reading into it what is not written therein.

Thus, the CA erred in

awarding moral damages to the respondents.
Same; Same; Moral Damages; To be entitled to moral damages,
a party must have a right based upon law.—The purpose of moral
damages is indemnity or reparation, that is, to enable the injured
party to obtain the means, diversions, or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason
Note.—Where an action of the legislative branch is
of the tragic event. According to Villanueva v. Salvador, 480
alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not
SCRA 39 (2006), the conditions for awarding moral damages are:
only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle
(a) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental, or
the dispute (Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, 562
psychological, clearly substantiated by the claimant; (b) there
SCRA 251 [2008])
must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (c) the
——o0o—— wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the proximate
cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (d) the award
G.R. No. 157009. March 17, 2010.* of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219
SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. DOMINGO E. of the Civil Code. To be entitled to moral damages, the
CURSO, LUCIA E. CURSO, MELECIO E. CURSO, respondents must have a right based upon law. It is true that
SEGUNDO E. CURSO, VIRGILIO E. CURSO, DIOSDADA under Article 1003 of the Civil Code they succeeded to the entire
E. CURSO, and CECILIA E. CURSO, respondents. estate of the late Dr. Curso in the absence of the latter’s
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and surviving
Common Carriers; Damages; Statutory Construction; The spouse. However, they were not included among the persons
omission from Article 2206(3) of the brothers and sisters of the entitled to recover moral damages, as enumerated in Article 2219
deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to exclude them of the Civil Code.
from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by reason Same; Same; Same; Ejusdem Generis; The usage of the phrase
of the death of the deceased—the solemn power and duty of the analogous cases in Article 2219 of the Civil Code means simply
courts to interpret and apply the law do not include the power to that the situation must be held similar to those expressly
correct the law by reading into it was is not written therein.—As a enumerated in the law in question following the ejusdem generis
general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for rule.—Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which moral
damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud damages may be awarded. The provision does not include
or bad faith. As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in succession in the collateral line as a source of the right to recover
case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a moral damages. The usage of the phrase analogous cases in the
passenger, in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article provision means simply that the situation must be held similar to
2206 (3), of the Civil Code, which provide: x x x The foregoing those expressly enumerated in the law in question following the
legal provisions set forth the persons entitled to moral damages. ejusdem generis rule. Hence, Article 1003 of the Civil Code is not
The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and sisters of concerned with recovery of moral damages.
the deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to exclude
them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
reason of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio Court of Appeals.
alterius. The solemn power and duty of the courts to interpret and    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
apply the law do not include the power to correct the law by
577

_______________
VOL. 615, March 17, 2010 577
* FIRST DIVISION.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso
576

  Arthur D. Lim Law Office for petitioner.

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED   Clemencio C. Sabitsana for respondents.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso
BERSAMIN, J.:
 Are the surviving brothers and sisters of a passenger of The petitioner denied liability, insisting that the sinking
a vessel that sinks during a voyage entitled to recover of the vessel was due to force majeure (i.e., Typhoon
moral damages from the vessel owner as common carrier? Unsang), which exempted a common carrier from liability.
This is the question presented in the appeal taken by It averred that the MV Doña Marilyn was seaworthy in all
the common carrier from the reversal by the Court of respects, and was in fact cleared by the Philippine Coast
Appeals (CA) of the decision of the Regional Trial Court Guard for the voyage; and that after the accident it
(RTC) dismissing the complaint for various damages filed conducted intensive search and rescue operations and
by the surviving brothers and sisters of the late Dr. Cenon extended assistance and aid to the victims and their
E. Curso upon a finding that force majeure had caused the families.
sinking. The CA awarded moral and other damages to the
surviving brothers and sisters. Ruling of the RTC

Antecedents On July 28, 1995, the RTC dismissed the complaint

upon its finding that the sinking of the vessel was due to
On October 23, 1988, Dr. Curso boarded at the port of force majeure. The RTC concluded that the officers of the
Manila the MV Doña Marilyn, an inter-island vessel owned MV Doña Marilyn had acted with the diligence required of
and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., bound for a common carrier; that the sinking of the vessel and the
Tacloban City. Unfortunately, the MV Doña Marilyn sank death of its passengers, including Dr. Curso, could not have
in the afternoon of October 24, 1988 while at sea due to the been avoided; that there was no basis to consider the MV
inclement sea and weather conditions brought about by Doña Marilyn not seaworthy at the time of the voyage; that
Typhoon Unsang. The body of Dr. Curso was not recovered, the findings of the Special Board of Marine Inquiry (SBMI)
along with hundreds of other passengers of the ill-fated constituted to investigate the disaster absolved the
vessel. At the time of his death, Dr. Curso was 48 years old, petitioner, its officers, and crew of any negligence and
and employed as a resident physician at the Naval District administrative liability; and that the respondents failed to
Hospital in Naval, Biliran. He had a basic monthly salary prove their claim for damages.
of P3,940.00, and would have retired from government
service by December 20, 2004 at the age of 65. _______________
On January 21, 1993, the respondents, allegedly the
surviving brothers and sisters of Dr. Curso, sued the 1 Rollo, pp. 24-28.
petitioner in the RTC in Naval, Biliran to claim damages
579
based on breach of contract of carriage by sea, averring
that the petitioner had acted negligently in transporting
Dr. Curso and the other VOL. 615, March 17, 2010 579
578 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso

Ruling of the CA
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The respondents appealed to the CA, contending that
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso the RTC erred: (a) in considering itself barred from
entertaining the case by the findings of fact of the SBMI in
passengers. They stated, among others, that their parents SBMI-ADM Case No. 08-88; (b) in not holding that the
had predeceased Dr. Curso, who died single and without petitioner was negligent and did not exercise the required
issue; and that, as such, they were Dr. Curso’s surviving diligence and care in conducting Dr. Curso to his
heirs and successors in interest entitled to recover moral destination; (c) in not finding that the MV Doña Marilyn
and other damages.1 They prayed for judgment, as follows: was unseaworthy at the time of its sinking; and (d) in not
(a) compensatory damages of P1,924,809.00; (b) moral awarding damages to them.2
damages of P100,000.00; (c) exemplary or corrective In its decision dated September 16, 2002,3 the CA held
damages in the amount deemed proper and just; (d) and disposed:
expenses of litigation of at least P50,000.00; (e) attorney’s
fees of P50,000.00; and (f) costs of suit.
 “Based on the events described by the appellee’s witness, the Court the loss of the M.V. Doña Marilyn. Plaintiffs, have established that they
found inadequate proof to show that Sulpicio Lines, Inc., or its officers took great pains to recover, in vain, the body of their brother, at their
and crew, had exercised the required degree of diligence to acquit the own cost, while suffering great grief due to the loss of a loved one.
appellee of liability. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were unable to recover the body of their brother.
In the first place, the court finds inadequate explanation why the Moral damages worth P100,000.00 is proper.
officers of the M.V. Doña Marilyn had not apprised themselves of the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision of the
weather reports on the approach of typhoon “Unsang” which had the RTC of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, rendered in Civil Case No. B-0851, is
power of a signal no. 3 cyclone, bearing upon the general direction of the hereby SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered, finding
path of the M.V. Doña Marilyn. If the officers and crew of the Doña the defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines, Inc, to have been negligent in
Marilyn had indeed been adequately monitoring the strength and transporting the deceased Cenon E. Curso who was on board the ill-fated
direction of the typhoon, and had acted promptly and competently to M.V. Doña Marilyn, resulting in his untimely death. Defendant-appellee
avoid the same, then such a mishap would not have occurred. is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs heirs of Cenon E. Curso the
Furthermore, there was no account of the acts and decision of the following:
crew of the ill-fated ship from 8:00 PM on October 23, 1988 when the (1) Death indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00;
Chief Mate left his post until 4:00 AM the next day when he resumed (2) Loss of Earning Capacity in the amount of P504,241.20;
duty. It does not appear what occurred during that time, or what (3) Moral Damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
weather reports were received and acted upon by the ship captain. What (4) Costs of the suit.”5
happened during such time is important in determining what
information about the typhoon was gathered and how the _______________

4 Id., at pp. 55-56.

_______________
5 Id., at pp. 59-60.
2 Id., at p. 52.
3  Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate 581

Justices Josefina Guevara–Salonga and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring,

Id., at pp. 49-60. VOL. 615, March 17, 2010 581
580 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED       Hence, this appeal, in which the petitioner insists
that the CA committed grievous errors in holding that the
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso
respondents were entitled to moral damages as the
brothers and sisters of the late Dr. Curso; that the CA
ship officers reached their decision to just change course, thereby disregarded Article 1764 and Article 2206 of the
and not take shelter while a strong typhoon was Civil Code, and the ruling in Receiver for North Negros
approaching. Sugar Co., Inc. v. Ybañez,6 whereby the Supreme Court
Furthermore, the Court doubts the fitness of the ship for the voyage, disallowed the award of moral damages in favor of the
since at the first sign of bad weather, the ship’s hydraulic system failed brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger in an action
and had to be repaired mid-voyage, making the vessel a virtual derelict upon breach of a contract of carriage.7
amidst a raging storm at sea. It is part of the appellee’s extraordinary
diligence as a common carrier to make sure that its ships can withstand Issues
the forces that bear upon them during a voyage, whether they be the
ordinary stress of the sea during a calm voyage or the rage of a storm. The petitioner raises the following issues:
The fact that the stud bolts in the ships hydraulic system gave way while
ARE THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF A DECEASED
the ship was at sea discredits the theory that the appellee exercised due
PASSENGER IN A CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
diligence in maintaining the seaworthy condition of the M.V. Doña
CARRIAGE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES
Marilyn. xxx.4
AGAINST THE CARRIER?
xxx
ASSUMING (THAT) THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM MORAL
Aside from these, the defendant must compensate the plaintiffs for
DAMAGES, SHOULD THE AWARD BE GRANTED OR GIVEN
moral damages that they suffered as a result of the negligence attending
TO THE BROTHER OR SISTER NOTWITHSTANDING (THE) (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
LACK OF EVIDENCE AS REGARDS HIS OR HER PERSONAL ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
SUFFERING? mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.”

