ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144338. November 15, 2000.]

CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC., et al. vs. ATTY. WILFREDO F. NAVARRO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 15 2000.

G.R. No. 144338 (Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Atty. Wilfredo F. Navarro.)

Petitioners come to this Court questioning the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 13, 2000, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, and which held:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable to indemnify the plaintiff the sums of P500.00 for actual damages; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner Carlos Gothong Lines, Inc. is a common carrier which owns and operates the M/V Our Lady of Guadalupe, plying the route of Cebu City-Surigao City. Capt. Regulo Amaneo is the skipper of said vessel. On July 30, 1994, private respondent, who is a lawyer, was bound to depart for Surigao City as passenger of M/V Our Lady of Guadalupe to attend to some personal and professional business. The vessel did not sail that day because of malfunction in the starting valve of the port side main engine. It is the contention of the respondent that petitioners did not announce the cancellation of the trip which fact prevented him from availing of the services of other vessels. Neither did petitioners offer to foot the bill for the additional expenses of the respondent in availing of other means of transportation nor did they refund the cost of the ticket on that same night the voyage was cancelled.

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that there was breach of the contract of carriage and in awarding damages to respondent.

The petitioners fail to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals both ruled that the damages are not grounded on the mere breach of the contract of carriage to transport respondent to his place of destination but on petitioners' failure to furnish respondent with the necessary information and to afford assistance to enable him to reach his destination by some other alternative means. Both courts ruled that the behavior and actuations of petitioners were attended by bad faith and malice.

We see no reason to reverse.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE