Sulpicio Lines v. Curso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 23, 1988, Dr. Cenon E. Curso boarded the MV Doña Marilyn, owned by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., bound for Tacloban City. The vessel sank on October 24, 1988, due to inclement weather conditions brought about by Typhoon Unsang. Dr. Curso's body was not recovered. His surviving brothers and sisters, the respondents, filed a complaint for damages, asserting they were his heirs and entitled to recover moral and other damages, as Dr. Curso died single and without issue. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the respondents' complaint, finding that the sinking was an act of force majeure and that the petitioner had exercised the required diligence. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in deferring to the findings of the Special Board of Marine Inquiry, in not finding the petitioner negligent, in not deeming the vessel unseaworthy, and in not awarding damages. The CA reversed the RTC's decision, holding Sulpicio Lines, Inc. negligent and awarding death indemnity, loss of earning capacity, and moral damages. The Petition: Sulpicio Lines, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's award of moral damages to the respondents. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in awarding moral damages to the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger, citing Article 1764 and Article 2206 of the Civil Code, and a previous Supreme Court ruling that disallowed such damages in similar cases. The core issue is whether collateral relatives are entitled to moral damages for the death of a passenger in a breach of contract of carriage.
Issue(s)
Whether the surviving brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger in a case of breach of contract of carriage are entitled to an award of moral damages against the carrier. Assuming they are entitled to claim moral damages, whether the award should be granted notwithstanding the lack of evidence as regards their personal suffering.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, setting aside the award of moral damages made by the Court of Appeals to the respondents. The dispositive portion of the CA decision awarding moral damages was deleted and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement of siblings to moral damages: The Supreme Court held that as a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith. An exception exists in breach of contract of carriage resulting in the death of a passenger, as provided by Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code. However, Article 2206(3) explicitly enumerates only the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and ascendants of the deceased as entitled to demand moral damages for mental anguish. The omission of brothers and sisters from this enumeration signifies the legislative intent to exclude them from such recovery, following the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The Court emphasized that its duty is to interpret the law as written and not to add what is not stated therein. Therefore, the CA erred in awarding moral damages to the respondents. On the basis for awarding damages to siblings, and the lack of evidence of personal suffering: The Court reiterated that to be entitled to moral damages, respondents must have a right based upon law. While the respondents, as siblings, succeeded to the estate of Dr. Curso under Article 1003 of the Civil Code in the absence of closer heirs, this succession does not grant them the right to recover moral damages for mental anguish. Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which lists instances where moral damages may be recovered, does not include succession in the collateral line as a source of such right. The phrase 'analogous cases' in Article 2219 is to be interpreted under the ejusdem generis rule, meaning similar to those expressly enumerated. Thus, the respondents' claim for moral damages was not supported by any legal provision. The Court cited Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v. Ybañez to support the principle that in cases of death caused by quasi-delict, a brother of the deceased was not entitled to moral damages under Article 2206.
Main Doctrine
Siblings of a deceased passenger are not entitled to recover moral damages from a common carrier for mental anguish arising from the passenger's death due to a breach of contract of carriage, as Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code explicitly enumerates only the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and ascendants as entitled to such damages.