Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-21438 September 28, 1966

asked to consider facts favorable to petitioner, and then, to overturn the appellate court's decision. Coming into focus is the constitutional mandate that "No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based". 5 This is echoed in the statutory demand that a judgment determining the merits of the case shall state "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based"; 6 and that "Every decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it". 7 A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. It is open to direct attack. 8 The law, however, solely insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate facts" upon which the court's conclusion is drawn. 9 A court of justice is not hidebound to write in its decision every bit and piece of evidence 10 presented by one party and the other upon the issues raised. Neither is it to be burdened with the obligation "to specify in the sentence the facts" which a party "considered as proved". 11 This is but a part of the mental process from which the Court draws the essential ultimate facts. A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion, may result. So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense". Because as this Court well observed, "There is no law that so requires". 12 Indeed, "the mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of the provisions of law and the Constitution". It is in this setting that in Manigque, it was held that the mere fact that the findings "were based entirely on the evidence for the prosecution without taking into consideration or even mentioning the appellant's side in the controversy as shown by his own testimony", would not vitiate the judgment. 13 If the court did not recite in the decision the testimony of each witness for, or each item of evidence presented by, the defeated party, it does not mean that the court has overlooked such testimony or such item of evidence. 14 At any rate, the legal presumptions are that official duty has been regularly performed, and that all the matters within an issue in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. 15 Findings of fact, which the Court of Appeals is required to make, maybe defined as "the written statement of the ultimate facts as found by the court ... and essential to support the decision and judgment rendered thereon". 16 They consist of the court's "conclusions" with respect to the determinative facts in issue". 17 A question of law, upon the other hand, has been declared as "one which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties." 18 2. By statute, "only questions of law may be raised" in an appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals. 19 That judgment is conclusive as to the facts. It is not appropriately the business of this Court to alter the facts or to review the questions of fact. 20 With these guideposts, we now face the problem of whether the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals support its judgment. 3. Was Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he claims? It is conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 he paid to and received from petitioner a first class ticket. But petitioner

AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for petitioner. Bengzon Villegas and Zarraga for respondent R. Carrascoso.

SANCHEZ, J.: The Court of First Instance of Manila 1 sentenced petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the difference in fare between first class and tourist class for the portion of the trip Bangkok-Rome, these various amounts with interest at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid; plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit. On appeal,2 the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from P393.20 to P383.10, and voted to affirm the appealed decision "in all other respects", with costs against petitioner. The case is now before us for review on certiorari. The facts declared by the Court of Appeals as " fully supported by the evidence of record", are: Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "first class" seat that he was occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man [manager], they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man" (Transcript, p. 12, Hearing of May 26, 1959); and plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane.3 1. The trust of the relief petitioner now seeks is that we review "all the findings" 4 of respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner charges that respondent court failed to make complete findings of fact on all the issues properly laid before it. We are

asserts that said ticket did not represent the true and complete intent and agreement of the parties; that said respondent knew that he did not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight, although he had tourist class protection; that, accordingly, the issuance of a first class ticket was no guarantee that he would have a first class ride, but that such would depend upon the availability of first class seats. These are matters which petitioner has thoroughly presented and discussed in its brief before the Court of Appeals under its third assignment of error, which reads: "The trial court erred in finding that plaintiff had confirmed reservations for, and a right to, first class seats on the "definite" segments of his journey, particularly that from Saigon to Beirut". 21 And, the Court of Appeals disposed of this contention thus: Defendant seems to capitalize on the argument that the issuance of a first-class ticket was no guarantee that the passenger to whom the same had been issued, would be accommodated in the first-class compartment, for as in the case of plaintiff he had yet to make arrangements upon arrival at every station for the necessary first-class reservation. We are not impressed by such a reasoning. We cannot understand how a reputable firm like defendant airplane company could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of first-class tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the company should know whether or riot the tickets it issues are to be honored or not.22 Not that the Court of Appeals is alone. The trial court similarly disposed of petitioner's contention, thus: On the fact that plaintiff paid for, and was issued a "First class" ticket, there can be no question. Apart from his testimony, see plaintiff's Exhibits "A", "A-1", "B", "B-1," "B-2", "C" and "C-1", and defendant's own witness, Rafael Altonaga, confirmed plaintiff's testimony and testified as follows: Q. In these tickets there are marks "O.K." From what you know, what does this OK mean? A. That the space is confirmed. Q. Confirmed for first class? A. Yes, "first class". (Transcript, p. 169) xxx xxx xxx

verbal understanding with plaintiff that the "first class" ticket issued to him by defendant would be subject to confirmation in Hongkong. 23 We have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for a slight difference of a few pesos in the amount refunded on Carrascoso's ticket, the decision of the Court of First Instance was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in all other respects. We hold the view that such a judgment of affirmance has merged the judgment of the lower court. 24 Implicit in that affirmance is a determination by the Court of Appeals that the proceeding in the Court of First Instance was free from prejudicial error and "all questions raised by the assignments of error and all questions that might have been raised are to be regarded as finally adjudicated against the appellant". So also, the judgment affirmed "must be regarded as free from all error". 25 We reached this policy construction because nothing in the decision of the Court of Appeals on this point would suggest that its findings of fact are in any way at war with those of the trial court. Nor was said affirmance by the Court of Appeals upon a ground or grounds different from those which were made the basis of the conclusions of the trial court. 26 If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat, notwithstanding the fact that seat availability in specific flights is therein confirmed, then an air passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline. What security then can a passenger have? It will always be an easy matter for an airline aided by its employees, to strike out the very stipulations in the ticket, and say that there was a verbal agreement to the contrary. What if the passenger had a schedule to fulfill? We have long learned that, as a rule, a written document speaks a uniform language; that spoken word could be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relations between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable. Such is the case here. The lower courts refused to believe the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket. The foregoing are the considerations which point to the conclusion that there are facts upon which the Court of Appeals predicated the finding that respondent Carrascoso had a first class ticket and was entitled to a first class seat at Bangkok, which is a stopover in the Saigon to Beirut leg of the flight. 27 We perceive no "welter of distortions by the Court of Appeals of petitioner's statement of its position", as charged by petitioner. 28 Nor do we subscribe to petitioner's accusation that respondent Carrascoso "surreptitiously took a first class seat to provoke an issue". 29 And this because, as petitioner states, Carrascoso went to see the Manager at his office in Bangkok "to confirm my seat and because from Saigon I was told again to see the Manager". 30 Why, then, was he allowed to take a first class seat in the plane at Bangkok, if he had no seat? Or, if another had a better right to the seat? 4. Petitioner assails respondent court's award of moral damages. Petitioner's trenchant claim is that Carrascoso's action is planted upon breach of contract; that to authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith;31 and that the decision of the Court of Appeals fails to make a finding of bad faith. The pivotal allegations in the complaint bearing on this issue are: 3. That ... plaintiff entered into a contract of air carriage with the Philippine Air Lines for a valuable consideration, the latter acting as general agents for and in behalf of the defendant, under which said contract, plaintiff was entitled to, as defendant agreed to

Defendant tried to prove by the testimony of its witnesses Luis Zaldariaga and Rafael Altonaga that although plaintiff paid for, and was issued a "first class" airplane ticket, the ticket was subject to confirmation in Hongkong. The court cannot give credit to the testimony of said witnesses. Oral evidence cannot prevail over written evidence, and plaintiff's Exhibits "A", "A-l", "B", "B-l", "C" and "C-1" belie the testimony of said witnesses, and clearly show that the plaintiff was issued, and paid for, a first class ticket without any reservation whatever. Furthermore, as hereinabove shown, defendant's own witness Rafael Altonaga testified that the reservation for a "first class" accommodation for the plaintiff was confirmed. The court cannot believe that after such confirmation defendant had a

furnish plaintiff, First Class passage on defendant's plane during the entire duration of plaintiff's tour of Europe with Hongkong as starting point up to and until plaintiff's return trip to Manila, ... . 4. That, during the first two legs of the trip from Hongkong to Saigon and from Saigon to Bangkok, defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class accommodation but only after protestations, arguments and/or insistence were made by the plaintiff with defendant's employees. 5. That finally, defendant failed to provide First Class passage, but instead furnished plaintiff only Tourist Class accommodations from Bangkok to Teheran and/or Casablanca, ... the plaintiff has been compelled by defendant's employees to leave the First Class accommodation berths at Bangkok after he was already seated. 6. That consequently, the plaintiff, desiring no repetition of the inconvenience and embarrassments brought by defendant's breach of contract was forced to take a Pan American World Airways plane on his return trip from Madrid to Manila.32 xxx xxx xxx

established by plaintiff in his testimony before the court, corroborated by the corresponding entry made by the purser of the plane in his notebook which notation reads as follows: "First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene", and by the testimony of an eye-witness, Ernesto G. Cuento, who was a co-passenger. The captain of the plane who was asked by the manager of defendant company at Bangkok to intervene even refused to do so. It is noteworthy that no one on behalf of defendant ever contradicted or denied this evidence for the plaintiff. It could have been easy for defendant to present its manager at Bangkok to testify at the trial of the case, or yet to secure his disposition; but defendant did neither. 37 The Court of appeals further stated Neither is there evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man. Hence, if the employees of the defendant at Bangkok sold a first-class ticket to him when all the seats had already been taken, surely the plaintiff should not have been picked out as the one to suffer the consequences and to be subjected to the humiliation and indignity of being ejected from his seat in the presence of others. Instead of explaining to the white man the improvidence committed by defendant's employees, the manager adopted the more drastic step of ousting the plaintiff who was then safely ensconsced in his rightful seat. We are strengthened in our belief that this probably was what happened there, by the testimony of defendant's witness Rafael Altonaga who, when asked to explain the meaning of the letters "O.K." appearing on the tickets of plaintiff, said "that the space is confirmed for first class. Likewise, Zenaida Faustino, another witness for defendant, who was the chief of the Reservation Office of defendant, testified as follows: "Q How does the person in the ticket-issuing office know what reservation the passenger has arranged with you? A They call us up by phone and ask for the confirmation." (t.s.n., p. 247, June 19, 1959) In this connection, we quote with approval what the trial Judge has said on this point: Why did the, using the words of witness Ernesto G. Cuento, "white man" have a "better right" to the seat occupied by Mr. Carrascoso? The record is silent. The defendant airline did not prove "any better", nay, any right on the part of the "white man" to the "First class" seat that the plaintiff was occupying and for which he paid and was issued a corresponding "first class" ticket. If there was a justified reason for the action of the defendant's Manager in Bangkok, the defendant could have easily proven it by having taken the testimony of the said Manager by deposition, but defendant did not do so; the presumption is that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced [Sec. 69, par (e), Rules of Court]; and, under the circumstances, the Court is constrained to find, as it does find, that the Manager of the defendant airline in Bangkok not merely asked but threatened the plaintiff to throw him out of the plane if he did not give up his "first class" seat because the said Manager wanted to accommodate, using the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, the "white man".38

2. That likewise, as a result of defendant's failure to furnish First Class accommodations aforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences, embarrassments, and humiliations, thereby causing plaintiff mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like injury, resulting in moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00. 33 xxx xxx xxx

The foregoing, in our opinion, substantially aver: First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg; Second, That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when petitioner's employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth "after he was already, seated" and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages. It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is there, it may be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth therein. 34 The contract was averred to establish the relation between the parties. But the stress of the action is put on wrongful expulsion. Quite apart from the foregoing is that (a) right the start of the trial, respondent's counsel placed petitioner on guard on what Carrascoso intended to prove: That while sitting in the plane in Bangkok, Carrascoso was ousted by petitioner's manager who gave his seat to a white man; 35 and (b) evidence of bad faith in the fulfillment of the contract was presented without objection on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, unnecessary to inquire as to whether or not there is sufficient averment in the complaint to justify an award for moral damages. Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was cured by the evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even required. 36 On the question of bad faith, the Court of Appeals declared: That the plaintiff was forced out of his seat in the first class compartment of the plane belonging to the defendant Air France while at Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not only without his consent but against his will, has been sufficiently

It is really correct to say that the Court of Appeals in the quoted portion first transcribed did not use the term "bad faith". But can it be doubted that the recital of facts therein points to bad faith? The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to the tourist class compartment - just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has not been established. Certainly, this is bad faith. Unless, of course, bad faith has assumed a meaning different from what is understood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for ulterior purpose." 39 And if the foregoing were not yet sufficient, there is the express finding of bad faith in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, thus: The evidence shows that the defendant violated its contract of transportation with plaintiff in bad faith, with the aggravating circumstances that defendant's Manager in Bangkok went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the presence of many passengers to have him thrown out of the airplane to give the "first class" seat that he was occupying to, again using the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, a "white man" whom he (defendant's Manager) wished to accommodate, and the defendant has not proven that this "white man" had any "better right" to occupy the "first class" seat that the plaintiff was occupying, duly paid for, and for which the corresponding "first class" ticket was issued by the defendant to him.40 5. The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not be essayed. It is well settled in law. 41 For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code says: ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. In parallel circumstances, we applied the foregoing legal precept; and, we held that upon the provisions of Article 2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable. 42 6. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. 43 And this, because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. 44 Thus, "Where a steamship company 45 had accepted a passenger's check, it was a breach of contract and a tort, giving a right of action for its agent in the presence of third persons to

falsely notify her that the check was worthless and demand payment under threat of ejection, though the language used was not insulting and she was not ejected." 46 And this, because, although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort". 47 And in another case, "Where a passenger on a railroad train, when the conductor came to collect his fare tendered him the cash fare to a point where the train was scheduled not to stop, and told him that as soon as the train reached such point he would pay the cash fare from that point to destination, there was nothing in the conduct of the passenger which justified the conductor in using insulting language to him, as by calling him a lunatic," 48 and the Supreme Court of South Carolina there held the carrier liable for the mental suffering of said passenger.1awphl.nt Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper. 7. Petitioner draws our attention to respondent Carrascoso's testimony, thus Q You mentioned about an attendant. Who is that attendant and purser? A When we left already that was already in the trip I could not help it. So one of the flight attendants approached me and requested from me my ticket and I said, What for? and she said, "We will note that you transferred to the tourist class". I said, "Nothing of that kind. That is tantamount to accepting my transfer." And I also said, "You are not going to note anything there because I am protesting to this transfer". Q Was she able to note it? A No, because I did not give my ticket. Q About that purser? A Well, the seats there are so close that you feel uncomfortable and you don't have enough leg room, I stood up and I went to the pantry that was next to me and the purser was there. He told me, "I have recorded the incident in my notebook." He read it and translated it to me because it was recorded in French "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene." Mr. VALTE I move to strike out the last part of the testimony of the witness because the best evidence would be the notes. Your Honor. COURT I will allow that as part of his testimony. 49 Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of Appeals that the purser made an entry in his notebook reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene" is predicated upon evidence [Carrascoso's testimony above] which is incompetent. We do not think so. The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within the

proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible. 49a Besides, from a reading of the transcript just quoted, when the dialogue happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. 50 For, they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of the declarant". 51 The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. 52 It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae. At all events, the entry was made outside the Philippines. And, by an employee of petitioner. It would have been an easy matter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascoso's testimony. If it were really true that no such entry was made, the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the matter. We, therefore, hold that the transcribed testimony of Carrascoso is admissible in evidence. 8. Exemplary damages are well awarded. The Civil Code gives the court ample power to grant exemplary damages in contracts and quasi- contracts. The only condition is that defendant should have "acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." 53 The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso from his first class seat fits into this legal precept. And this, in addition to moral damages.54 9. The right to attorney's fees is fully established. The grant of exemplary damages justifies a similar judgment for attorneys' fees. The least that can be said is that the courts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys' fees be given. 55 We do not intend to break faith with the tradition that discretion well exercised as it was here should not be disturbed. 10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus: P25,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00, by way of exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as attorneys' fees. The task of fixing these amounts is primarily with the trial court. 56 The Court of Appeals did not interfere with the same. The dictates of good sense suggest that we give our imprimatur thereto. Because, the facts and circumstances point to the reasonableness thereof.57 On balance, we say that the judgment of the Court of Appeals does not suffer from reversible error. We accordingly vote to affirm the same. Costs against petitioner. So ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur. Bengzon, J.P., J., took no part. [G.R. No. 138060. September 1, 2004] WILLIAM TIU, doing business under the name and style of D Rough Riders, and VIRGILIO TE LAS PIAS petitioners, vs. PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO, BENJAMIN CONDOR, SERGIO PEDRANO and PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY AND INSURANCE, INC., respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 54354 affirming with modification the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Cebu City, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-5963 for breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorneys fees, and the Resolution dated February 26, 1999 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The following facts are undisputed: At about 10:00 p.m. of March 15, 1987, the cargo truck marked Condor Hollow Blocks and General Merchandise bearing plate number GBP-675 was loaded with firewood in Bogo, Cebu and left for Cebu City. Upon reaching Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu, just as the truck passed over a bridge, one of its rear tires exploded. The driver, Sergio Pedrano, then parked along the right side of the national highway and removed the damaged tire to have it vulcanized at a nearby shop, about 700 meters away.[3] Pedrano left his helper, Jose Mitante, Jr. to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, and instructed the latter to place a spare tire six fathoms away[4] behind the stalled truck to serve as a warning for oncoming vehicles. The trucks tail lights were also left on. It was about 12:00 a.m., March 16, 1987. At about 4:45 a.m., D Rough Riders passenger bus with plate number PBP-724 driven by Virgilio Te Laspias was cruising along the national highway of Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu. The passenger bus was also bound for Cebu City, and had come from Maya, Daanbantayan, Cebu. Among its passengers were the Spouses Pedro A. Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, who were seated at the right side of the bus, about three (3) or four (4) places from the front seat. As the bus was approaching the bridge, Laspias saw the stalled truck, which was then about 25 meters away.[5] He applied the breaks and tried to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the truck. But it was too late; the bus rammed into the trucks left rear. The impact damaged the right side of the bus and left several passengers injured. Pedro Arriesgado lost consciousness and suffered a fracture in his right colles.[6] His wife, Felisa, was brought to the Danao City Hospital. She was later transferred to the Southern Island Medical Center where she died shortly thereafter.[7] Respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorneys fees before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 20, against the petitioners, D Rough Riders bus operator William Tiu and his driver, Virgilio Te Laspias on May 27, 1987. The respondent alleged that the passenger bus in question was cruising at a fast and high speed along the national road, and that petitioner Laspias did not take precautionary measures to avoid the accident.[8] Thus: 6. That the accident resulted to the death of the plaintiffs wife, Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, as evidenced by a Certificate of Death, a xerox copy of which is hereto attached as integral part hereof and marked as ANNEX A, and physical injuries to several of its passengers, including plaintiff himself who suffered a COLLES FRACTURE RIGHT, per Medical Certificate, a xerox copy of which is hereto attached as integral part hereof and marked as ANNEX B hereof. 7. That due to the reckless and imprudent driving by defendant Virgilio Te Laspias of the said Rough Riders passenger bus, plaintiff and his wife, Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, failed to safely

reach their destination which was Cebu City, the proximate cause of which was defendant-drivers failure to observe utmost diligence required of a very cautious person under all circumstances. 8. That defendant William Tiu, being the owner and operator of the said Rough Riders passenger bus which figured in the said accident, wherein plaintiff and his wife were riding at the time of the accident, is therefore directly liable for the breach of contract of carriage for his failure to transport plaintiff and his wife safely to their place of destination which was Cebu City, and which failure in his obligation to transport safely his passengers was due to and in consequence of his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of his employees, particularly defendant-driver Virgilio Te Laspias.[9] The respondent prayed that judgment be rendered in his favor and that the petitioners be condemned to pay the following damages: 1). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P30,000.00 for the death and untimely demise of plaintiffs wife, Felisa Pepito Arriesgado; 2). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P38,441.50, representing actual expenses incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the death/burial of plaintiffs wife; 3). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P1,113.80, representing medical/hospitalization expenses incurred by plaintiff for the injuries sustained by him; 4). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages; 5). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; 6). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P20,000.00 for attorneys fees; 7). To pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P5,000.00 for litigation expenses. PLAINTIFF FURTHER PRAYS FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND REMEDIES IN LAW AND EQUITY.[10] The petitioners, for their part, filed a Third-Party Complaint[11] on August 21, 1987 against the following: respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. (PPSII), petitioner Tius insurer; respondent Benjamin Condor, the registered owner of the cargo truck; and respondent Sergio Pedrano, the driver of the truck. They alleged that petitioner Laspias was negotiating the uphill climb along the national highway of Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, in a moderate and normal speed. It was further alleged that the truck was parked in a slanted manner, its rear portion almost in the middle of the highway, and that no early warning device was displayed. Petitioner Laspias promptly applied the brakes and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the truck head-on, but despite his efforts to avoid damage to property and physical injuries on the passengers, the right side portion of the bus hit the cargo trucks left rear. The petitioners further alleged, thus: 5. That the cargo truck mentioned in the aforequoted paragraph is owned and registered in the name of the third-party defendant

Benjamin Condor and was left unattended by its driver Sergio Pedrano, one of the third-party defendants, at the time of the incident; 6. That third-party defendant Sergio Pedrano, as driver of the cargo truck with marked (sic) Condor Hollow Blocks & General Merchandise, with Plate No. GBP-675 which was recklessly and imprudently parked along the national highway of Compostela, Cebu during the vehicular accident in question, and third-party defendant Benjamin Condor, as the registered owner of the cargo truck who failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of third-party defendant Sergio Pedrano, are jointly and severally liable to the third-party plaintiffs for whatever liability that may be adjudged against said third-party plaintiffs or are directly liable of (sic) the alleged death of plaintiffs wife; 7. That in addition to all that are stated above and in the answer which are intended to show reckless imprudence on the part of the third-party defendants, the third-party plaintiffs hereby declare that during the vehicular accident in question, third-party defendant was clearly violating Section 34, par. (g) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code 10. That the aforesaid passenger bus, owned and operated by third-party plaintiff William Tiu, is covered by a common carrier liability insurance with Certificate of Cover No. 054940 issued by Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc., Cebu City Branch, in favor of third-party plaintiff William Tiu which covers the period from July 22, 1986 to July 22, 1987 and that the said insurance coverage was valid, binding and subsisting during the time of the aforementioned incident (Annex A as part hereof); 11. That after the aforesaid alleged incident, third-party plaintiff notified third-party defendant Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc., of the alleged incident hereto mentioned, but to no avail; 12. That granting, et arguendo et arguendi, if herein third-party plaintiffs will be adversely adjudged, they stand to pay damages sought by the plaintiff and therefore could also look up to the Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc., for contribution, indemnification and/or reimbursement of any liability or obligation that they might [be] adjudged per insurance coverage duly entered into by and between third-party plaintiff William Tiu and third-party defendant Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc.;*12+ The respondent PPSII, for its part, admitted that it had an existing contract with petitioner Tiu, but averred that it had already attended to and settled the claims of those who were injured during the incident.[13] It could not accede to the claim of respondent Arriesgado, as such claim was way beyond the scheduled indemnity as contained in the contract of insurance. [14] After the parties presented their respective evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent Arriesgado. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff as against defendant William Tiu ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the following amounts:

1 - The sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages; 2 - The sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; 3 - The sum of THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTYONE PESOS (P38,441.00) as actual damages; 4 - The sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as attorneys fees; 5 - The sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as costs of suit; SO ORDERED.[15] According to the trial court, there was no dispute that petitioner William Tiu was engaged in business as a common carrier, in view of his admission that D Rough Rider passenger bus which figured in the accident was owned by him; that he had been engaged in the transportation business for 25 years with a sole proprietorship; and that he owned 34 buses. The trial court ruled that if petitioner Laspias had not been driving at a fast pace, he could have easily swerved to the left to avoid hitting the truck, thus, averting the unfortunate incident. It then concluded that petitioner Laspias was negligent. The trial court also ruled that the absence of an early warning device near the place where the truck was parked was not sufficient to impute negligence on the part of respondent Pedrano, since the tail lights of the truck were fully on, and the vicinity was well lighted by street lamps.[16] It also found that the testimony of petitioner Tiu, that he based the selection of his driver Laspias on efficiency and in-service training, and that the latter had been so far an efficient and good driver for the past six years of his employment, was insufficient to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employees. After the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the said decision was denied, the petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on the following issues: I WHETHER THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT SERGIO PEDRANO WAS RECKLESS AND IMPRUDENT WHEN HE PARKED THE CARGO TRUCK IN AN OBLIQUE MANNER; II WHETHER THE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE DIRECTLY TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE OR TO DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FOR WHATEVER LIABILITY THAT MAY BE ADJUDGED TO THE SAID DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; III WHETHER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT VIRGILIO TE LASPIAS WAS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE; IV WHETHER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WILLIAM TIU HAD EXERCISED THE DUE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF HIS DRIVERS; V GRANTING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANTAPPELLANT WILLIAM TIU IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, WHETHER THERE IS LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS IN AWARDING EXCESSIVE MORAL DAMAGES, EX[E]MPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE;

VI WHETHER THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY AND INSURANCE, INC. IS LIABLE TO DEFENDANTAPPELLANT WILLIAM TIU.[17] The appellate court rendered judgment affirming the trial courts decision with the modification that the awards for moral and exemplary damages were reduced to P25,000. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated November 6, 1995 is hereby MODIFIED such that the awards for moral and exemplary damages are each reduced to P25,000.00 or a total of P50,000.00 for both. The judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED.[18] According to the appellate court, the action of respondent Arriesgado was based not on quasi-delict but on breach of contract of carriage. As a common carrier, it was incumbent upon petitioner Tiu to prove that extraordinary diligence was observed in ensuring the safety of passengers during transportation. Since the latter failed to do so, he should be held liable for respondent Arriesgados claim. The CA also ruled that no evidence was presented against the respondent PPSII, and as such, it could not be held liable for respondent Arriesgados claim, nor for contribution, indemnification and/or reimbursement in case the petitioners were adjudged liable. The petitioners now come to this Court and ascribe the following errors committed by the appellate court: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING RESPONDENTS BENJAMIN CONDOR AND SERGIO PEDRANO GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE AND HENCE, LIABLE TO RESPONDENT PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO OR TO PETITIONERS FOR WHATEVER LIABILITY THAT MAY BE ADJUDGED AGAINST THEM. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONERS GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE AND HENCE, LIABLE TO RESPONDENT PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER WILLIAM TIU LIABLE FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES. IV.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY AND INSURANCE, INC. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO OR TO PETITIONER WILLIAM TIU.[19] According to the petitioners, the appellate court erred in failing to appreciate the absence of an early warning device and/or built-in reflectors at the front and back of the cargo truck, in clear violation of Section 34, par. (g) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. They aver that such violation is only a proof of respondent Pedranos negligence, as provided under Article 2185 of the New Civil Code. They also question the appellate courts failure to take into account that the truck was parked in an oblique manner, its rear portion almost at the center of the road. As such, the proximate cause of the incident was the gross recklessness and imprudence of respondent Pedrano, creating the presumption of negligence on the part of respondent Condor in supervising his employees, which presumption was not rebutted. The petitioners then contend that respondents Condor and Pedrano should be held jointly and severally liable to respondent Arriesgado for the payment of the latters claim.

The petitioners, likewise, aver that expert evidence should have been presented to prove that petitioner Laspias was driving at a very fast speed, and that the CA could not reach such conclusion by merely considering the damages on the cargo truck. It was also pointed out that petitioner Tiu presented evidence that he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his drivers. The petitioners further allege that there is no legal and factual basis to require petitioner Tiu to pay exemplary damages as no evidence was presented to show that the latter acted in a fraudulent, reckless and oppressive manner, or that he had an active participation in the negligent act of petitioner Laspias. Finally, the petitioners contend that respondent PPSII admitted in its answer that while it had attended to and settled the claims of the other injured passengers, respondent Arriesgados claim remained unsettled as it was beyond the scheduled indemnity under the insurance contract. The petitioners argue that said respondent PPSII should have settled the said claim in accordance with the scheduled indemnity instead of just denying the same. On the other hand, respondent Arriesgado argues that two of the issues raised by the petitioners involved questions of fact, not reviewable by the Supreme Court: the finding of negligence on the part of the petitioners and their liability to him; and the award of exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses in his favor. Invoking the principle of equity and justice, respondent Arriesgado pointed out that if there was an error to be reviewed in the CA decision, it should be geared towards the restoration of the moral and exemplary damages to P50,000 each, or a total of P100,000 which was reduced by the Court of Appeals to P25,000 each, or a total of only P50,000. Respondent Arriesgado also alleged that respondents Condor and Pedrano, and respondent Phoenix Surety, are parties with whom he had no contract of carriage, and had no cause of action against. It was pointed out that only the petitioners needed to be sued, as driver and operator of the ill-fated bus, on account of their failure to bring the Arriesgado Spouses to their place of destination as agreed upon in the contract of carriage, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Respondents Condor and Pedrano point out that, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the proximate cause of the unfortunate incident was the fast speed at which petitioner Laspias was driving the bus owned by petitioner Tiu. According to the respondents, the allegation that the truck was not equipped with an early warning device could not in any way have prevented the incident from happening. It was also pointed out that respondent Condor had always exercised the due diligence required in the selection and supervision of his employees, and that he was not a party to the contract of carriage between the petitioners and respondent Arriesgado. Respondent PPSII, for its part, alleges that contrary to the allegation of petitioner Tiu, it settled all the claims of those injured in accordance with the insurance contract. It further avers that it did not deny respondent Arriesgados claim, and emphasizes that its liability should be within the scheduled limits of indemnity under the said contract. The respondent concludes that while it is true that insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity, the measure of the insurers liability is determined by the insureds compliance with the terms thereof.

