Scribd
Upload
109 views2 pages

Common Carrier Status of M/B Coco Beach

Spouses Cruz filed a complaint against Sun Holidays for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito and his wife aboard M/B Coco Beach that capsized during a trip from Puerto Galera to Batangas. Sun Holidays denied responsibility, claiming the incident was a fortuitous event. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Sun Holidays, finding they were not a common carrier. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sun Holidays was a common carrier as their ferry services were integral to their resort operations, constant, and available to anyone who could pay. Therefore, Sun Holidays could be found liable for negligence in allowing the boat to sail in stormy conditions.

Uploaded by

nanabuy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views2 pages

Common Carrier Status of M/B Coco Beach

Spouses Cruz filed a complaint against Sun Holidays for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito and his wife aboard M/B Coco Beach that capsized during a trip from Puerto Galera to Batangas. Sun Holidays denied responsibility, claiming the incident was a fortuitous event. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Sun Holidays, finding they were not a common carrier. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Sun Holidays was a common carrier as their ferry services were integral to their resort operations, constant, and available to anyone who could pay. Therefore, Sun Holidays could be found liable for negligence in allowing the boat to sail in stormy conditions.

Uploaded by

nanabuy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Spouses Cruz v.

Sun Holidays
G.R. No. 186312 June 29, 2010

FACTS:

Spouses Cruz filed a complaint against Sun Holidays for damages arising from the death of their son
Ruelito with his wife on board of M/B Coco Beach that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto
Galera. Ruelito and his wife were newlywed.

Matute, one the survivors, gave his account of the incident. He was originally scheduled to leave the
resort in the afternoon of September 10, 2000 but was advised to stay for another night because of the
strong winds and heavy rains. On the next, as it was still windy, he and 25 resort guests including the
newlyweds trekked to the other side of the mountain that was sheltered from the wind and they
boarded M/B Coco Beach.

Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain and in the open seas, the rain and wind got stronger and
the boat capsized.

Respondents denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous event and
offered 10K to petitioner upon signing of a waiver. Petitioner declined the offer alleging respondent as a
common carrier, was guilty of negligence in allowing the boat to sail notwithstanding the storm warning
of PAG-ASA. Respondents denied being a common carrier alleging that its boats are not available to
general public as they only carry resort guests and crew members.

RTC dismissed the complaint.

CA denied the appeal.

ISSUE:

WON M/B Coco Beach was a common carrier.

RULING:

YES.

The Civil Code defines the “common carriers” in the following terms:

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air for compensation, offering
their services to the public.
The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also
carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service
on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic, or unscheduled
basis. Neither does article 1732 distinguish between carriers offering its services to the general public.

Indeed respondent is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so intertwined with its main business as to
be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondent’s ferry services in its resort
operations is underscored by its having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour package it offers, which
include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the same, these services
are thus available to the public.

You might also like