● A common carrier may be relieved of any liability arising from a fortuitous event pursuant to Article 1174 of the Civil Code. But while it may free a common carrier from liability, the provision still requires exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss. Else stated, for a common carrier to be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The common carrier must still prove that it did not contribute to the occurrence of the incident due to its own or its employees' negligence. We explained in Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., as follows:
In order to be considered a fortuitous event, however,
(1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of human will;
(2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitute the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen it must be impossible to avoid;
3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in any manner; and
(4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
[T]he principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be occasioned solely by the violence of nature. Human intervention is to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether due to his active intervention or neglect or failure to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.
The petitioner has attributed the sinking of the vessel to the storm notwithstanding its position on the seaworthiness of M/V Princess of the Orient. Yet, the findings of the BMI directly contradicted the petitioner's attribution, as follows:
7. The Immediate and the Proximate Cause of the Sinking
The Captain's erroneous maneuvers of the MIV Princess of the Orient minutes before she sunk [sic] had caused the accident. It should be noted that during the first two hours when the ship left North Harbor, she was navigating smoothly towards Limbones Point. During the same period, the ship was only subjected to the normal weather stress prevailing at the time. She was then inside Manila Bar. The waves were observed to be relatively small to endanger the safety of the ship. It was only when the MV Princess of the Orient had cleared Limbones Pt. while navigating towards the direction of the Fortune Island when this agonizing misfortune struck the ship.
Initially, a list of three degrees was observed. The listing of the ship to her portside had continuously increased. It was at this point that the captain had misjudged the situation. While the ship continuously listed to her portside and was battered by big waves, strong southwesterly winds, prudent judgement [sic] would dictate that the Captain should have considerably reduced the ship's speed. He could have immediately ordered the Chief Engineer to slacken down the speed. Meanwhile, the winds and waves continuously hit the ship on her starboard side. The waves were at least seven to eight meters in height and the wind velocity was a[t] 25 knots. The MV Princess of the Orient being a close-type ship (seven decks, wide and high superstructure) was vulnerable and exposed to the howling winds and ravaging seas. Because of the excessive movement, the solid and liquid cargo below the decks must have shifted its weight to port, which could have contributed to the tilted position of the ship.
Minutes later, the Captain finally ordered to reduce the speed of the ship to 14 knots. At the same time, he ordered to put ballast water to the starboard-heeling tank to arrest the continuous listing of the ship. This was an exercise in futility because the ship was already listing between 15 to 20 degrees to her portside. The ship had almost reached the maximum angle of her loll. At this stage, she was about to lose her stability.
Despite this critical situation, the Captain executed several starboard maneuvers. Steering the course of the Princess to starboard had greatly added to her tilting. In the open seas, with a fast speed of 14 knots, advance maneuvers such as this would tend to bring the body of the ship in the opposite side. In navigational terms, this movement is described as the centripetal force. This force is produced by the water acting on the side of the ship away from the center of the turn. The force is considered to act at the center of lateral resistance which, in this case, is the centroid of the underwater area of the ship's side away from the center of the turn. In the case of the Princess, when the Captain maneuvered her to starboard, her body shifted its weight to port. Being already inclined to an angle of 15 degrees, coupled with the instantaneous movement of the ship, the cargoes below deck could have completely shifted its position and weight towards portside. By this time, the ship being ravaged simultaneously by ravaging waves and howling winds on her starboard side, finally lost her grip.
Even assuming the seaworthiness of the M/VPrincess of the Orient, the petitioner could not escape liability considering that, as borne out by the aforequoted findings of the BMI, the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel had been the gross negligence of its captain in maneuvering the vessel.
The Court also notes that Metro Manila was experiencing Storm Signal No. 1 during the time of the sinking.31 The BMI observed that a vessel like the M/V Princess of the Orient, which had a volume of 13.734 gross tons, should have been capable of withstanding a Storm Signal No. I considering that the responding fishing boats of less than 500 gross tons had been able to weather through the same waves and winds to go to the succor of the sinking vessel and had actually rescued several of the latter's distressed passengers. (Sulpicio Lines v. Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016)
● A common carrier is not liable for loss only when (1) the fortuitous event was the only and proximate cause of the loss and (2) it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss. The second element is absent here. As a common carrier, petitioner should have been more vigilant in monitoring weather disturbances within the country and their (possible) effect on its routes and destination. More specifically, it should have been more alert on the possible attenuating and dysfunctional effects of bad weather on the parts of the ship. It should have foreseen the likely prejudicial effects of the strong waves and winds on the ship brought about by inclement weather and should have taken the necessary precautionary measures through extraordinary diligence to prevent the weakening or dysfunction of the parts of the ship to avoid or prune down the loss to cargo. (Lea Mer Industries v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 161745, September 30, 2005)
Requisites of fortuitous event
4/
5
Oleh
Philippine Legal Forms