The Courts Ruling At the outset, it must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts.[20] Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court, except when the lower court and the CA arrived at diverse factual findings.[21] The petitioners in this case assail the finding of both the trial and the appellate courts that petitioner Laspias was driving at a very fast speed before the bus owned by petitioner Tiu collided with respondent Condors stalled truck. This is clearly one of fact, not reviewable by the Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[22] On this ground alone, the petition is destined to fail. However, considering that novel questions of law are likewise involved, the Court resolves to examine and rule on the merits of the case. Petitioner Laspias Was negligent in driving The Ill-fated bus In his testimony before the trial court, petitioner Laspias claimed that he was traversing the two-lane road at Compostela, Cebu at a speed of only forty (40) to fifty (50) kilometers per hour before the incident occurred.[23] He also admitted that he saw the truck which was parked in an oblique position at about 25 meters before impact,[24] and tried to avoid hitting it by swerving to the left. However, even in the absence of expert evidence, the damage sustained by the truck[25] itself supports the finding of both the trial court and the appellate court, that the D Rough Rider bus driven by petitioner Laspias was traveling at a fast pace. Since he saw the stalled truck at a distance of 25 meters, petitioner Laspias had more than enough time to swerve to his left to avoid hitting it; that is, if the speed of the bus was only 40 to 50 kilometers per hour as he claimed. As found by the Court of Appeals, it is easier to believe that petitioner Laspias was driving at a very fast speed, since at 4:45 a.m., the hour of the accident, there were no oncoming vehicles at the opposite direction. Petitioner Laspias could have swerved to the left lane with proper clearance, and, thus, could have avoided the truck.[26] Instinct, at the very least, would have prompted him to apply the breaks to avert the impending disaster which he must have foreseen when he caught sight of the stalled truck. As we had occasion to reiterate: A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of recurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise, his own person, rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.[27] We agree with the following findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the CA on appeal: A close study and evaluation of the testimonies and the documentary proofs submitted by the parties which have direct bearing on the issue of negligence, this Court as shown by preponderance of evidence that defendant Virgilio Te Laspias failed to observe extraordinary diligence as a driver of the common carrier in this case. It is quite hard to accept his version

of the incident that he did not see at a reasonable distance ahead the cargo truck that was parked when the Rough Rider [Bus] just came out of the bridge which is on an (sic) [more] elevated position than the place where the cargo truck was parked. With its headlights fully on, defendant driver of the Rough Rider was in a vantage position to see the cargo truck ahead which was parked and he could just easily have avoided hitting and bumping the same by maneuvering to the left without hitting the said cargo truck. Besides, it is (sic) shown that there was still much room or space for the Rough Rider to pass at the left lane of the said national highway even if the cargo truck had occupied the entire right lane thereof. It is not true that if the Rough Rider would proceed to pass through the left lane it would fall into a canal considering that there was much space for it to pass without hitting and bumping the cargo truck at the left lane of said national highway. The records, further, showed that there was no incoming vehicle at the opposite lane of the national highway which would have prevented the Rough Rider from not swerving to its left in order to avoid hitting and bumping the parked cargo truck. But the evidence showed that the Rough Rider instead of swerving to the still spacious left lane of the national highway plowed directly into the parked cargo truck hitting the latter at its rear portion; and thus, the (sic) causing damages not only to herein plaintiff but to the cargo truck as well.[28] Indeed, petitioner Laspias negligence in driving the bus is apparent in the records. By his own admission, he had just passed a bridge and was traversing the highway of Compostela, Cebu at a speed of 40 to 50 kilometers per hour before the collision occurred. The maximum speed allowed by law on a bridge is only 30 kilometers per hour.[29] And, as correctly pointed out by the trial court, petitioner Laspias also violated Section 35 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, Republic Act No. 4136, as amended: Sec. 35. Restriction as to speed. (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and or any other condition then and there existing; and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such speed as to endanger the life, limb and property of any person, nor at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.[30] Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.[31] Petitioner Tiu failed to Overcome the presumption Of negligence against him as One engaged in the business Of common carriage The rules which common carriers should observe as to the safety of their passengers are set forth in the Civil Code, Articles 1733,[32] 1755[33] and 1756.[34] In this case, respondent Arriesgado and his deceased wife contracted with petitioner Tiu, as owner and operator of D Rough Riders bus service, for transportation from Maya, Daanbantayan, Cebu, to Cebu City for the price of P18.00.[35] It is undisputed that the respondent and his wife were not safely transported to the destination agreed upon. In actions for breach of contract, only the existence of such contract, and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination

are the matters that need to be proved.[36] This is because under the said contract of carriage, the petitioners assumed the express obligation to transport the respondent and his wife to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all circumstances.[37] Any injury suffered by the passengers in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the negligence of the carrier.[38] Upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arises, and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.[39] It must be stressed that in requiring the highest possible degree of diligence from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them, the law compels them to curb the recklessness of their drivers.[40] While evidence may be submitted to overcome such presumption of negligence, it must be shown that the carrier observed the required extraordinary diligence, which means that the carrier must show the utmost diligence of very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can provide, or that the accident was caused by fortuitous event.[41] As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner Tiu failed to conclusively rebut such presumption. The negligence of petitioner Laspias as driver of the passenger bus is, thus, binding against petitioner Tiu, as the owner of the passenger bus engaged as a common carrier.[42] The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance Is Inapplicable in the Case at Bar Contrary to the petitioners contention, the principle of last clear chance is inapplicable in the instant case, as it only applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations, for it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.[43] The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who has also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so. Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law of last clear chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code.[44] Thus, petitioner Tiu cannot escape liability for the death of respondent Arriesgados wife due to the negligence of petitioner Laspias, his employee, on this score. Respondents Pedrano and Condor were likewise Negligent In Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[45] where therein respondent Dionisio sustained injuries when his vehicle rammed against a dump truck parked askew, the Court ruled that the improper parking of a dump truck without any warning lights or reflector devices created an unreasonable risk for anyone driving within the vicinity, and for having created such risk, the truck driver must be held responsible. In ruling against the petitioner therein, the Court elucidated, thus:

 In our view, Dionisios negligence, although later in point of time than the truck drivers negligence, and therefore closer to the accident, was not an efficient intervening or independent cause. What the petitioners describe as an intervening cause was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck driver had parked the dump truck. In other words, the petitioner truck driver owed a duty to private respondent Dionisio and others similarly situated not to impose upon them the very risk the truck driver had created. Dionisios negligence was not that of an independent and overpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of causation in fact between the improper parking of the dump truck and the accident, nor to sever the juris vinculum of liability. We hold that private respondent Dionisios negligence was only contributory, that the immediate and proximate cause of the injury remained the truck drivers lack of due care.*46+ In this case, both the trial and the appellate courts failed to consider that respondent Pedrano was also negligent in leaving the truck parked askew without any warning lights or reflector devices to alert oncoming vehicles, and that such failure created the presumption of negligence on the part of his employer, respondent Condor, in supervising his employees properly and adequately. As we ruled in Poblete v. Fabros:[47] It is such a firmly established principle, as to have virtually formed part of the law itself, that the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. This is the presumed negligence in the selection and supervision of employee. The theory of presumed negligence, in contrast with the American doctrine of respondeat superior, where the negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the employer, is clearly deducible from the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides that the responsibility therein mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. *48+ The petitioners were correct in invoking respondent Pedranos failure to observe Article IV, Section 34(g) of the Rep. Act No. 4136, which provides:

seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among its members. To accept this proposition would be to weaken the very bonds of society.[50] The Liability of Respondent PPSII as Insurer The trial court in this case did not rule on the liability of respondent PPSII, while the appellate court ruled that, as no evidence was presented against it, the insurance company is not liable. A perusal of the records will show that when the petitioners filed the Third-Party Complaint against respondent PPSII, they failed to attach a copy of the terms of the insurance contract itself. Only Certificate of Cover No. 054940*51+ issued in favor of Mr. William Tiu, Lahug, Cebu City signed by Cosme H. Boniel was appended to the third-party complaint. The date of issuance, July 22, 1986, the period of insurance, from July 22, 1986 to July 22, 1987, as well as the following items, were also indicated therein: SCHEDULED VEHICLE MODEL MAKE TYPE OF BODY COLOR BLT FILE NO.

Isuzu Forward Bus blue mixed

PLATE NO. PBP-724 (g) Lights when parked or disabled. Appropriate parking lights or flares visible one hundred meters away shall be displayed at a corner of the vehicle whenever such vehicle is parked on highways or in places that are not well-lighted or is placed in such manner as to endanger passing traffic. The manner in which the truck was parked clearly endangered oncoming traffic on both sides, considering that the tire blowout which stalled the truck in the first place occurred in the wee hours of the morning. The Court can only now surmise that the unfortunate incident could have been averted had respondent Condor, the owner of the truck, equipped the said vehicle with lights, flares, or, at the very least, an early warning device.[49] Hence, we cannot subscribe to respondents Condor and Pedranos claim that they should be absolved from liability because, as found by the trial and appellate courts, the proximate cause of the collision was the fast speed at which petitioner Laspias drove the bus. To accept this proposition would be to come too close to wiping out the fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Indeed, our law on quasi-delicts SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. SER450-1584124 MOTOR NO. 677836 AUTHORIZED CAPACITY 50 UNLADEN WEIGHT 6Cyls. Kgs. SECTION 1/11 *LIMITS OF LIABILITY P50,000.00 PREMIUMS PAID A. THIRD PARTY LIABILITY B. PASSENGER LIABILITY Per Person P12,000.00

Per Accident P50,000 P540.0052 In its Answer53 to the Third-Party Complaint, the respondent PPSII admitted the existence of the contract of insurance, in view of its failure to specifically deny the same as required under then Section 8(a), Rule 8 of the Rules of Court,54 which reads: Sec. 8. How to contest genuineness of such documents. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for inspection of the original instrument is refused. In fact, respondent PPSII did not dispute the existence of such contract, and admitted that it was liable thereon. It claimed, however, that it had attended to and settled the claims of those injured during the incident, and set up the following as special affirmative defenses: Third party defendant Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. hereby reiterates and incorporates by way of reference the preceding paragraphs and further states THAT:8. It has attended to the claims of Vincent Canales, Asuncion Batiancila and Neptali Palces who sustained injuries during the incident in question. In fact, it settled financially their claims per vouchers duly signed by them and they duly executed Affidavit[s] of Desistance to that effect, xerox copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively; 9. With respect to the claim of plaintiff, herein answering third party defendant through its authorized insurance adjuster attended to said claim. In fact, there were negotiations to that effect. Only that it cannot accede to the demand of said claimant considering that the claim was way beyond the scheduled indemnity as per contract entered into with third party plaintiff William Tiu and third party defendant (Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc.). Third party Plaintiff William Tiu knew all along the limitation as earlier stated, he being an old hand in the transportation business; 55 Considering the admissions made by respondent PPSII, the existence of the insurance contract and the salient terms thereof cannot be dispatched. It must be noted that after filing its answer, respondent PPSII no longer objected to the presentation of evidence by respondent Arriesgado and the insured petitioner Tiu. Even in its Memorandum56 before the Court, respondent PPSII admitted the existence of the contract, but averred as follows: Petitioner Tiu is insisting that PPSII is liable to him for contribution, indemnification and/or reimbursement. This has no basis under the contract. Under the contract, PPSII will pay all sums necessary to discharge liability of the insured subject to the limits of liability but not to exceed the limits of liability as so stated in the contract. Also, it is stated in the contract that in the event of accident involving indemnity to more than one person, the limits of liability shall not exceed the aggregate amount so specified by law to all persons to be indemnified.57 As can be gleaned from the Certificate of Cover, such insurance contract was issued pursuant to the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Law. It was expressly provided therein that the limit of the insurers liability for each person was P12,000, while the limit per accident was pegged at P50,000. An insurer in an indemnity contract for third party liability is directly liable to the injured party up to the extent specified in the agreement but it cannot be held solidarily liable beyond that amount.58 The respondent PPSII could not then just deny petitioner Tius claim; it should have paid P12,000 for the death of Felisa Arriesgado,59 and respondent Arriesgados hospitalization expenses of P1,113.80, which the trial court found to have been duly supported by receipts. The total amount of the claims, even when added to that of the other injured passengers which the respondent PPSII claimed to have settled,60 would not exceed the P50,000 limit under the insurance agreement. Indeed, the nature of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance is such that it is primarily intended to provide compensation for the death or bodily injuries suffered by innocent third parties or passengers as a result of the negligent operation and use of motor vehicles. The victims and/or their dependents are assured of immediate financial assistance, regardless of the financial capacity of motor vehicle owners.61 As the Court, speaking through Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, explained in Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals:62 However, although the victim may proceed directly against the insurer for indemnity, the third party liability is only up to the extent of the insurance policy and those required by law. While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, and such persons can directly sue the insurer, the direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held liable in solidum with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. For the liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured carrier or vehicle owner is based on tort. Obviously, the insurer could be held liable only up to the extent of what was provided for by the contract of insurance, in accordance with the CMVLI law. At the time of the incident, the schedule of indemnities for death and bodily injuries, professional fees and other charges payable under a CMVLI coverage was provided for under the Insurance Memorandum Circular (IMC) No. 5-78 which was approved on November 10, 1978. As therein provided, the maximum indemnity for death was twelve thousand (P12,000.00) pesos per victim. The schedules for medical expenses were also provided by said IMC, specifically in paragraphs (C) to (G).63 Damages to be Awarded The trial court correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in favor of respondent Arriesgado. The award of exemplary damages by way of example or correction of the public good,64 is likewise in order. As the Court ratiocinated in Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado:65 While the immediate beneficiaries of the standard of extraordinary diligence are, of course, the passengers and owners of cargo carried by a common carrier, they are not the only persons that the law seeks to benefit. For if common carriers carefully observed the statutory standard of extraordinary

diligence in respect of their own passengers, they cannot help but simultaneously benefit pedestrians and the passengers of other vehicles who are equally entitled to the safe and convenient use of our roads and highways. The law seeks to stop and prevent the slaughter and maiming of people (whether passengers or not) on our highways and buses, the very size and power of which seem to inflame the minds of their drivers. Article 2231 of the Civil Code explicitly authorizes the imposition of exemplary damages in cases of quasi-delicts if the defendant acted with gross negligence.66 The respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado, as the surviving spouse and heir of Felisa Arriesgado, is entitled to indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.67 The petitioners, as well as the respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano are jointly and severally liable for said amount, conformably with the following pronouncement of the Court in Fabre, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals:68 The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an accident. In Anuran v. Buo, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or the latters heirs. The basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan v. Court of Appeals, thus: Nor should it make difference that the liability of petitioner *bus owner] springs from contract while that of respondents [owner and driver of other vehicle] arises from quasi-delict. As early as 1913, we already ruled in Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict.69 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: (1) Respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. and petitioner William Tiu are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado the total amount of P13,113.80; (2) The petitioners and the respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado P50,000.00 as indemnity; P26,441.50 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P20,000.00 as attorneys fees. SO ORDERED. Austria-Martinez, (Acting Chairman), Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur. Puno J., (Chairman), on official leave Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 153563 February 07, 2005

NATIONAL TRUCKING AND FORWARDING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated January 16, 2002, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 48349, and its Resolution,2 of May 13, 2002, denying the motion for reconsideration of herein petitioner National Trucking and Forwarding Corporation (NTFC). The impugned decision affirmed in toto the judgment3 dated November 14, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53, in Civil Case No. 90-52102. The undisputed facts, as summarized by the appellate court, are as follows: On June 5, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Health (DOH), and the Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) signed an agreement wherein CARE would acquire from the United States government donations of non-fat dried milk and other food products from January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1989. In turn, the Philippines would transport and distribute the donated commodities to the intended beneficiaries in the country. The government entered into a contract of carriage of goods with herein petitioner National Trucking and Forwarding Corporation (NTFC). Thus, the latter shipped 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk through herein respondent Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) from September to December 1988. The consignee named in the bills of lading issued by the respondent was Abdurahman Jama, petitioners branch supervisor in Zamboanga City. On reaching the port of Zamboanga City, respondents agent, Efren Ruste4 Shipping Agency, unloaded the 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk and delivered the goods to petitioners warehouse. Before each delivery, Rogelio Rizada and Ismael Zamora, both delivery checkers of Efren Ruste Shipping Agency, requested Abdurahman to surrender the original bills of lading, but the latter merely presented certified true copies thereof. Upon completion of each delivery, Rogelio and Ismael asked Abdurahman to sign the delivery receipts. However, at times when Abdurahman had to attend to other business before a delivery was completed, he instructed his subordinates to sign the delivery receipts for him. Notwithstanding the precautions taken, the petitioner allegedly did not receive the subject goods. Thus, in a letter dated March 11, 1989, petitioner NTFC filed a formal claim for non-delivery of the goods shipped through respondent. In its letter of April 26, 1989, the respondent explained that the cargo had already been delivered to Abdurahman Jama. The petitioner then decided to investigate the loss of the goods. But before the investigation was over, Abdurahman Jama resigned as branch supervisor of petitioner.

Noting but disbelieving respondents insistence that the goods were delivered, the government through the DOH, CARE, and NTFC as plaintiffs filed an action for breach of contract of carriage, against respondent as defendant, with the RTC of Manila. After trial, the RTC resolved the case as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs, dismissing the latters complaint, and ordering the plaintiffs, pursuant to the defendants counterclaim, to pay, jointly and solidarily, to the defendant, actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and attorneys fees in the amount of P70,000.00, plus the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.5 Dissatisfied with the foregoing ruling, herein petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. It faulted the lower court for not holding that respondent failed to deliver the cargo, and that respondent failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers. Petitioner also assailed the lower court for denying its claims for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and for awarding actual damages and attorneys fees to the respondent.6 The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not commit any reversible error. It dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the assailed decision in toto. Undaunted, petitioner now comes to us, assigning the following errors: I THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND APPLY THE LEGAL STANDARD OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY OF GOODS TO THE RESPONDENT AS A COMMON CARRIER, AS WELL AS THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COMMON CARRIER, IF THE GOODS ARE LOST, DESTROYED OR DETERIORATED, AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CIVIL CODE. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE BASELESS AND ARBITRARY AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES INASMUCH AS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH, WITHOUT MALICE AND WITH THE BEST INTENTION OF PROTECTING THE INTEREST AND INTEGRITY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS CREDIBILITY AND RELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL RELIEF AGENCIES AND DONOR STATES AND ORGANIZATION.7 The issues for our resolution are: (1) Is respondent presumed at fault or negligent as common carrier for the loss or deterioration of the goods? and (2) Are damages and attorneys fees due respondent? Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that the respondent is presumed negligent and liable for failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the bills of lading; that Abdurahman Jamas failure to testify should not be held against petitioner; and that the testimonies of Rogelio Rizada and Ismael Zamora, as employees of respondents agent, Efren Ruste Shipping Agency, were biased and could not overturn the legal presumption of respondents fault or negligence.

For its part, the respondent avers that it observed extraordinary diligence in the delivery of the goods. Prior to releasing the goods to Abdurahman, Rogelio and Ismael required the surrender of the original bills of lading, and in their absence, the certified true copies showing that Abdurahman was indeed the consignee of the goods. In addition, they required Abdurahman or his designated subordinates to sign the delivery receipts upon completion of each delivery. We rule for respondent. Article 17338 of the Civil Code demands that a common carrier observe extraordinary diligence over the goods transported by it. Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their own property or rights.9 This exacting standard imposed on common carriers in a contract of carriage of goods is intended to tilt the scales in favor of the shipper who is at the mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been lodged for shipment. Hence, in case of loss of goods in transit, the common carrier is presumed under the law to have been at fault or negligent.10 However, the presumption of fault or negligence, may be overturned by competent evidence showing that the common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods. In the instant case, we agree with the court a quo that the respondent adequately proved that it exercised extraordinary diligence. Although the original bills of lading remained with petitioner, respondents agents demanded from Abdurahman the certified true copies of the bills of lading. They also asked the latter and in his absence, his designated subordinates, to sign the cargo delivery receipts. This practice, which respondents agents testified to be their standard operating procedure, finds support in Article 353 of the Code of Commerce: ART. 353. . . . After the contract has been complied with, the bill of lading which the carrier has issued shall be returned to him, and by virtue of the exchange of this title with the thing transported, the respective obligations and actions shall be considered cancelled, . In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot return the bill of lading subscribed by the carrier, because of its loss or of any other cause, he must give the latter a receipt for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects as the return of the bill of lading. (Emphasis supplied) Conformably with the aforecited provision, the surrender of the original bill of lading is not a condition precedent for a common carrier to be discharged of its contractual obligation. If surrender of the original bill of lading is not possible, acknowledgment of the delivery by signing the delivery receipt suffices. This is what respondent did. We also note that some delivery receipts were signed by Abdurahmans subordinates and not by Abdurahman himself as consignee. Further, delivery checkers Rogelio and Ismael testified that Abdurahman was always present at the initial phase of each delivery, although on the few occasions when Abdurahman could not stay to witness the complete delivery of the shipment, he

authorized his subordinates to sign the delivery receipts for him. This, to our mind, is sufficient and substantial compliance with the requirements. We further note that, strangely, petitioner made no effort to disapprove Abdurahmans resignation until after the investigation and after he was cleared of any responsibility for the loss of the goods. With Abdurahman outside of its reach, petitioner cannot now pass to respondent what could be Abdurahmans negligence, if indeed he were responsible. On the second issue, petitioner submits there is no basis for the award of actual damages and attorneys fees. It maintains that its original complaint for sum of money with damages for breach of contract of carriage was not fraudulent, in bad faith, nor malicious. Neither was the institution of the action rash nor precipitate. Petitioner avers the filing of the action was intended to protect the integrity and interest of the government and its relationship and credibility with international relief agencies and donor states. On the other hand, respondent maintains that petitioners suit was baseless and malicious because instead of going after its absconding employee, petitioner wanted to recoup its losses from respondent. The trial court and the Court of Appeals were justified in granting actual damages and reasonable attorneys fees to respondent. On this point, we agree with petitioner. The right to litigate should bear no premium. An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorneys fees to the winning party.11 When, as in the instant case, petitioner was compelled to sue to protect the credibility of the government with international organizations, we are not inclined to grant attorneys fees. We find no ill motive on petitioners part, only an erroneous belief in the righteousness of its claim. Moreover, an award of attorneys fees, in the concept of damages under Article 2208 of the Civil Code,12 requires factual and legal justifications. While the law allows some degree of discretion on the part of the courts in awarding attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, the discretion must be exercised with great care approximating as closely as possible, the instances exemplified by the law.13 We have searched but found nothing in petitioners suit that justifies the award of attorneys fees. Respondent failed to show proof of actual pecuniary loss, hence, no actual damages are due in favor of respondent.14 WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48349 dated January 16, 2002 and May 13, 2002 respectively, denying petitioners claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages are AFFIRMED. The award of actual damages and attorneys fees to respondent pursuant to the latters counterclaim in the trial court is DELETED. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur. [G.R. No. 150751. September 20, 2004]

CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: A common carrier is presumed to be at fault or negligent. It shall be liable for the loss, destruction or deterioration of its cargo, unless it can prove that the sole and proximate cause of such event is one of the causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, or that it exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent or minimize the loss. In the present case, the weather condition encountered by petitioners vessel was not a storm or a natural disaster comprehended in the law. Given the known weather condition prevailing during the voyage, the manner of stowage employed by the carrier was insufficient to secure the cargo from the rolling action of the sea. The carrier took a calculated risk in improperly securing the cargo. Having lost that risk, it cannot now disclaim any liability for the loss. The Case Before the Court is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 23, 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 48915. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148 dated August 4, 1994 is hereby MODIFIED in so far as the award of attorneys fees is DELETED. The decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.*3+ The CA denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in its November 7, 2001 Resolution.[4] The Facts The factual antecedents, summarized by the trial court and adopted by the appellate court, are as follows: On July 25, 1990 at Puerto Princesa, Palawan, the [petitioner] received on board its vessel, the M/V Central Bohol, 376 pieces [of] Philippine Apitong Round Logs and undertook to transport said shipment to Manila for delivery to Alaska Lumber Co., Inc. The cargo was insured for P3,000,000.00 against total loss under *respondents+ Marine Cargo Policy No. MCPB-00170. On July 25, 1990, upon completion of loading of the cargo, the vessel left Palawan and commenced the voyage to Manila. At about 0125 hours on July 26, 1990, while enroute to Manila, the vessel listed about 10 degrees starboardside, due to the shifting of logs in the hold. At about 0128 hours, after the listing of the vessel had increased to 15 degrees, the ship captain ordered his men to abandon ship and at about 0130 hours of the same day the vessel completely sank. Due to the sinking of the vessel, the cargo was totally lost. *Respondent+ alleged that the total loss of the shipment was caused by the fault and negligence of the [petitioner] and its captain and as direct consequence thereof the consignee suffered damage in the sum of P3,000,000.00. The consignee, Alaska Lumber Co. Inc., presented a claim for the value of the shipment to the [petitioner] but the latter failed and

refused to settle the claim, hence [respondent], being the insurer, paid said claim and now seeks to be subrogated to all the rights and actions of the consignee as against the [petitioner]. *Petitioner+, while admitting the sinking of the vessel, interposed the defense that the vessel was fully manned, fully equipped and in all respects seaworthy; that all the logs were properly loaded and secured; that the vessels master exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the storm. It raised as its main defense that the proximate and only cause of the sinking of its vessel and the loss of its cargo was a natural disaster, a tropical storm which neither [petitioner] nor the captain of its vessel could have foreseen.*5+ The RTC was unconvinced that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the weather or any other caso fortuito. It noted that monsoons, which were common occurrences during the months of July to December, could have been foreseen and provided for by an ocean-going vessel. Applying the rule of presumptive fault or negligence against the carrier, the trial court held petitioner liable for the loss of the cargo. Thus, the RTC deducted the salvage value of the logs in the amount of P200,000 from the principal claim of respondent and found that the latter was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the insured. The court a quo disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [respondent] and against the [petitioner] ordering the latter to pay the following: 1) the amount of P2,800,000.00 with legal interest thereof from the filing of this complaint up to and until the same is fully paid; 2) 3) P80,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; Plus costs of suit.*6+

CA,[7] it said that findings of the BMI were limited to the administrative liability of the owner/operator, officers and crew of the vessel. However, the determination of whether the carrier observed extraordinary diligence in protecting the cargo it was transporting was a function of the courts, not of the BMI. The CA concluded that the doctrine of limited liability was not applicable, in view of petitioners negligence -- particularly its improper stowage of the logs. Hence, this Petition.[8] Issues In its Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration: (i) Whether or not the weather disturbance which caused the sinking of the vessel M/V Central Bohol was a fortuitous event. (ii) Whether or not the investigation report prepared by Claimsmen Adjustment Corporation is hearsay evidence under Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. (iii) Whether or not the finding of the Court of Appeals that the logs in the hold shifted and such shifting could only be due to improper stowage has a valid and factual basis. (iv) Whether or not M/V Central Bohol is seaworthy.

(v) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to the factual finding of the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI), an independent government agency tasked to conduct inquiries on maritime accidents. (vi) Whether or not the Doctrine of Limited Liability is applicable to the case at bar.*9+ The issues boil down to two: (1) whether the carrier is liable for the loss of the cargo; and (2) whether the doctrine of limited liability is applicable. These issues involve a determination of factual questions of whether the loss of the cargo was due to the occurrence of a natural disaster; and if so, whether its sole and proximate cause was such natural disaster or whether petitioner was partly to blame for failing to exercise due diligence in the prevention of that loss. The Courts Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First Issue: Liability for Lost Cargo From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods they transport, according to all the circumstances of each case.[10] In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers are responsible; that is, unless they can prove that such loss, destruction or deterioration was brought about -- among others -- by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity.*11+ In all other cases not specified under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.[12]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals The CA affirmed the trial courts finding that the southwestern monsoon encountered by the vessel was not unforeseeable. Given the season of rains and monsoons, the ship captain and his crew should have anticipated the perils of the sea. The appellate court further held that the weather disturbance was not the sole and proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel, which was also due to the concurrent shifting of the logs in the hold that could have resulted only from improper stowage. Thus, the carrier was held responsible for the consequent loss of or damage to the cargo, because its own negligence had contributed thereto. The CA found no merit in petitioners assertion of the vessels seaworthiness. It held that the Certificates of Inspection and Drydocking were not conclusive proofs thereof. In order to consider a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be fit to meet the perils of the sea. Found untenable was petitioners insistence that the trial court should have given greater weight to the factual findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry (BMI) in the investigation of the Marine Protest filed by the ship captain, Enriquito Cahatol. The CA further observed that what petitioner had presented to the court a quo were mere excerpts of the testimony of Captain Cahatol given during the course of the proceedings before the BMI, not the actual findings and conclusions of the agency. Citing Arada v.

In the present case, petitioner disclaims responsibility for the loss of the cargo by claiming the occurrence of a storm under Article 1734(1). It attributes the sinking of its vessel solely to the weather condition between 10:00 p.m. on July 25, 1990 and 1:25 a.m. on July 26, 1990. At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law[13] may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact are not proper subjects in this mode of appeal,*14+ for *t+he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.*15+ Factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal[16] only under exceptional circumstances such as, among others, when the inference is manifestly mistaken,[17] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts,[18] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[19] In the present case, petitioner has not given the Court sufficient cogent reasons to disturb the conclusion of the CA that the weather encountered by the vessel was not a storm as contemplated by Article 1734(1). Established is the fact that between 10:00 p.m. on July 25, 1990 and 1:25 a.m. on July 26, 1990, M/V Central Bohol encountered a southwestern monsoon in the course of its voyage. The Note of Marine Protest,[20] which the captain of the vessel issued under oath, stated that he and his crew encountered a southwestern monsoon about 2200 hours on July 25, 1990, and another monsoon about 2400 hours on July 26, 1990. Even petitioner admitted in its Answer that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the strong southwest monsoon.[21] Having made such factual representation, it cannot now be allowed to retreat and claim that the southwestern monsoon was a storm. The pieces of evidence with respect to the weather conditions encountered by the vessel showed that there was a southwestern monsoon at the time. Normally expected on sea voyages, however, were such monsoons, during which strong winds were not unusual. Rosa S. Barba, weather specialist of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), testified that a thunderstorm might occur in the midst of a southwest monsoon. According to her, one did occur between 8:00 p.m. on July 25, 1990, and 2 a.m. on July 26, 1990, as recorded by the PAGASA Weather Bureau.[22] Nonetheless, to our mind it would not be sufficient to categorize the weather condition at the time as a storm within the absolutory causes enumerated in the law. Significantly, no typhoon was observed within the Philippine area of responsibility during that period.[23] According to PAGASA, a storm has a wind force of 48 to 55 knots,[24] equivalent to 55 to 63 miles per hour or 10 to 11 in the Beaufort Scale. The second mate of the vessel stated that the wind was blowing around force 7 to 8 on the Beaufort Scale.[25] Consequently, the strong winds accompanying the southwestern monsoon could not be classified as a storm. Such winds are the ordinary vicissitudes of a sea voyage.[26] Even if the weather encountered by the ship is to be deemed a natural disaster under Article 1739 of the Civil Code, petitioner failed to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the proximate and only cause of the loss. Human agency must be entirely excluded from the cause of injury or loss. In other words,