Ruling The foregoing legal provisions set forth the persons

entitled to moral damages. The omission from Article 2206
The petition is meritorious. (3) of the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in reveals the legislative intent to exclude them from the
actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by reason of
unless there is fraud or bad faith.8 As an exception, moral the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio
damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of alterius.10 The solemn
carriage that
_______________
_______________
9 Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25, 2004,
6 G.R. No. L-22183, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 979. 444 SCRA 355, 356.
7 Rollo, p. 11. 10 The express inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all others.
8  Japan Airlines v. Simangan, G.R. No. 170141, April 22, 2008, 552
SCRA 341, 361. 583

582
VOL. 615, March 17, 2010 583
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso power and duty of the courts to interpret and apply the law
do not include the power to correct the law by reading into
results in the death of a passenger,9 in accordance with it what is not written therein.11 Thus, the CA erred in
Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil awarding moral damages to the respondents.
Code, which provide: The petitioner has correctly relied on the holding in
Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v. Ybañez,12
“Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section
to the effect that in case of death caused by quasi-delict,
shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book,
the brother of the deceased was not entitled to the award of
concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of
moral damages based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code.
a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
Essentially, the purpose of moral damages is indemnity
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a
or reparation, that is, to enable the injured party to obtain
crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even
the means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to
though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of
addition:
the tragic event. According to Villanueva v. Salvador,13 the
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
conditions for awarding moral damages are: (a) there must
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the
be an injury, whether physical, mental, or psychological,
heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
clearly substantiated by the claimant; (b) there must be a
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
culpable act or omission factually established; (c) the
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had
wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the
no earning capacity at the time of his death;
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
and (d) the award of damages is predicated on any of the
the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or
To be entitled to moral damages, the respondents must
intestate succession, may demand support from the person
have a right based upon law. It is true that under Article
causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact
100314 of the Civil Code they succeeded to the entire estate
duration to be fixed by the court;
of the late Dr. Curso in the absence of the latter’s
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and Article 1003 of the Civil Code is not concerned with
surviving spouse. However, they were not included among recovery of moral damages.
the persons entitled to
_______________
_______________
15 Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, June
11 Agote v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 60. 25, 1999, 309 SCRA 141, 146.
12 Supra, note 6.
585
13 G.R. No. 139436, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 39.
14 Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate
children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the VOL. 615, March 17, 2010 585
entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso
(946a)

584      In fine, moral damages may be recovered in an action

upon breach of contract of carriage only when: (a) where
death of a passenger results, or (b) it is proved that the
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso not result.16 Article 2206 of the Civil Code entitles the
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and
recover moral damages, as enumerated in Article 2219 of surviving spouse of the deceased passenger to demand
the Civil Code, viz.: moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death
of the deceased.17
“Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
following and analogous cases: granted, and the award made to the respondents in the
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; decision dated September 16, 2002 of the Court of Appeals
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; of moral damages amounting to P100,000.00 is deleted and
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts; set aside.
(4) Adultery or concubinage;  SO ORDERED.
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search; Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Leonardo-
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; De Castro and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309; Petition granted.
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 34 and 35. Note.—Much of the distinction between a “common or
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped or abused public carrier” and a “private or special carrier” lies in the
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral character of the business, such that if the undertaking is
damages. an isolated transaction, not a part of the business or
The spouse, descendants, ascendants and brothers and sisters occupation, and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry
may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the the goods for the general public or to a limited clientele,
order named.” although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the
person or corporation providing such service could very
Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which moral well be just a private carrier. (Philippine American General
damages may be awarded. The provision does not include Insurance Company vs. PKS Shipping Company, 401 SCRA
succession in the collateral line as a source of the right to 222 [2003])
recover moral damages. The usage of the phrase analogous ——o0o——
cases in the provision means simply that the situation must
be held similar to those expressly enumerated in the law in _______________
question15 following the ejusdem generis rule. Hence,
 16 Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001, 352
SCRA 428.
17 Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266 (1959).

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.