Bohol Tribune
Opinion

Rule of Law

By:  Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA

Responsibility of beach resorts offering tour-package contracts 

Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz (petitioners) lodged a Complaint on January 25, 2001 against Sun Holidays, Inc. (respondent) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz (Ruelito) who perished with his wife on September 11, 2000 on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort) owned and operated by respondent.

On September 11, 2000, as it was still windy, Matute, a scuba diving instructor, and other Resort guests including petitioners’ son and his wife trekked to the other side of the Coco Beach mountain that was sheltered from the wind where they boarded M/B Coco Beach III, which was to ferry them to Batangas.

Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain. As it moved farther away from Puerto Galera and into the open seas, the rain and wind got stronger, causing the boat to tilt from side to side and the captain to step forward to the front, leaving the wheel to one of the crew members.

The waves got more unwieldy. After getting hit by two big waves which came one after the other, M/B Coco Beach III capsized putting all passengers underwater. Help came after about 45 minutes when two boats owned by Asia Divers in Sabang, Puerto Galera passed by the capsized M/B Coco Beach III. Boarded on those two boats were 22 persons, consisting of 18 passengers and four crew members, who were brought to Pisa Island. Eight passengers, including petitioners’ son and his wife, died during the incident.

Respondent denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are not available to the general public as they only ferry Resort guests and crew members. Nonetheless, it claimed that it exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers; contrary to petitioners’ allegation, there was no storm on September 11, 2000 as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage; and M/B Coco Beach III was not filled to capacity and had sufficient life jackets for its passengers. By way of Counterclaim, respondent alleged that it is entitled to an award for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses amounting to not less than P300,000. 

Held:

Sun Holidays is considered a common carrier.

Art. 1732 of the Civil Code 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 (in local idiom,  as “a sideline”).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 a carrier offering its services to the “general public,” i.e.,  the general community or population, and  one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1733 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

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 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.

That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its ferry services is of no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose that it provides said services at a loss. The Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators offering tour packages to factor the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package price. That guests who opt not to avail of respondent’s ferry services pay the same amount is likewise inconsequential. These guests may only be deemed to have overpaid. (Spouses Cruz v. Sun Holidays, Inc., G.R. No. 186312, (29 June 2010), 636 Phil 396-413)

Related posts

Medical Insider – Dr. Ria P. Maslog

The Bohol Tribune
3 years ago

Medical Insider – Dr. Bryan Cepedoza

The Bohol Tribune
3 months ago

Medical Insider – Dr. Ria P. Maslog

The Bohol Tribune
6 months ago
Exit mobile version