the damaging effects blamed on the event or phenomenon must not have been caused, contributed to, or worsened by the presence of human participation.[27] The defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully made when the injury could have been avoided by human precaution.[28] Hence, if a common carrier fails to exercise due diligence -- or that ordinary care that the circumstances of the particular case demand -- to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the natural disaster, the carrier shall be deemed to have been negligent. The loss or injury is not, in a legal sense, due to a natural disaster under Article 1734(1).[29] We also find no reason to disturb the CAs finding that the loss of the vessel was caused not only by the southwestern monsoon, but also by the shifting of the logs in the hold. Such shifting could been due only to improper stowage. The assailed Decision stated: Notably, in Master Cahatols account, the vessel encountered the first southwestern monsoon at about 1[0]:00 in the evening. The monsoon was coupled with heavy rains and rough seas yet the vessel withstood the onslaught. The second monsoon attack occurred at about 12:00 midnight. During this occasion, the master felt that the logs in the hold shifted, prompting him to order second mate Percival Dayanan to look at the bodega. Complying with the captains order, 2nd mate Percival Dayanan found that there was seawater in the bodega. 2nd mate Dayanans account was: 14.T Kung inyo pong natatandaan ang mga pangyayari, maari mo bang isalaysay ang naganap na paglubog sa barkong M/V Central Bohol? S Opo, noong ika-26 ng Julio 1990 humigit kumulang alas 1:20 ng umaga (dst) habang kami ay nagnanabegar patungong Maynila sa tapat ng Cadlao Island at Cauayan Island sakop ng El Nido, Palawan, inutusan ako ni Captain Enriquito Cahatol na tingnan ko ang bodega; nang ako ay nasa bodega, nakita ko ang loob nang bodega na maraming tubig at naririnig ko ang malakas na agos ng tubig-dagat na pumapasok sa loob ng bodega ng barko; agad bumalik ako kay Captain Enriquito Cahatol at sinabi ko ang malakas na pagpasok ng tubig-dagat sa loob nang bodega ng barko na ito ay naka-tagilid humigit kumulang sa 020 degrees, nag-order si Captain Cahatol na standby engine at tinawag ang lahat ng mga officials at mga crew nang maipon kaming lahat ang barko ay naka-tagilid at ito ay tuloy-tuloy ang pagtatagilid na ang ilan sa mga officials ay naka-hawak na sa barandilla ng barko at dinagtagal sumigaw nang ABANDO[N] SHIP si Captain Cahatol at kami ay nagkanya-kanya nang talunan at languyan sa dagat na malakas ang alon at nang ako ay lumingon sa barko ito ay di ko na nakita. Additionally, *petitioners+ own witnesses, boatswain Eduardo Vias Castro and oiler Frederick Perena, are one in saying that the vessel encountered two weather disturbances, one at around 10 oclock to 11 oclock in the evening and the other at around 12 oclock midnight. Both disturbances were coupled with waves and heavy rains, yet, the vessel endured the first and not the second. Why? The reason is plain. The vessel felt the strain during the second onslaught because the logs in the bodega shifted and there were already seawater that seeped inside.*30+ The above conclusion is supported by the fact that the vessel proceeded through the first southwestern monsoon without any mishap, and that it began to list only during the second monsoon immediately after the logs had shifted and seawater had entered

the hold. In the hold, the sloshing of tons of water back and forth had created pressures that eventually caused the ship to sink. Had the logs not shifted, the ship could have survived and reached at least the port of El Nido. In fact, there was another motor launch that had been buffeted by the same weather condition within the same area, yet it was able to arrive safely at El Nido.[31] In its Answer, petitioner categorically admitted the allegation of respondent in paragraph 5 of the latters Complaint *t+hat at about 0125 hours on 26 July 1990, while enroute to Manila, the M/V Central Bohol listed about 10 degrees starboardside, due to the shifting of logs in the hold. Further, petitioner averred that *t+he vessel, while navigating through this second southwestern monsoon, was under extreme stress. At about 0125 hours, 26 July 1990, a thud was heard in the cargo hold and the logs therein were felt to have shifted. The vessel thereafter immediately listed by ten (10) degrees starboardside.*32+ Yet, petitioner now claims that the CAs conclusion was grounded on mere speculations and conjectures. It alleges that it was impossible for the logs to have shifted, because they had fitted exactly in the hold from the port to the starboard side. After carefully studying the records, we are inclined to believe that the logs did indeed shift, and that they had been improperly loaded. According to the boatswains testimony, the logs were piled properly, and the entire shipment was lashed to the vessel by cable wire.[33] The ship captain testified that out of the 376 pieces of round logs, around 360 had been loaded in the lower hold of the vessel and 16 on deck. The logs stored in the lower hold were not secured by cable wire, because they fitted exactly from floor to ceiling. However, while they were placed side by side, there were unavoidable clearances between them owing to their round shape. Those loaded on deck were lashed together several times across by cable wire, which had a diameter of 60 millimeters, and were secured from starboard to port.[34] It is obvious, as a matter of common sense, that the manner of stowage in the lower hold was not sufficient to secure the logs in the event the ship should roll in heavy weather. Notably, they were of different lengths ranging from 3.7 to 12.7 meters.[35] Being clearly prone to shifting, the round logs should not have been stowed with nothing to hold them securely in place. Each pile of logs should have been lashed together by cable wire, and the wire fastened to the side of the hold. Considering the strong force of the wind and the roll of the waves, the loose arrangement of the logs did not rule out the possibility of their shifting. By force of gravity, those on top of the pile would naturally roll towards the bottom of the ship. The adjusters Report, which was heavily relied upon by petitioner to strengthen its claim that the logs had not shifted, stated that the logs were still properly lashed by steel chains on deck. Parenthetically, this statement referred only to those loaded on deck and did not mention anything about the condition of those placed in the lower hold. Thus, the finding of the surveyor that the logs were still intact clearly pertained only to those lashed on deck. The evidence indicated that strong southwest monsoons were common occurrences during the month of July. Thus, the officers and crew of M/V Central Bohol should have reasonably anticipated heavy rains, strong winds and rough seas. They

should then have taken extra precaution in stowing the logs in the hold, in consonance with their duty of observing extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the goods. But the carrier took a calculated risk in improperly securing the cargo. Having lost that risk, it cannot now escape responsibility for the loss. Second Issue: Doctrine of Limited Liability The doctrine of limited liability under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce[36] is not applicable to the present case. This rule does not apply to situations in which the loss or the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and the captain.[37] It has already been established that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the fault or negligence of the ship captain and the crew, as shown by the improper stowage of the cargo of logs. Closer supervision on the part of the shipowner could have prevented this fatal miscalculation.*38+ As such, the shipowner was equally negligent. It cannot escape liability by virtue of the limited liability rule. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur. Carpio-Morales. J., on official leave. G.R. No. L-46340 April 28, 1983

SWEET LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MICAELA B. QUINTOS, FR. JOSE BACATAN, S.J., MARCIANO CABRAS and ANDREA VELOSO, respondents. Felixberto Leonardo and Ramon Tuangco for petitioner. Expedito P. Bugarin for respondents. RESOLUTION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: For having by-passed a port of call without previous notice, petitioner shipping company and the ship captain were sued for damages by four of its passengers, private respondents herein, before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VIII, Briefly, the facts of record show that private respondents purchased first- class tickets from petitioner at the latter's office in Cebu City. They were to board petitioner's vessel, M/V Sweet Grace, bound for Catbalogan, Western Samar. Instead of departing at the scheduled hour of about midnight on July 8, 1972, the vessel set sail at 3:00 A.M. of July 9, 1972 only to be towed back to Cebu due to engine trouble, arriving there at about 4:00 P.M. on the same day. Repairs having been accomplished, the vessel lifted anchor again on July 10, 1972 at around 8:00 A.M. Instead of docking at Catbalogan, which was the first port of call, the vessel proceeded direct to Tacloban at around 9:00 P.M. of

July 10, 1972. Private respondents had no recourse but to disembark and board a ferryboat to Catbalogan. Hence, this suit for damages for breach of contract of carriage which the Trial Court, affirmed by respondent Appellate Court, awarded as follows: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS, judgment is rendered ordering the defendant Sweet Lines, Incorporated to pay to the plaintiffs the following: l) P175,000.00 as moral damages divided among the plaintiffs as follows: P30,000.00 for Mrs. Micaela B. Quintos, P26,000.00 for Jesuit Father Jose Bacatan; P10,000.00 for Mrs. Andrea Veloso and P10,000.00 for plaintiff Mike Cabras; 2) P30,000.00 as exemplary or corrective damages;

following day after it was towed back to Cebu. In fact, after docking at Tacloban City, it left the next day for Manila to complete its voyage. 2 The reason for by-passing the port of Catbalogan, as admitted by petitioner's General Manager, was to enable the vessel to catch up with its schedule for the next week. The record also discloses that there were 50 passengers for Tacloban compared to 20 passengers for Catbalogan, 3 so that the Catbalogan phase could be scrapped without too much loss for the company. In defense, petitioner cannot rely on the conditions in small bold print at the back of the ticket reading. The passenger's acceptance of this ticket shall be considered as an acceptance of the following conditions: 3. In case the vessel cannot continue or complete the trip for any cause whatsoever, the carrier reserves the right to bring the passenger to his/her destination at the expense of the carrier or to cancel the ticket and refund the passenger the value of his/her ticket; xxx xxx xxx

3) Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on the moral and exemplary damages as set forth above from the date of this decision until said damages are fully paid; 4) 5) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and The costs.

Counterclaim dismissed. The governing provisions are found in the Code of Commerce and read as follows: ART. 614. A captain who, having agreed to make a voyage, fails to fulfill his undertaking, without being prevented by fortuitous event or force majeure, shall indemnify all the losses which his failure may cause, without prejudice to criminal penalties which may be proper. and ART. 698. In case of interruption of a voyage already begun, the passengers shall only be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure, but with a right to indemnity, if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel, and the passenger should agree to wait for her repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased fare of passage, but his living expenses during the delay shall be for his own account. The crucial factor then is the existence of a fortuitous event or force majeure. Without it, the right to damages and indemnity exists against a captain who fails to fulfill his undertaking or where the interruption has been caused by the captain exclusively. As found by both Courts below, there was no fortuitous event or force majeure which prevented the vessel from fulfilling its undertaking of taking private respondents to Catbalogan. In the first place, mechanical defects in the carrier are not considered a caso fortuito that exempts the carrier from responsibility. 1 In the second place, even granting arguendo that the engine failure was a fortuitous event, it accounted only for the delay in departure. When the vessel finally left the port of Cebu on July 10, 1972, there was no longer any force majeure that justified bypassing a port of call. The vessel was completely repaired the

11. The sailing schedule of the vessel for which this ticket was issued is subject to change without previous notice. (Exhibit "l -A") Even assuming that those conditions are squarely applicable to the case at bar, petitioner did not comply with the same. It did not cancel the ticket nor did it refund the value of the tickets to private respondents. Besides, it was not the vessel's sailing schedule that was involved. Private respondents' complaint is directed not at the delayed departure the next day but at the bypassing of Catbalogan, their destination. Had petitioner notified them previously, and offered to bring them to their destination at its expense, or refunded the value of the tickets purchased, perhaps, this controversy would not have arisen. Furthermore, the conditions relied upon by petitioner cannot prevail over Articles 614 and 698 of the Code of Commerce heretofore quoted. The voyage to Catbalogan was "interrupted" by the captain upon instruction of management. The "interruption" was not due to fortuitous event or for majeure nor to disability of the vessel. Having been caused by the captain upon instruction of management, the passengers' right to indemnity is evident. The owner of a vessel and the ship agent shall be civilly liable for the acts of the captain. 4 Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages are justly due in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that there was bad faith on the part of petitioner in that: (1) Defendants-appellants did not give notice to plaintiffsappellees as to the change of schedule of the vessel; (2) Knowing fully well that it would take no less than fifteen hours to effect the repairs of the damaged engine, defendants-appellants instead made announcement of assurance that the vessel would leave within a short period of time, and when plaintiffs-appellees wanted to leave the port and gave up

the trip, defendants-appellants' employees would come and say, 'we are leaving, already.' (3) Defendants-appellants did not offer to refund plaintiffs-appellees' tickets nor provide them with transportation from Tacloban City to Catbalogan. 5 That finding of bad faith is binding on us, since it is not the function of the Court to analyze and review evidence on this point all over again, 6 aside from the fact that we find it faithful to the meaning of bad faith enunciated thus: Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or illwill. Self-enrichment or fraternal interest, and not personal illwill may have been the motive, but it is malice nevertheless. 7 Under the circumstances, however, we find the award of moral damages excessive and accordingly reduce them to P3,000.00, respectively, for each of the private respondents. The total award of attorney's fees of P5,000.00 is in order considering that the case has reached this Tribunal. Insofar as exemplary damages are concerned, although there was bad faith, we are not inclined to grant them in addition to moral damages. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the Court decides whether or not they should be adjudicated. 8 The objective to meet its schedule might have been called for, but petitioner should have taken the necessary steps for the protection of its passengers under its contract of carriage. Article 2215(2) of the Civil Code 9 invoked by petitioner is inapplicable herein. The harm done to private respondents outweighs any benefits they may have derived from being transported to Tacloban instead of being taken to Catbalogan, their destination and the vessel's first port of call, pursuant to its normal schedule. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified in that petitioner is hereby sentenced to indemnify private respondents in the sum of P3,000.00 each, without interest, plus P1,250.00, each, by way of att/rney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994

The issues, albeit not completely novel, are: (a) whether or not a claim for damage sustained on a shipment of goods can be a solidary, or joint and several, liability of the common carrier, the arrastre operator and the customs broker; (b) whether the payment of legal interest on an award for loss or damage is to be computed from the time the complaint is filed or from the date the decision appealed from is rendered; and (c) whether the applicable rate of interest, referred to above, is twelve percent (12%) or six percent (6%). The findings of the court a quo, adopted by the Court of Appeals, on the antecedent and undisputed facts that have led to the controversy are hereunder reproduced: This is an action against defendants shipping company, arrastre operator and broker-forwarder for damages sustained by a shipment while in defendants' custody, filed by the insurersubrogee who paid the consignee the value of such losses/damages. On December 4, 1981, two fiber drums of riboflavin were shipped from Yokohama, Japan for delivery vessel "SS EASTERN COMET" owned by defendant Eastern Shipping Lines under Bill of Lading No. YMA-8 (Exh. B). The shipment was insured under plaintiff's Marine Insurance Policy No. 81/01177 for P36,382,466.38. Upon arrival of the shipment in Manila on December 12, 1981, it was discharged unto the custody of defendant Metro Port Service, Inc. The latter excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order, which damage was unknown to plaintiff. On January 7, 1982 defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from defendant Metro Port Service, Inc., one drum opened and without seal (per "Request for Bad Order Survey." Exh. D). On January 8 and 14, 1982, defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation made deliveries of the shipment to the consignee's warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages, while the rest of the contents was adulterated/fake (per "Bad Order Waybill" No. 10649, Exh. E). Plaintiff contended that due to the losses/damage sustained by said drum, the consignee suffered losses totaling P19,032.95, due to the fault and negligence of defendants. Claims were presented against defendants who failed and refused to pay the same (Exhs. H, I, J, K, L). As a consequence of the losses sustained, plaintiff was compelled to pay the consignee P19,032.95 under the aforestated marine insurance policy, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of said consignee against defendants (per "Form of Subrogation", "Release" and Philbanking check, Exhs. M, N, and O). (pp. 85-86, Rollo.) There were, to be sure, other factual issues that confronted both courts. Here, the appellate court said: Defendants filed their respective answers, traversing the material allegations of the complaint contending that: As for defendant Eastern Shipping it alleged that the shipment was discharged in good order from the vessel unto the custody of Metro Port Service so that any damage/losses incurred after the shipment was incurred after the shipment was turned over to the latter, is no longer its liability (p. 17, Record); Metroport averred that although subject shipment was discharged unto its custody,

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents. Alojada & Garcia and Jimenea, Dala & Zaragoza for petitoner. Zapa Law Office for private respondent.

