Vasquez vs CA Case Digest GR 42926 September 13, 1985 138 SCRA 553

Vasquez vs CA Case Digest

 G.R. No. 42926 ; September 13, 1985 ; 138 SCRA 553

PRINCIPLE/S:

1) GR: limited liability rule - liability of a shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel

Exception: Shipowner or ship agent’s insurance. (There are other exceptions aside from this one)

2) Elements of a Fortuitous Event

a) The event must be independent of the human will,

b) The occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner,

c) The obligor must be free of participation in, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor,
* Event must have been impossible to foresee, or if it could be foreseen, must have been impossible to avoid.

3) GR: Fortuitous Event exempts one from liability

Exception: Failure to observe extraordinary diligence by the shipowner or ship agent. (NOTE: There are other exceptions)

FACTS: Petitioners sued for damages before the Court of First Instance defendant Filipinas Pioneer Lines due to the loss of their children in a shipwreck involving the vessel of defendant when it sailed despite a typhoon. The Trial Court awarded damages but this was reversed by CA. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari is filed to this court. Respondent defended on the plea of caso fortuito and the extinction of its liability by the actual total loss of the vessel.

ISSUE:

1) WON it is a fortuitous event

2) WON defendant is liable

HELD:

1) NO. 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. 

In the instant case, defendant’s case does not constitute a caso fortuito since while the typhoon was indeed an inevitable occurrence, yet, the defendant 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. In taking a calculated risk, defendant failed to observe that extraordinary diligence required of them explicitly by law for the safety of the passengers transported by them.

2) YES.

Reasons:

a) The case is not caso fortutito.

b) Private respondent's submission that the total loss of the vessel extinguished its liability pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce (Limited Liability Rule - liability of a shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel or to the insurance thereon) is untenable since this rule admits exceptions. One such exception is if an insurance exists. 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.