The term “Act of God” is usually used as an excuse for the damages that may have been caused to another. This has relieved common carriers from payment of damages or penalty but of course, under certain circumstances. There are situations where, even if the damages were during the occurrence of an “Act of God”, the common carrier can still be held liable. Our Civil Code says: “Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.” The general rule under the Code is that no person shall be held liable for the loss or damage caused by a fortuitous event and the exception is when the law, contract or nature of the obligation imposes the responsibility. In our country which is frequented by natural calamities, it is almost a cultural practice not to hold people liable for damages caused during said calamities. We often hear people say, “Bayaan mo na, kalamidad naman e”. Some are not comfortable suing others for damages caused during calamities to the point of almost being a taboo. But then there are instances where claims are made and those liable are made to pay such as the case of Sulpicio vs. Sesante (G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016).
Sesante vs. Sulpicio
Sesante was one of the passengers on 18 September 1998 of MV Princess of the Orient which was owned and operates by Sulpicio. The voyage was on a very rough sea due to a typhoon. While at sea, the ship encountered huge waves which tossed the vessel violently causing Sesante to be pinned momentarily until panic came over the passengers who were shouting for help and life vests. The ship eventually sank and Sesante survived by drifting on the violent sea until he was rescued. Around 150 passengers perished during the sinking of the ship. Sesante later sued Sulpicio for breach of contract of carriage and damages. During the trial Sulpicio put up its defense that the sinking of the ship was due to a fortuitous event which is the typhoon that is why it should not be held liable for damages. The trial court granted Sesante’s claim and held Sulpicio liable for damages. Sulpicio appealed to the Court of Appeals but the decision of the trial court was sustained but the amount of damages were reduced. Not satisfied, Sulpicio elevated the case to the Supreme Court insisting that it should not be held liable at all.
Sulpicio is Liable
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Sulpicio is liable for the damages and the Supreme Court even increased the amount of damages. The Civil Code says that “Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees…” It is for this reason that Sulpicio’s liability over the accident was sustained by the Supreme Court. The liability of Sulpicio as a common carrier is based on breach of contract of carriage and the SC said: “for a common carrier to be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The common carrier must still prove that it did not contribute to the occurrence of the incident due to its own or its employees’ negligence.” It was found that the vessel made an incorrect turn that made the vessel sink during the typhoon. Although the typhoon was a natural occurrence or an Act of God, “the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel had been the gross negligence of its captain in maneuvering the vessel”.