VITUG, J.:

portion of the same was already in bad order (p. 11, Record); Allied Brokerage alleged that plaintiff has no cause of action against it, not having negligent or at fault for the shipment was already in damage and bad order condition when received by it, but nonetheless, it still exercised extra ordinary care and diligence in the handling/delivery of the cargo to consignee in the same condition shipment was received by it. From the evidence the court found the following: The issues are: 1. Whether or not the shipment sustained losses/damages; 2. Whether or not these losses/damages were sustained while in the custody of defendants (in whose respective custody, if determinable); 3. Whether or not defendant(s) should be held liable for the losses/damages (see plaintiff's pre-Trial Brief, Records, p. 34; Allied's pre-Trial Brief, adopting plaintiff's Records, p. 38). As to the first issue, there can be no doubt that the shipment sustained losses/damages. The two drums were shipped in good order and condition, as clearly shown by the Bill of Lading and Commercial Invoice which do not indicate any damages drum that was shipped (Exhs. B and C). But when on December 12, 1981 the shipment was delivered to defendant Metro Port Service, Inc., it excepted to one drum in bad order. Correspondingly, as to the second issue, it follows that the losses/damages were sustained while in the respective and/or successive custody and possession of defendants carrier (Eastern), arrastre operator (Metro Port) and broker (Allied Brokerage). This becomes evident when the Marine Cargo Survey Report (Exh. G), with its "Additional Survey Notes", are considered. In the latter notes, it is stated that when the shipment was "landed on vessel" to dock of Pier # 15, South Harbor, Manila on December 12, 1981, it was observed that "one (1) fiber drum (was) in damaged condition, covered by the vessel's Agent's Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 86427." The report further states that when defendant Allied Brokerage withdrew the shipment from defendant arrastre operator's custody on January 7, 1982, one drum was found opened without seal, cello bag partly torn but contents intact. Net unrecovered spillages was 15 kgs. The report went on to state that when the drums reached the consignee, one drum was found with adulterated/faked contents. It is obvious, therefore, that these losses/damages occurred before the shipment reached the consignee while under the successive custodies of defendants. Under Art. 1737 of the New Civil Code, the common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance of goods remains in full force and effect even if the goods are temporarily unloaded and stored in transit in the warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised and has had reasonable opportunity to remove or dispose of the goods (Art. 1738, NCC). Defendant Eastern Shipping's own exhibit, the "TurnOver Survey of Bad Order Cargoes" (Exhs. 3-Eastern) states that on December 12, 1981 one drum was found "open". and thus held: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered:

A. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally: 1. The amount of P19,032.95, with the present legal interest of 12% per annum from October 1, 1982, the date of filing of this complaints, until fully paid (the liability of defendant Eastern Shipping, Inc. shall not exceed US$500 per case or the CIF value of the loss, whichever is lesser, while the liability of defendant Metro Port Service, Inc. shall be to the extent of the actual invoice value of each package, crate box or container in no case to exceed P5,000.00 each, pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Management Contract); 2. 3. P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and Costs.

B. Dismissing the counterclaims and crossclaim of defendant/cross-claimant Allied Brokerage Corporation. SO ORDERED. (p. 207, Record). Dissatisfied, defendant's recourse to US. The appeal is devoid of merit. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. We find that the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct. As there is sufficient evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive possession of appellants, and therefore they are liable to the appellee, as subrogee for the amount it paid to the consignee. (pp. 87-89, Rollo.) The Court of Appeals thus affirmed in toto the judgment of the court a quo. In this petition, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the common carrier, attributes error and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court when I. IT HELD PETITIONER CARRIER JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE ARRASTRE OPERATOR AND CUSTOMS BROKER FOR THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS GRANTED IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION; II. IT HELD THAT THE GRANT OF INTEREST ON THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD COMMENCE FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM INSTEAD OF FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ONLY AT THE RATE OF SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM, PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM BEING INDISPUTABLY UNLIQUIDATED. The petition is, in part, granted. In this decision, we have begun by saying that the questions raised by petitioner carrier are not all that novel. Indeed, we do have a fairly good number of previous decisions this Court can merely tack to. The common carrier's duty to observe the requisite diligence in the shipment of goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation until delivered to, or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance by, the

person entitled to receive them (Arts. 1736-1738, Civil Code; Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, 161 SCRA 646; Kui Bai vs. Dollar Steamship Lines, 52 Phil. 863). When the goods shipped either are lost or arrive in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable (Art. 1735, Civil Code; Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 87; Metro Port Service vs. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 365). There are, of course, exceptional cases when such presumption of fault is not observed but these cases, enumerated in Article 1734 1 of the Civil Code, are exclusive, not one of which can be applied to this case. The question of charging both the carrier and the arrastre operator with the obligation of properly delivering the goods to the consignee has, too, been passed upon by the Court. In Fireman's Fund Insurance vs. Metro Port Services (182 SCRA 455), we have explained, in holding the carrier and the arrastre operator liable in solidum, thus: The legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman (Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Co., 19 SCRA 5 [1967]. The relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator (Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, et al., 107 Phil. 253 [1960]). Since it is the duty of the ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also devolves upon the CARRIER. Both the ARRASTRE and the CARRIER are therefore charged with the obligation to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee. We do not, of course, imply by the above pronouncement that the arrastre operator and the customs broker are themselves always and necessarily liable solidarily with the carrier, or viceversa, nor that attendant facts in a given case may not vary the rule. The instant petition has been brought solely by Eastern Shipping Lines, which, being the carrier and not having been able to rebut the presumption of fault, is, in any event, to be held liable in this particular case. A factual finding of both the court a quo and the appellate court, we take note, is that "there is sufficient evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive possession of appellants" (the herein petitioner among them). Accordingly, the liability imposed on Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the sole petitioner in this case, is inevitable regardless of whether there are others solidarily liable with it. It is over the issue of legal interest adjudged by the appellate court that deserves more than just a passing remark. Let us first see a chronological recitation of the major rulings of this Court: The early case of Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., vs. Manila Port Service, 2 decided 3 on 15 May 1969, involved a suit for recovery of money arising out of short deliveries and pilferage of goods. In this case, appellee Malayan Insurance (the plaintiff in the lower court) averred in its complaint that the total amount of its claim for the value of the undelivered goods amounted to P3,947.20. This demand, however, was neither established in its totality nor definitely ascertained. In the stipulation of facts later entered into by the parties, in lieu of proof, the amount of P1,447.51 was agreed upon. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the appellants (defendants) Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company to pay appellee Malayan Insurance the sum of P1,447.51 with legal interest thereon from the date the complaint

was filed on 28 December 1962 until full payment thereof. The appellants then assailed, inter alia, the award of legal interest. In sustaining the appellants, this Court ruled: Interest upon an obligation which calls for the payment of money, absent a stipulation, is the legal rate. Such interest normally is allowable from the date of demand, judicial or extrajudicial. The trial court opted for judicial demand as the starting point. But then upon the provisions of Article 2213 of the Civil Code, interest "cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty." And as was held by this Court in Rivera vs. Perez, 4 L-6998, February 29, 1956, if the suit were for damages, "unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof (Montilla c. Corporacion de P.P. Agustinos, 25 Phil. 447; Lichauco v. Guzman, 38 Phil. 302)," then, interest "should be from the date of the decision." (Emphasis supplied) The case of Reformina vs. Tomol, 5 rendered on 11 October 1985, was for "Recovery of Damages for Injury to Person and Loss of Property." After trial, the lower court decreed: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and third party defendants and against the defendants and third party plaintiffs as follows: Ordering defendants and third party plaintiffs Shell and Michael, Incorporated to pay jointly and severally the following persons: xxx xxx xxx

(g) Plaintiffs Pacita F. Reformina and Francisco Reformina the sum of P131,084.00 which is the value of the boat F B Pacita III together with its accessories, fishing gear and equipment minus P80,000.00 which is the value of the insurance recovered and the amount of P10,000.00 a month as the estimated monthly loss suffered by them as a result of the fire of May 6, 1969 up to the time they are actually paid or already the total sum of P370,000.00 as of June 4, 1972 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until paid and to pay attorney's fees of P5,000.00 with costs against defendants and third party plaintiffs. (Emphasis supplied.) On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter modified the amount of damages awarded but sustained the trial court in adjudging legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. When the appellate court's decision became final, the case was remanded to the lower court for execution, and this was when the trial court issued its assailed resolution which applied the 6% interest per annum prescribed in Article 2209 of the Civil Code. In their petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners contended that Central Bank Circular No. 416, providing thus By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act 2655, as amended, Monetary Board in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed that the rate of interest for the loan, or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve (12%) percent per annum. This Circular shall take effect immediately. (Emphasis found in the text) should have, instead, been applied. This Court 6 ruled:

The judgments spoken of and referred to are judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. Any other kind of monetary judgment which has nothing to do with, nor involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits does not fall within the coverage of the said law for it is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank. xxx xxx xxx

A motion for reconsideration was filed by United Construction, contending that "the interest of twelve (12%) per cent per annum imposed on the total amount of the monetary award was in contravention of law." The Court 10 ruled out the applicability of the Reformina and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines cases and, in its resolution of 15 April 1988, it explained: There should be no dispute that the imposition of 12% interest pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 416 . . . is applicable only in the following: (1) loans; (2) forbearance of any money, goods or credit; and (3) rate allowed in judgments (judgments spoken of refer to judgments involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. v. Cruz, 143 SCRA 160-161 [1986]; Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., 139 SCRA 260 [1985]). It is true that in the instant case, there is neither a loan or a forbearance, but then no interest is actually imposed provided the sums referred to in the judgment are paid upon the finality of the judgment. It is delay in the payment of such final judgment, that will cause the imposition of the interest. It will be noted that in the cases already adverted to, the rate of interest is imposed on the total sum, from the filing of the complaint until paid; in other words, as part of the judgment for damages. Clearly, they are not applicable to the instant case. (Emphasis supplied.) The subsequent case of American Express International, Inc., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 11 was a petition for review on certiorari from the decision, dated 27 February 1985, of the then Intermediate Appellate Court reducing the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court, to P240,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively, and its resolution, dated 29 April 1985, restoring the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, i.e., P2,000,000.00 as moral damages and P400,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest thereon at 12% per annum from notice of judgment, plus costs of suit. In a decision of 09 November 1988, this Court, while recognizing the right of the private respondent to recover damages, held the award, however, for moral damages by the trial court, later sustained by the IAC, to be inconceivably large. The Court 12 thus set aside the decision of the appellate court and rendered a new one, "ordering the petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, with six (6%) percent interest thereon computed from the finality of this decision until paid. (Emphasis supplied) Reformina came into fore again in the 21 February 1989 case of Florendo v. Ruiz 13 which arose from a breach of employment contract. For having been illegally dismissed, the petitioner was awarded by the trial court moral and exemplary damages without, however, providing any legal interest thereon. When the decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, the latter held: WHEREFORE, except as modified hereinabove the decision of the CFI of Negros Oriental dated October 31, 1972 is affirmed in all respects, with the modification that defendants-appellants, except defendant-appellant Merton Munn, are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the amounts stated in the dispositive portion of the decision, including the sum of P1,400.00 in concept of compensatory damages, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid (Emphasis supplied.) The petition for review to this Court was denied. The records were thereupon transmitted to the trial court, and an entry of

Coming to the case at bar, the decision herein sought to be executed is one rendered in an Action for Damages for injury to persons and loss of property and does not involve any loan, much less forbearances of any money, goods or credits. As correctly argued by the private respondents, the law applicable to the said case is Article 2209 of the New Civil Code which reads Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is six percent per annum. The above rule was reiterated in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Cruz, 7 promulgated on 28 July 1986. The case was for damages occasioned by an injury to person and loss of property. The trial court awarded private respondent Pedro Manabat actual and compensatory damages in the amount of P72,500.00 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. Relying on the Reformina v. Tomol case, this Court 8 modified the interest award from 12% to 6% interest per annum but sustained the time computation thereof, i.e., from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. In Nakpil and Sons vs. Court of Appeals, 9 the trial court, in an action for the recovery of damages arising from the collapse of a building, ordered, inter alia, the "defendant United Construction Co., Inc. (one of the petitioners) . . . to pay the plaintiff, . . . , the sum of P989,335.68 with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968, the date of the filing of the complaint until full payment . . . ." Save from the modification of the amount granted by the lower court, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's decision. When taken to this Court for review, the case, on 03 October 1986, was decided, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, we deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra. p. 10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception to attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon aforementioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and third-party defendants (Except Roman Ozaeta). (Emphasis supplied)

judgment was made. The writ of execution issued by the trial court directed that only compensatory damages should earn interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint. Ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, a petition for certiorari assailed the said order. This Court said: . . . , it is to be noted that the Court of Appeals ordered the payment of interest "at the legal rate" from the time of the filing of the complaint. . . Said circular [Central Bank Circular No. 416] does not apply to actions based on a breach of employment contract like the case at bar. (Emphasis supplied) The Court reiterated that the 6% interest per annum on the damages should be computed from the time the complaint was filed until the amount is fully paid. Quite recently, the Court had another occasion to rule on the matter. National Power Corporation vs. Angas, 14 decided on 08 May 1992, involved the expropriation of certain parcels of land. After conducting a hearing on the complaints for eminent domain, the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay the private respondents certain sums of money as just compensation for their lands so expropriated "with legal interest thereon . . . until fully paid." Again, in applying the 6% legal interest per annum under the Civil Code, the Court 15 declared: . . . , (T)he transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment thereof. Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the joint judgment of the lower court sought to be enforced in this case is interest by way of damages, and not by way of earnings from loans, etc. Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply. Concededly, there have been seeming variances in the above holdings. The cases can perhaps be classified into two groups according to the similarity of the issues involved and the corresponding rulings rendered by the court. The "first group" would consist of the cases of Reformina v. Tomol (1985), Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Cruz (1986), Florendo v. Ruiz (1989) and National Power Corporation v. Angas (1992). In the "second group" would be Malayan Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service (1969), Nakpil and Sons v. Court of Appeals (1988), and American Express International v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1988). In the "first group", the basic issue focuses on the application of either the 6% (under the Civil Code) or 12% (under the Central Bank Circular) interest per annum. It is easily discernible in these cases that there has been a consistent holding that the Central Bank Circular imposing the 12% interest per annum applies only to loans or forbearance 16 of money, goods or credits, as well as to judgments involving such loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, and that the 6% interest under the Civil Code governs when the transaction involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general. Observe, too, that in these cases, a common time frame in the computation of the 6% interest per annum has been applied, i.e., from the time the complaint is filed until the adjudged amount is fully paid.

The "second group", did not alter the pronounced rule on the application of the 6% or 12% interest per annum, 17 depending on whether or not the amount involved is a loan or forbearance, on the one hand, or one of indemnity for damage, on the other hand. Unlike, however, the "first group" which remained consistent in holding that the running of the legal interest should be from the time of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, the "second group" varied on the commencement of the running of the legal interest. Malayan held that the amount awarded should bear legal interest from the date of the decision of the court a quo, explaining that "if the suit were for damages, 'unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof,' then, interest 'should be from the date of the decision.'" American Express International v. IAC, introduced a different time frame for reckoning the 6% interest by ordering it to be "computed from the finality of (the) decision until paid." The Nakpil and Sons case ruled that 12% interest per annum should be imposed from the finality of the decision until the judgment amount is paid. The ostensible discord is not difficult to explain. The factual circumstances may have called for different applications, guided by the rule that the courts are vested with discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on the award of interest. Nonetheless, it may not be unwise, by way of clarification and reconciliation, to suggest the following rules of thumb for future guidance. I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts 18 is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. 19 The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages. 20 II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows: 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. 21 Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. 22 In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 23 of the Civil Code. 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court 24 at the rate of 6% per annum. 25 No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. 26 Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of

legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be paid is SIX PERCENT (6%) on the amount due computed from the decision, dated 03 February 1988, of the court a quo. A TWELVE PERCENT (12%) interest, in lieu of SIX PERCENT (6%), shall be imposed on such amount upon finality of this decision until the payment thereof. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966

which he left under one of its seats near the door, the bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading, suddenly started moving forward, evidently to resume its trip, notwithstanding the fact that the conductor has not given the driver the customary signal to start, since said conductor was still attending to the baggage left behind by Mariano Beltran. Incidentally, when the bus was again placed into a complete stop, it had travelled about ten meters from the point where the plaintiffs had gotten off. Sensing that the bus was again in motion, Mariano Beltran immediately jumped from the running board without getting his bayong from the conductor. He landed on the side of the road almost in front of the shaded place where he left his wife and children. At that precise time, he saw people beginning to gather around the body of a child lying prostrate on the ground, her skull crushed, and without life. The child was none other than his daughter Raquel, who was run over by the bus in which she rode earlier together with her parents. For the death of their said child, the plaintiffs commenced the present suit against the defendant seeking to recover from the latter an aggregate amount of P16,000 to cover moral damages and actual damages sustained as a result thereof and attorney's fees. After trial on the merits, the court below rendered the judgment in question. On the basis of these facts, the trial court found defendant liable for breach of contract of carriage and sentenced it to pay P3,000.00 for the death of the child and P400.00 as compensatory damages representing burial expenses and costs. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of contract in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was no longer a passenger of the bus involved in the incident and, therefore, the contract of carriage had already terminated. Although the Court of Appeals sustained this theory, it nevertheless found the defendantappellant guilty of quasi-delict and held the latter liable for damages, for the negligence of its driver, in accordance with Article 2180 of the Civil Code. And, the Court of Appeals did not only find the petitioner liable, but increased the damages awarded the plaintiffs-appellees to P6,000.00, instead of P3,000.00 granted by the trial court. In its brief before us, La Mallorca contends that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding it liable for quasi-delict, considering that respondents complaint was one for breach of contract, and (2) in raising the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 although respondents did not appeal from the decision of the lower court. Under the facts as found by the Court of Appeals, we have to sustain the judgement holding petitioner liable for damages for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran. It may be pointed out that although it is true that respondent Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their children (including the deceased child) had alighted from the bus at a place designated for disembarking or unloading of passengers, it was also established that the father had to return to the vehicle (which was still at a stop) to get one of his bags or bayong that was left under one of the seats of the bus. There can be no controversy that as far as the father is concerned, when he returned to the bus for his bayong which was not unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. For, the relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter, after alighting from the car, aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his

LA MALLORCA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET AL., respondents. G. E. Yabut, R. Monterey and M.C. Lagman for petitioner. Ahmed Garcia for respondents. BARRERA, J.: La Mallorca seeks the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 23267-R, holding it liable for quasi-delict and ordering it to pay to respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., P6,000.00 for the death of his minor daughter Raquel Beltran, plus P400.00 as actual damages. The facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals, briefly are: On December 20, 1953, at about noontime, plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their minor daughters, namely, Milagros, 13 years old, Raquel, about 4 years old, and Fe, over 2 years old, boarded the Pambusco Bus No. 352, bearing plate TPU No. 757 (1953 Pampanga), owned and operated by the defendant, at San Fernando, Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico, Pampanga. At the time, they were carrying with them four pieces of baggages containing their personal belonging. The conductor of the bus, who happened to be a half-brother of plaintiff Mariano Beltran, issued three tickets (Exhs. A, B, & C) covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child, Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both were below the height at which fare is charged in accordance with the appellant's rules and regulations. After about an hour's trip, the bus reached Anao whereat it stopped to allow the passengers bound therefor, among whom were the plaintiffs and their children to get off. With respect to the group of the plaintiffs, Mariano Beltran, then carrying some of their baggages, was the first to get down the bus, followed by his wife and his children. Mariano led his companions to a shaded spot on the left pedestrians side of the road about four or five meters away from the vehicle. Afterwards, he returned to the bus in controversy to get his other bayong, which he had left behind, but in so doing, his daughter Raquel followed him, unnoticed by her father. While said Mariano Beltran was on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him his bayong

baggage from the car.1 The issue to be determined here is whether as to the child, who was already led by the father to a place about 5 meters away from the bus, the liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted. It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger.2 So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.3 In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. In the first place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage. But even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Paragraph 7 of the complaint, which reads That aside from the aforesaid breach of contract, the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent, necessary to transport plaintiffs and their daughter safely as far as human care and foresight can provide in the operation of their vehicle. is clearly an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.4

The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the culpa or negligence upon which the claim was predicated when it was alleged in the complaint that "the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent." This allegation was also proved when it was established during the trial that the driver, even before receiving the proper signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the running board of the bus and near it, started to run off the vehicle. The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. And this presumption, as the Court of Appeals found, petitioner had failed to overcome. Consequently, petitioner must be adjudged peculiarily liable for the death of the child Raquel Beltran. The increase of the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 by the Court of Appeals, however, cannot be sustained. Generally, the appellate court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued in appellant's brief. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding them on P3,000.00 damages for the death of their daughter. Neither does it appear that, as appellees in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadequacy of the award, or that the inclusion of the figure P3,000.00 was merely a clerical error, in order that the matter may be treated as an exception to the general rule.5 Herein petitioner's contention, therefore, that the Court of Appeals committed error in raising the amount of the award for damages is, evidently, meritorious.1wph1.t Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified by sentencing, the petitioner to pay to the respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., the sum of P3,000.00 for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran, and the amount of P400.00 as actual damages. No costs in this instance. So ordered. G.R. No. 84458 November 6, 1989

ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH DIVISION, LUCILA C. VIANA, SPS. ANTONIO VIANA and GORGONIA VIANA, and PIONEER STEVEDORING CORPORATION, respondents. Herenio E. Martinez for petitioner. M.R. Villaluz Law Office for private respondent.

REGALADO, J.: In this appeal by certiorari, petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation seeks a review of the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals, dated July 29, 1988, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from as modified by the order of October 27, 1982, is hereby affirmed with the modification that appellant Aboitiz Shipping is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellees the amount of P30,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana; actual damages of P9,800.00; P150,000.00 for unearned income; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents;

P20,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and to pay the costs. The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent court, are as follows: . The evidence disclosed that on May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia, owned by defendant, at the port at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila, having purchased a ticket (No. 117392) in the sum of P23.10 (Exh. 'B'). On May 12, 1975, said vessel arrived at Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila, and the passengers therein disembarked, a gangplank having been provided connecting the side of the vessel to the pier. Instead of using said gangplank Anacleto Viana disembarked on the third deck which was on the level with the pier. After said vessel had landed, the Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation took over the exclusive control of the cargoes loaded on said vessel pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated July 26, 1975 (Exh. '2') between the third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation and defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. The crane owned by the third party defendant and operated by its crane operator Alejo Figueroa was placed alongside the vessel and one (1) hour after the passengers of said vessel had disembarked, it started operation by unloading the cargoes from said vessel. While the crane was being operated, Anacleto Viana who had already disembarked from said vessel obviously remembering that some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, went back to the vessel, and it was while he was pointing to the crew of the said vessel to the place where his cargoes were loaded that the crane hit him, pinning him between the side of the vessel and the crane. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where he later expired three (3) days thereafter, on May 15, 1975, the cause of his death according to the Death Certificate (Exh. "C") being "hypostatic pneumonia secondary to traumatic fracture of the pubic bone lacerating the urinary bladder" (See also Exh. "B"). For his hospitalization, medical, burial and other miscellaneous expenses, Anacleto's wife, herein plaintiff, spent a total of P9,800.00 (Exhibits "E", "E-1", to "E-5"). Anacleto Viana who was only forty (40) years old when he met said fateful accident (Exh. 'E') was in good health. His average annual income as a farmer or a farm supervisor was 400 cavans of palay annually. His parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana, prior to his death had been recipient of twenty (20) cavans of palay as support or P120.00 monthly. Because of Anacleto's death, plaintiffs suffered mental anguish and extreme worry or moral damages. For the filing of the instant case, they had to hire a lawyer for an agreed fee of ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos. 2 Private respondents Vianas filed a complaint 3 for damages against petitioner corporation (Aboitiz, for brevity) for breach of contract of carriage. In its answer. 4 Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the accident, the vessel was completely under the control of respondent Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation (Pioneer, for short) as the exclusive stevedoring contractor of Aboitiz, which handled the unloading of cargoes from the vessel of Aboitiz. It is also averred that since the crane operator was not an employee of Aboitiz, the latter cannot be held liable under the fellowservant rule. Thereafter, Aboitiz, as third-party plaintiff, filed a third-party complaint 5 against Pioneer imputing liability thereto for Anacleto Viana's death as having been allegedly caused by the negligence

of the crane operator who was an employee of Pioneer under its exclusive control and supervision. Pioneer, in its answer to the third-party complaint, 6 raised the defenses that Aboitiz had no cause of action against Pioneer considering that Aboitiz is being sued by the Vianas for breach of contract of carriage to which Pioneer is not a party; that Pioneer had observed the diligence of a good father of a family both in the selection and supervision of its employees as well as in the prevention of damage or injury to anyone including the victim Anacleto Viana; that Anacleto Viana's gross negligence was the direct and proximate cause of his death; and that the filing of the third-party complaint was premature by reason of the pendency of the criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence filed against the crane operator, Alejo Figueroa. In a decision rendered on April 17, 1980 by the trial court, 7 Aboitiz was ordered to pay the Vianas for damages incurred, and Pioneer was ordered to reimburse Aboitiz for whatever amount the latter paid the Vianas. The dispositive portion of said decision provides: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plantiffs: (1) ordering defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to pay to plaintiffs the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana P9,800.00 as actual damages; P533,200.00 value of the 10,664 cavans of palay computed at P50.00 per cavan; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; F 5,000.00, value of the 100 cavans of palay as support for five (5) years for deceased (sic) parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana computed at P50.00 per cavan; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents computed at P120.00 a month for five years pursuant to Art. 2206, Par. 2, of the Civil Code; P20,000.00 as moral damages, and costs; and (2) ordering the third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation to reimburse defendant and third party plaintiff Aboitiz Shipping Corporation the said amounts that it is ordered to pay to herein plaintiffs. Both Aboitiz and Pioneer filed separate motions for reconsideration wherein they similarly raised the trial court's failure to declare that Anacleto Viana acted with gross negligence despite the overwhelming evidence presented in support thereof. In addition, Aboitiz alleged, in opposition to Pioneer's motion, that under the memorandum of agreement the liability of Pioneer as contractor is automatic for any damages or losses whatsoever occasioned by and arising from the operation of its arrastre and stevedoring service. In an order dated October 27, 1982, 8 the trial court absolved Pioneer from liability for failure of the Vianas and Aboitiz to preponderantly establish a case of negligence against the crane operator which the court a quo ruled is never presumed, aside from the fact that the memorandum of agreement supposedly refers only to Pioneer's liability in case of loss or damage to goods handled by it but not in the case of personal injuries, and, finally that Aboitiz cannot properly invoke the fellow-servant rule simply because its liability stems from a breach of contract of carriage. The dispositive portion of said order reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby modified insofar as third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation is concerned rendered in favor of the plaintiffs-,:

(1) Ordering defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana; P9,000.00 (sic) as actual damages; P533,200.00 value of the 10,664 cavans of palay computed at P50.00 per cavan; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; P5,000.00 value of the 100 cavans of palay as support for five (5) years for deceased's parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana,computed at P50.00 per cavan; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents computed at P120.00 a month for five years pursuant to Art. 2206, Par. 2, of the Civil Code; P20,000.00 as moral damages, and costs; and (2) Absolving third-party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation for (sic) any liability for the death of Anacleto Viana the passenger of M/V Antonia owned by defendant third party plaintiff Aboitiz Shipping Corporation it appearing that the negligence of its crane operator has not been established therein. Not satisfied with the modified judgment of the trial court, Aboitiz appealed the same to respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the findings of of the trial court except as to the amount of damages awarded to the Vianas. Hence, this petition wherein petitioner Aboitiz postulates that respondent court erred: (A) In holding that the doctrine laid down by this honorable Court in La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (17 SCRA 739, July 27, 1966) is applicable to the case in the face of the undisputable fact that the factual situation under the La Mallorca case is radically different from the facts obtaining in this case; (B) In holding petitioner liable for damages in the face of the finding of the court a quo and confirmed by the Honorable respondent court of Appeals that the deceased, Anacleto Viana was guilty of contributory negligence, which, We respectfully submit contributory negligence was the proximate cause of his death; specifically the honorable respondent Court of Appeals failed to apply Art. 1762 of the New Civil Code; (C) In the alternative assuming the holding of the Honorable respondent Court of Appears that petitioner may be legally condemned to pay damages to the private respondents we respectfully submit that it committed a reversible error when it dismissed petitioner's third party complaint against private respondent Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation instead of compelling the latter to reimburse the petitioner for whatever damages it may be compelled to pay to the private respondents Vianas. 9 At threshold, it is to be observed that both the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals found the victim Anacleto Viana guilty of contributory negligence, but holding that it was the negligence of Aboitiz in prematurely turning over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes which was the direct, immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death. I. Petitioner contends that since one (1) hour had already elapsed from the time Anacleto Viana disembarked from the vessel and that he was given more than ample opportunity to unload his cargoes prior to the operation of the crane, his presence on the vessel was no longer reasonable e and he consequently ceased to be a passenger. Corollarily, it insists that the doctrine in La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 10 is not applicable to the case at bar.

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner's dock or premises. 11 Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier's conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. 12 The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage. 13 It was in accordance with this rationale that the doctrine in the aforesaid case of La Mallorca was enunciated, to wit: It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger. So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad company and its agents. In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Racquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the 'utmost diligence' of a 'very cautious person' required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. ... The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage. 14 It is apparent from the foregoing that what prompted the Court to rule as it did in said case is the fact of the passenger's reasonable presence within the carrier's premises. That reasonableness of time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case, such as the kind of common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of the time element per se without taking into account such other factors. It is thus of no moment whether in the cited case of La Mallorca there was no appreciable interregnum for the passenger therein to leave the carrier's premises whereas in the case at bar, an interval of one (1) hour had elapsed before the victim met the accident. The primary

factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near the petitioner's vessel. We believe there exists such a justifiable cause. It is of common knowledge that, by the very nature of petitioner's business as a shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of time to disembark from the ship than other common carriers such as a passenger bus. With respect to the bulk of cargoes and the number of passengers it can load, such vessels are capable of accommodating a bigger volume of both as compared to the capacity of a regular commuter bus. Consequently, a ship passenger will need at least an hour as is the usual practice, to disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage whereas a bus passenger can easily get off the bus and retrieve his luggage in a very short period of time. Verily, petitioner cannot categorically claim, through the bare expedient of comparing the period of time entailed in getting the passenger's cargoes, that the ruling in La Mallorca is inapplicable to the case at bar. On the contrary, if we are to apply the doctrine enunciated therein to the instant petition, we cannot in reason doubt that the victim Anacleto Viana was still a passenger at the time of the incident. When the accident occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes, which he had every right to do, from petitioner's vessel. As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage. It is not definitely shown that one (1) hour prior to the incident, the victim had already disembarked from the vessel. Petitioner failed to prove this. What is clear to us is that at the time the victim was taking his cargoes, the vessel had already docked an hour earlier. In consonance with common shipping procedure as to the minimum time of one (1) hour allowed for the passengers to disembark, it may be presumed that the victim had just gotten off the vessel when he went to retrieve his baggage. Yet, even if he had already disembarked an hour earlier, his presence in petitioner's premises was not without cause. The victim had to claim his baggage which was possible only one (1) hour after the vessel arrived since it was admittedly standard procedure in the case of petitioner's vessels that the unloading operations shall start only after that time. Consequently, under the foregoing circumstances, the victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of said carrier at the time of his tragic death. II. Under the law, common carriers are, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. 15 More particularly, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. 16 Thus, where a passenger dies or is injured, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. 17 This gives rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage where all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract of carriage and its nonperformance by the carrier, that is, the failure of the carrier to carry the passenger safely to his destination, 18 which, in the instant case, necessarily includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence while such relation subsists. The presumption is, therefore, established by law that in case of a passenger's death or injury the operator of the vessel was at fault or negligent, having failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, and

