Cruz vs.

Sun Holidays
GR No. 186312

PLAINTIFF: Spouses Cruz and Leonora Cruz

DEFENDANT: Sun Holidays
DATE: June 29, 2010
PONENTE: J. Carpio Morales
TOPIC:

TYPE OF CASE:
VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION: Complaint for damages arising from death of their son Ruelito Cruz
RESOLUTION: Petition, granted

Facts:

 Spouses Cruz filed a complaint for damages against Sun Holidays arising from the death of their son who perished with
his wife on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route Batangas from Puerto Galera
o Where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort owned and operated by the respondent
 Their stay was a virtue of a tour package-contract with respondent that included transportation to and from the Resort and
the point of departure in Batangas.
 8 passengers, including petitioner’s son and his wife, died during the accident
 Sun Holidays denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous event.
 Petitioner allege that as a common carrier, Sun was negligent in allowing the boat to sail despite the storm warning
bulleting issued by PAGASA.
 Sun denied being a common carrier – alleged that its boats are not available to the public but are only used as ferry resort
carrier
o Claimed to have exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers – contrary to the
petitioner’s allegations
o There was no storm as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage
o The boat was not filled to capacity and had sufficient life jackets for its passengers
 RTC – dismissed the complaint
 CA – denied the appeal, held that:
o Sun Holidays is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence and that the proximate
cause of the incident was a fortuitous event

Issue: W/N M/B Coco Beach III is a common carrier, YES

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the respondent is a common carrier.

Its ferry services are so intertwined with its business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondent’s
ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by it having it own Coco Beach boats. That the tour packages 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.

In the De Guzman case, Article 1732 of the CC, defining common carriers has deliberately refrained from making distinctions on
whether the carrying of persons or goods is the carrier’s principal business, whether it is offered on a regular basis, or whether it is
offered to the general public.

Under the CC, common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all circumstances of each case. They are
bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.

When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or
negligent. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common
carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.