Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6K views

    Spouses Cruz Vs Sun Holidays

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    Respondent Sun Holidays owned and operated a resort island and ferry service to transport guests. The petitioners' son and his wife died when the ferry capsized during a storm while traveling from the resort island to the mainland. Petitioners alleged Sun was negligent for allowing the ferry to sail despite storm warnings. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding Sun was a private carrier only required to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the Supreme Court found Sun was a common carrier with the ferry service integral to its resort business. As a common carrier, Sun was bound to extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and negligence is presumed if a passenger is injured. The Court ruled Sun failed to overcome this presumption of negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Cruz Vs Sun Holidays

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    6K views1 page
    Respondent Sun Holidays owned and operated a resort island and ferry service to transport guests. The petitioners' son and his wife died when the ferry capsized during a storm while traveling from the resort island to the mainland. Petitioners alleged Sun was negligent for allowing the ferry to sail despite storm warnings. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding Sun was a private carrier only required to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the Supreme Court found Sun was a common carrier with the ferry service integral to its resort business. As a common carrier, Sun was bound to extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and negligence is presumed if a passenger is injured. The Court ruled Sun failed to overcome this presumption of negligence.

    Original Description:

    Spouses Cruz vs Sun Holidays

    Original Title

    Spouses Cruz vs Sun Holidays

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent Sun Holidays owned and operated a resort island and ferry service to transport guests. The petitioners' son and his wife died when the ferry capsized during a storm while traveling from the resort island to the mainland. Petitioners alleged Sun was negligent for allowing the ferry to sail despite storm warnings. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding Sun was a private carrier only required to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the Supreme Court found Sun was a common carrier with the ferry service integral to its resort business. As a common carrier, Sun was bound to extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and negligence is presumed if a passenger is injured. The Court ruled Sun failed to overcome this presumption of negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6K views1 page

    Spouses Cruz Vs Sun Holidays

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    Respondent Sun Holidays owned and operated a resort island and ferry service to transport guests. The petitioners' son and his wife died when the ferry capsized during a storm while traveling from the resort island to the mainland. Petitioners alleged Sun was negligent for allowing the ferry to sail despite storm warnings. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding Sun was a private carrier only required to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the Supreme Court found Sun was a common carrier with the ferry service integral to its resort business. As a common carrier, Sun was bound to extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and negligence is presumed if a passenger is injured. The Court ruled Sun failed to overcome this presumption of negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Spouses Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc.

    GR No. 186312
    29 June 2010
    FACTS
    Spouses Cruz files 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 where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort owned and operated by respondent.
    Their stay was by virtue of a tour package-contract with respondent that included transportation to and
    from the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas. Eight of the passengers, including petitioners son
    and his wife, died during the accident. Sun denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered
    to be a fortuitous event. Petitioners allege that as a common carrier, Sun was negligent in allowing the
    boat to sail despite the storm warning bulletins issued by PAGASA. Respondent denied being a common
    carrier, alleging that its boats are not available to the public but are only used as ferry resort carrier. It also
    claimed to have exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers, and that contrary
    to petitioners allegation, there was no storm as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage. M/B Coco
    Beach III was not filled to capacity and had sufficient life jackets for its passengers.
    RTC dismissed the complaint. CA denied the appeal holding that Sun 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
    Whether M/B Coco Beach III breached a contract of carriage
    HELD
    Respondent is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so intertwined with its business as to be properly
    considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondents ferry services in its resort operations is
    underscored by its having its own Coco Beach boats. And 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 Civil Code defining common carriers has deliberately
    refrained from making distinctions on whether the carrying of persons or goods is the carriers principal
    business, whether it is offered on a regular basis, or whether it is offered to the general public.
    Under the Civil Code, 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 the 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.

    You might also like