CA upholds Sulpicio verdict

(UPDATES) THE Court of Appeals (CA) has found the owners of Sulpicio Lines Inc. liable for the deaths of 814 passengers and more than 500 still missing in the sinking of the MV Princess of the Stars in Romblon in 2008 and ordered them to pay P129.8 million in damages to the families of the victims.

In a 237-page decision penned by Associate Justice Wilhelmina Jorge-Wagan, a copy of which was obtained by The Manila Times, the appellate court said it found the owners of Sulpicio Lines, now renamed Philippine Span Asia Carriers Inc. (PSACI), guilty of gross negligence.

In the June 28, 2024 ruling, which was sent to the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the Appeals Court said the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 49 «committed no reversible error» when it declared that the owners failed to discharge their duties as common carriers.

The PAO handles the civil cases filed by the heirs and survivors of the MV Princess of the Stars that capsized off the coast of Romblon at the height of Typhoon Frank on June 21, 2008.

Affirming with modifications the award for actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages of the Manila RTC, the CA ordered the owners of the shipping company, Enrique Go, Eusebio Go, Carlos Go, Victoriano Go, Dominador Go, Ricardo Go, Edward Go and Edgar Go, to pay a total of P129,854,502.57 to the victims' families and relatives.

«As borne by the case records, the appellants Gos were grossly negligent in their management and in their failure to take decisive action, which could have prevented the tragic event on June 21, 2008,» the CA said.

The appellate court stressed that the accused could not evade liability by «simply arguing that the Stars tragedy happened because of a fortuitous event.»

It cited a Supreme Court ruling that for a fortuitous event to exempt a person from liability, «it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may be occasioned.»

The same high ruling also said, «An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences.»

Moreover, the CA said the appellants