION to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 2 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

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 petitionersÊ 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 interisland vessel MV ÂPioneer CebuÊ 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 ÂPioneer CebuÊ encountered typhoon ÂKlaringÊ 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.

555

VOL. 138, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 555

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

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
Maximina 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 ÂPioneer CebuÊ. 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 defendantÊs 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 ÂPioneer CebuÊ came mainly, if not exclusively, from the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 3 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

defendant. The MV ÂPioneer CebuÊ was owned and operated by the

defendant and used in the transportation of goods and passengers
in the interisland 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
ÂPioneer CebuÊ 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,

556

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

however, the weather suddenly changed and heavy rains fell.

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 Âweather outÊ 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.‰

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 4 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

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
ma-jeure, 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 P10,00.00 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 petitionersÊ children.
The trial Court found the defense of caso fortuito
untenable due to various decisive factors, thus:

„x x x It is an admitted fact that even before the vessel left on its

last voyage, its officers and crew were already aware of the

557

VOL. 138, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 557

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

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

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 5 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

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 enroute,
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
1
in, or aggravation of,
the injury to the creditor.‰ In the language of the law, the
event must have been impossible to foresee, or2 if it could be
foreseen, must have been impossible to avoid. There must
be an entire exclusion
3
of human agency from the cause of
injury or loss.
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

____________________

1 Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661 [1924]; Austria vs. Court of
Appeals, 39 SCRA 527 [1971].
2 Art. 1174, Civil Code; Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924].
3 Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code, Vol. V, p. 252.

558

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 6 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

4
anticipation of strong winds and rough waters. 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 5
southeast of Tacloban and
was moving west northwest. 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 6already reported to be
reaching the mainland of Samar. They still decided to
proceed noting that the weather was still „good‰ although,
according to the Chief Forecaster of the Weather
7
Bureau,
they were already within the typhoon zone. 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 8 would weaken upon crossing the
mainland of Samar. 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 oblivious9 of the utmost diligence
required of very cautious persons, they decided to take a
calculated risk. In so doing,

________________

4 T.s.n., August 8, 1967, p. 22.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 7 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

5 Domestic Bulletin No. 16 of the Weather Bureau.

6 Domestic Bulletin No. 17.
7 T.s.n., December 15, 1967, p. 21.
8 Domestic Bulletin No. 18.
9 Arts. 1755, 1756, Civil Code.

559

VOL. 138, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 559

Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

they failed to observe that extraordinary diligence required

of them explicitly by law for the safety of the passengers
transported 10by them with due regard for all
circumstances and unnecessarily exposed the vessel and
passengers to the tragic mishap. They failed to overcome
that presumption of fault or negligence
11
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
BoardÊs 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 respondentÊs submission that the
total loss of the vessel extinguished its liability
12
pursuant to
Article 587 of the Code of Commerce 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.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 8 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 138 10/1/20, 3:59 PM

_________________

10 Art. 1733, ibid.

11 Art. 1756, ibid.
12 „Art. 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the
indemnities in favor of third persons which may arise from the conduct of
the captain in the vigilance over the goods which the vessel carried; but
he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her
equipments and the freight he may have earned during the voyage.‰

560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcilla vs. Arcilla

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez,

Jr., De la Fuente and Patajo, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174e329af4bc660b8bb003600fb002c009e/p/AQL361/?username=Guest Page 9 of 9