20. Sarkies Tours v IAC  A few weeks before June 12, 1971, Sarkies Tours Phils., Inc.

(SARKIES)
G.R. No. L-63723. advertised in the newspapers its tour to Corregidor on Independence Day, for
September 2, 1983 a fee of “P10.00 per person including:
ANG o a) boat fare—Manila-Corregidor-Manila
TOPIC: DAMAGES o b) shrine fee and
PETITIONER: SARKIES TOURS o c) tour of Corregidor Island by bus
RESPONDENT: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ARSENIO S. DIZON, JR. and  Spouses Dizon (private respondents) purchased six round-trip tickets from
VIOLETA R. DIZON SARKIES.
o They were issued an official receipt under the SARKIES letterhead.
Doctrine: Exemplary damages, award of, not proper, absent a showing that the Also issued by SARKIES for each set of tickets were one (1) blue
company acted in a wanton or malevolent manner for the death of some ticket and one (1) white ticket, with the name “SARKIES” appearing
passengers aboard ferry boat. on both the blue and white tickets, while the word “Edisco” was
handwritten across the white ticket
ER:  The following day, the Spouses Dizon together with their 4 children, Cecilia,
SARKIES advertised its tour package to Corregidor in the newspapers; P10.00 for Bernardita, Merceditas and Emerito, were transported on a SARKIES bus from
the boat fare, shrine fee, and a tour of the island. The Spouses Dizon and their 4 the SARKIES main office to Muelle del Banco National where they boarded the
children availed of the tour package and bought 6 tickets. They boarded the M/V M/V Edisco.
Edisco, owned by MENDOZA on their way to Corregidor Island. On that day, the  Upon departure from Manila, Manila Bay was then rather choppy. The white
waters of Manila Bay were choppy. The M/V Edisco, is an oversized motorized tickets were collected on board by Julian V. MENDOZA, while the blue tickets
banca with outriggers, a steel hull, a canvas awning and rattan chairs on the deck. It were collected upon boarding the SARKIES bus at Corregidor Island.
was not registered to ferry passengers, nor was it licensed to operate as a  The M/V Edisco, owned and operated by MENDOZA, is an oversized motorized
watercraft. On that trip, it had 146 passengers on board and was overloaded and banca with outriggers, a steel hull, a canvas awning and rattan chairs on the
lacked adequate lifesaving equipment. On their return trip, the waters were also deck. It was not registered to ferry passengers, nor was it licensed to operate
choppy and there were intermittent rains. Around 2 PM, the boat capsized. as a watercraft. On that trip, it had 146 passengers on board and was
Spouses Dizon and their two children, Bernardita and Emerito, managed to clamber overloaded and lacked adequate lifesaving equipment.
up the hull of the boat and were rescued by a passing yacht. Another daughter,  On the return trip to Manila, the weather was practically the same as when
Cecilia, was picked up by one of the other watercrafts that came to the rescue. they left but with intermittent rains.
However, Merceditas, their 6 yr old child was never found. A few days later, they o Around 2:00 P.M., disaster struck after about thirty minutes of
were summoned to identify the body of Merceditas. DIZONS filed a complaint cruising. The boat leaned towards starboard and the chairs slid into
against SARKIES and MENDOZA. the water in that direction. In a matter of seconds, the boat
As to the exemplary damages, it was eliminated for there was no showing that capsized. Spouses Dizon and their two children, Bernardita and
SARKIES acted in a wanton and malevolent manner. It is not enough to say that an Emerito, managed to clamber up the hull of the boat and were
example should be made, or corrective measures be employed, for the public good rescued by a passing yacht. Another daughter, Cecilia, was picked up
especially in accident cases where public carriers are involved.. by one of the other watercrafts that came to succor.
o Spouses Dizon lost cash and personal belongings. Merceditas, their
Facts: six-year-old daughter was missing and could not be located even
after they reached Manila around 7:00 P.M. of that day. After six
days of fruitless and heart-rending inquiries, Spouses Dizon were
 summoned to Funeraria Quiogue were they identified a lifeless body (The SC agreed with making SARKIES and MENDOZA jointly and severally liable but
as that of their daughter, Merceditas. There were other fatalities. revised the award for moral and exemplary damages)
 For damages based on the drowning of MERCEDITAS, the DIZONS filed a WON the award for moral and exemplary damages were proper?
complaint against SARKIES and MENDOZA before the then Court of First
Instance of Manila. HELD:
 Answering, SARKIES alleged that it was not the owner nor charterer of M/V CA judgment is modified
Edisco; that it is only a booking agent and not a carrier; and that it had acted 1. eliminating exemplary damages
with due diligence and care in relying on MENDOZA’s representations that his 2. reducing moral damages from P100,000 to P30,000.00
vessel was duly authorized to operate and was sea-worthy. 3. ordering Julian V. Mendoza to pay and/or reimburse SARKIES any and all
 MENDOZA denied liability claiming that he was not the together with his son expenses and damages to be paid by to DIZONS
who also perished in the tragedy; that the contract of carriage was between 4. The other parts of the judgment are confirmed.
SARKIES and Spouses Dizon, and that the marine accident was due to force
majeure. MENDOZA was declared in default for failure to appear during the For EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
pre-trial.  the award should be eliminated
 Trial Court: exonerated SARKIES  It is not enough to say that an example should be made, or corrective
o it was “neither an agent nor the operator of M/V Edisco”; measures be employed, for the public good especially in accident cases
o that it had merely booked DIZONS with M/V Edisco, one of the three where public carriers are involved. The causative negligence in such cases
private carriers, in addition to a Philippine Navy boat, plying the is personal to the employees actually in charge of the vehicles, and it is
route from Manila to Corregidor, they who should be made to pay this kind of damages by way of example
o and attributed sole responsibility to MENDOZA, whom it found to be or correction, unless by the demonstrative tolerance or approval of the
the owner-operator of M/V Edisco, for negligence consisting of owners they themselves can be held at fault and their fault is of the
“unscrupulous conversion of a fishing boat into a ferry boat without character described in article 2232 of the Civil Code
first securing a license to operate as such  there is no showing that SARKIES acted “in a wanton . . . . or malevolent
 CA: SARKIES and MEDOZA jointly and severally liable manner”
o relationship between SARKIES and the excursionists was “a single
operation . . . which in effect guaranteed them safe passage all For MORAL DAMAGES
throughout  while we find them justly due, under the factual milieu, however, we
o both shall pay the following: consider the sum P100,000.00 excessive and in the exercise of our
o (a) P12,000.00 in actual damages for the death of Merceditas discretion, hereby reduce them to P30,000.00.
Dizon;
o (b) P1,650.00 for loss of cash and personal belongings;
o (c) P3,000.00 for funeral expenses; In its Answer to the Complaint of the DIZONS, SARKIES included a cross-claim
o (d) P100,000.00 for moral damages; against MENDOZA as the owner/operator of the EDISCO. Considering that actual
o (e) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; negligence for the drowning of MERCEDITAS was the responsibility of MENDOZA, it
o (f) P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and is but fair that SARKIES should have a right of action against MENDOZA for
o (g) the costs of suit.” reimbursement. Although Article 2181 of the Civil Code is not technically invocable,
its principle should be applied in favor of SARKIES
ISSUE: “Where a railroad company had been compelled to pay a judgment for damages
for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the maltreatment and
misconduct of the conductor . . . the Court (held) that the servant was liable to his
master for all loss and damage sustained by it.”