it is incumbent upon it to rebut the same. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to afford full protection to the passengers of common carriers which can be carried out only by imposing a stringent statutory obligation upon the latter. Concomitantly, this Court has likewise adopted a rigid posture in the application of the law by exacting the highest degree of care and diligence from common carriers, bearing utmost in mind the welfare of the passengers who often become hapless victims of indifferent and profit-oriented carriers. We cannot in reason deny that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption against it. Under the facts obtaining in the present case, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner had inadequately complied with the required degree of diligence to prevent the accident from happening. As found by the Court of Appeals, the evidence does not show that there was a cordon of drums around the perimeter of the crane, as claimed by petitioner. It also adverted to the fact that the alleged presence of visible warning signs in the vicinity was disputable and not indubitably established. Thus, we are not inclined to accept petitioner's explanation that the victim and other passengers were sufficiently warned that merely venturing into the area in question was fraught with serious peril. Definitely, even assuming the existence of the supposed cordon of drums loosely placed around the unloading area and the guard's admonitions against entry therein, these were at most insufficient precautions which pale into insignificance if considered vis-a-vis the gravity of the danger to which the deceased was exposed. There is no showing that petitioner was extraordinarily diligent in requiring or seeing to it that said precautionary measures were strictly and actually enforced to subserve their purpose of preventing entry into the forbidden area. By no stretch of liberal evaluation can such perfunctory acts approximate the "utmost diligence of very cautious persons" to be exercised "as far as human care and foresight can provide" which is required by law of common carriers with respect to their passengers. While the victim was admittedly contributorily negligent, still petitioner's aforesaid failure to exercise extraordinary diligence was the proximate and direct cause of, because it could definitely have prevented, the former's death. Moreover, in paragraph 5.6 of its petition, at bar, 19 petitioner has expressly conceded the factual finding of respondent Court of Appeals that petitioner did not present sufficient evidence in support of its submission that the deceased Anacleto Viana was guilty of gross negligence. Petitioner cannot now be heard to claim otherwise. No excepting circumstance being present, we are likewise bound by respondent court's declaration that there was no negligence on the part of Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation, a confirmation of the trial court's finding to that effect, hence our conformity to Pioneer's being absolved of any liability. As correctly observed by both courts, Aboitiz joined Pioneer in proving the alleged gross negligence of the victim, hence its present contention that the death of the passenger was due to the negligence of the crane operator cannot be sustained both on grounds, of estoppel and for lack of evidence on its present theory. Even in its answer filed in the court below it readily alleged that Pioneer had taken the necessary safeguards insofar as its unloading operations were concerned, a fact which appears to have been accepted by the plaintiff therein by not impleading Pioneer as a defendant, and likewise inceptively by Aboitiz by filing its third-party complaint only after ten (10) months from the institution of the suit against it. Parenthetically, Pioneer is not within the ambit of the rule on extraordinary diligence required of, and the corresponding presumption of negligence foisted on,

common carriers like Aboitiz. This, of course, does not detract from what we have said that no negligence can be imputed to Pioneer but, that on the contrary, the failure of Aboitiz to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passenger is the rationale for our finding on its liability. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-30309

November 25, 1983

CLEMENTE BRIAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Mariano R. Abad for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondents.

the old woman and her granddaughter among the passengers. At Hondagua the train's complement were relieved, with Victor Millan taking over as engineman, Clemente Brias as conductor, and Hermogenes Buencamino as assistant conductor. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag in Tiaong at about 8:00 p.m. of that same night, the train slowed down and the conductor shouted 'Lusacan', 'Lusacan'. Thereupon, the old woman walked towards the left front door facing the direction of Tiaong, carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other. When Martina and Emelita were near the door, the train suddenly picked up speed. As a result the old woman and the child stumbled and they were seen no more. It took three minutes more before the train stopped at the next barrio, Lusacan, and the victims were not among the passengers who disembarked thereat .t.hqw Next morning, the Tiaong police received a report that two corpses were found along the railroad tracks at Barrio Lagalag. Repairing to the scene to investigate, they found the lifeless body of a female child, about 2 feet from the railroad tracks, sprawled to the ground with her belly down, the hand resting on the forehead, and with the back portion of the head crushed. The investigators also found the corpse of an old woman about 2 feet away from the railroad tracks with the head and both legs severed and the left hand missing. The head was located farther west between the rails. An arm was found midway from the body of the child to the body of the old woman. Blood, pieces of scattered brain and pieces of clothes were at the scene. Later, the bodies were Identified as those of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. Among the personal effects found on Martina was a train ticket (Exhibits "B"). On January 7, 1957, the bodies of the deceased were autopsied by Dr. Pastor Huertas, the Municipal Health Officer of Tiaong. Dr. Huertas testified on the cause of death of the victims as follows: t.hqw FISCAL YNGENTE: Q What could have caused the death of those women? A Shock.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, now Intermediate Appellate Court, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ninth Judicial District, Branch 1, which found the accused Clemente Brias guilty of the crime of DOUBLE HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE prior the deaths of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. The information charged the accused-appellant. and others as follows: That on or about the 6th day of January, 1957, in the Municipality of Tiaong, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the said accused Victor Milan, Clemente Brias and Hermogenes Buencamino, being then persons in charge of passenger Train No. 522-6 of the Manila Railroad Company, then running from Tagkawayan to San Pablo City, as engine driver, conductor and assistant conductor, respectively, wilfully and unlawfully drove and operated the same in a negligent, careless and imprudent manner, without due regard to existing laws, regulations and ordinances, that although there were passengers on board the passenger coach, they failed to provide lamps or lights therein, and failed to take the necessary precautions for the safety of passengers and to prevent accident to persons and damage to property, causing by such negligence, carelessness and imprudence, that when said passenger Train No. 522-6 was passing the railroad tracks in the Municipality of Tiaong, Quezon, two of its passengers, Martina Bool, an old woman, and Emelita Gesmundo, a child about three years of age, fell from the passenger coach of the said train, as a result of which, they were over run, causing their instantaneous death. " The facts established by the prosecution and accepted by the respondent court as basis for the decision are summarized as follows: The evidence of the prosecution tends to show that in the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the railroad station in Tagkawayan, Quezon for his 55year old mother Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo, who were bound for Barrio Lusacan, Tiaong, same province. At about 2:00 p.m., Train No. 522 left Tagkawayan with

Q What could have caused that shock? A Q A Q Traumatic injury. What could have caused traumatic injury? The running over by the wheel of the train. With those injuries, has a person a chance to survive?

A No chance to survive. Q A What would you say death would come? Instantaneous.

Q How about the girl, the young girl about four years old, what could have caused the death? A Q Shock too. What could have caused the shock?

A brain.

Compound fracture of the skull and going out of the

We see no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from those findings. It is undisputed that the victims were on board the second coach where the petitioner-appellant was assigned as conductor and that when the train slackened its speed and the conductor shouted "Lusacan, Lusacan", they stood up and proceeded to the nearest exit. It is also undisputed that the train unexpectedly resumed its regular speed and as a result "the old woman and the child stumbled and they were seen no more. In finding petitioner-appellant negligent, respondent Court t.hqw xxx xxx xxx

Q What could have caused the fracture of the skull and the going out of the brain? A That is the impact against a steel object. (TSN., pp. 8182, July 1, 1959) The Court of First Instance of Quezon convicted defendantappellant Clemente Brias for double homicide thru reckless imprudence but acquitted Hermogenes Buencamino and Victor Millan The dispositive portion of the decision reads: t.hqw WHEREFORE, the court finds the defendant Clemente Brias guilty beyond doubt of the crime of double homicide thru reckless imprudence, defined and punished under Article 305 in connection with Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo in the amounts of P6,000 and P3,000, respectively, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. For lack of sufficient evidence against the defendant Hermogenes Buencamino and on the ground of reasonable doubt in the case of defendant Victor Millan the court hereby acquits them of the crime charged in the information and their bail bonds declared cancelled. As to the responsibility of the Manila Railroad Company in this case, this will be the subject of court determination in another proceeding. On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court. During the pendency of the criminal prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, the heirs of the deceased victims filed with the same court, a separate civil action for damages against the Manila Railroad Company entitled "Civil Case No. 5978, Manaleyo Gesmundo, et al., v. Manila Railroad Company". The separate civil action was filed for the recovery of P30,350.00 from the Manila Railroad Company as damages resulting from the accident. The accused-appellant alleges that the Court of Appeals made the following errors in its decision: I t.hqw THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING PETITIONER-APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AS FOUND BY SAID COURT; and II t.hqw THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF DEATH INDEMNITY BY THE PETITIONER- APPELLANT, WITH SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY, AFTER THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED HAVE ALREADY COMMENCED A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY ARISING FROM THE SAME MISHAP.

The appellant's announcement was premature and erroneous, for it took a full three minutes more before the next barrio of Lusacan was reached. In making the erroneous and premature announcement, appellant was negligent. He ought to have known that train passengers invariably prepare to alight upon notice from the conductor that the destination was reached and that the train was about to stop. Upon the facts, it was the appellant's negligent act which led the victims to the door. Said acts virtually exposed the victims to peril, for had not the appellant mistakenly made the announcement, the victims would be safely ensconced in their seats when the train jerked while picking up speed, Although it might be argued that the negligent act of the appellant was not the immediate cause of, or the cause nearest in time to, the injury, for the train jerked before the victims stumbled, yet in legal contemplation appellant's negligent act was the proximate cause of the injury. As this Court held in Tucker v. Milan, CA G.R. No. 7059-R, June 3, 1953: 'The proximate cause of the injury is not necessarily the immediate cause of, or the cause nearest in time to, the injury. It is only when the causes are independent of each other that the nearest is to be charged with the disaster. So long as there is a natural, direct and continuous sequence between the negligent act the injury (sic) that it can reasonably be said that but for the act the injury could not have occurred, such negligent act is the proximate cause of the injury, and whoever is responsible therefore is liable for damages resulting therefrom. One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible intervenes to precipitate the loss. xxx xxx xxx

It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed, some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark, there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped. It was negligence on the conductor's part to announce the next flag stop when said stop was still a full three minutes ahead. As the respondent Court of Appeals correctly observed, "the appellant's announcement was premature and erroneous.

That the announcement was premature and erroneous is shown by the fact that immediately after the train slowed down, it unexpectedly accelerated to full speed. Petitioner-appellant failed to show any reason why the train suddenly resumed its regular speed. The announcement was made while the train was still in Barrio Lagalag. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner' appelant Brias. This announcement prompted the victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it picked up speed. The connection between the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant and the deaths of the victims is direct and natural, unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. Petitioner-appellant also argues that it was negligence per se for Martina Bool to go to the door of the coach while the train was still in motion and that it was this negligence that was the proximate cause of their deaths. We have carefully examined the records and we agree with the respondent court that the negligence of petitioner-appellant in prematurely and erroneously announcing the next flag stop was the proximate cause of the deaths of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. Any negligence of the victims was at most contributory and does not exculpate the accused from criminal liability. With respect to the second assignment of error, the petitioner argues that after the heirs of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo had actually commenced the separate civil action for damages in the same trial court during the pendency of the criminal action, the said court had no more power to include any civil liability in its judgment of conviction. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No. 5978 is culpa contractual, not an act or omission punishable by law. We also note from the appellant's arguments and from the title of the civil case that the party defendant is the Manila Railroad Company and not petitioner-appellant Brias Culpa contractual and an act or omission punishable by law are two distinct sources of obligation. The petitioner-appellant argues that since the information did not allege the existence of any kind of damages whatsoever coupled by the fact that no private prosecutors appeared and the prosecution witnesses were not interrogated on the issue of damages, the trial court erred in awarding death indemnity in its judgment of conviction. A perusal of the records clearly shows that the complainants in the criminal action for double homicide thru reckless imprudence did not only reserve their right to file an independent civil action but in fact filed a separate civil action against the Manila Railroad Company. The trial court acted within its jurisdiction when, despite the filing with it of the separate civil action against the Manila Railroad Company, it still awarded death indemnity in the judgment of conviction against the petitioner-appellant. It is well-settled that when death occurs as a result of the commission of a crime, the following items of damages may be recovered: (1) an indemnity for the death of the victim; (2) an

indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and (6) interest in proper cases. The indemnity for loss of earning capacity, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and interests are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed slim of P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death. This indemnity arising from the fact of death due to a crime is fixed whereas the others are still subject to the determination of the court based on the evidence presented. The fact that the witnesses were not interrogated on the issue of damages is of no moment because the death indemnity fixed for death is separate and distinct from the other forms of indemnity for damages. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in that the award for death indemnity is increased to P12,000.00 for the death of Martina Bool instead of P6,000.00 and P12,000.00 for the death of Emelita Gesmundo instead of P3,000.00, but deleting the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency imposed by the lower court. The judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983

CLEMENTE BRIAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Mariano R. Abad for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, now Intermediate Appellate Court, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ninth Judicial District, Branch 1, which found the accused Clemente Brias guilty of the crime of DOUBLE HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE prior the deaths of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. The information charged the accused-appellant. and others as follows: That on or about the 6th day of January, 1957, in the Municipality of Tiaong, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the said accused Victor Milan, Clemente Brias and Hermogenes Buencamino, being then persons in charge of passenger Train No. 522-6 of the Manila Railroad Company, then running from Tagkawayan to San Pablo City, as engine driver, conductor and assistant conductor, respectively, wilfully and unlawfully drove and operated the same in a negligent, careless and imprudent manner, without due regard to existing laws, regulations and ordinances, that although there were passengers on board the passenger coach, they failed to provide lamps or lights therein, and failed to take the necessary precautions for the safety of passengers and to prevent accident to persons and damage to property, causing by such negligence, carelessness and imprudence, that when said passenger Train No. 522-6 was passing the railroad tracks in the Municipality of

Tiaong, Quezon, two of its passengers, Martina Bool, an old woman, and Emelita Gesmundo, a child about three years of age, fell from the passenger coach of the said train, as a result of which, they were over run, causing their instantaneous death. " The facts established by the prosecution and accepted by the respondent court as basis for the decision are summarized as follows: The evidence of the prosecution tends to show that in the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the railroad station in Tagkawayan, Quezon for his 55year old mother Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo, who were bound for Barrio Lusacan, Tiaong, same province. At about 2:00 p.m., Train No. 522 left Tagkawayan with the old woman and her granddaughter among the passengers. At Hondagua the train's complement were relieved, with Victor Millan taking over as engineman, Clemente Brias as conductor, and Hermogenes Buencamino as assistant conductor. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag in Tiaong at about 8:00 p.m. of that same night, the train slowed down and the conductor shouted 'Lusacan', 'Lusacan'. Thereupon, the old woman walked towards the left front door facing the direction of Tiaong, carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other. When Martina and Emelita were near the door, the train suddenly picked up speed. As a result the old woman and the child stumbled and they were seen no more. It took three minutes more before the train stopped at the next barrio, Lusacan, and the victims were not among the passengers who disembarked thereat .t.hqw Next morning, the Tiaong police received a report that two corpses were found along the railroad tracks at Barrio Lagalag. Repairing to the scene to investigate, they found the lifeless body of a female child, about 2 feet from the railroad tracks, sprawled to the ground with her belly down, the hand resting on the forehead, and with the back portion of the head crushed. The investigators also found the corpse of an old woman about 2 feet away from the railroad tracks with the head and both legs severed and the left hand missing. The head was located farther west between the rails. An arm was found midway from the body of the child to the body of the old woman. Blood, pieces of scattered brain and pieces of clothes were at the scene. Later, the bodies were Identified as those of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. Among the personal effects found on Martina was a train ticket (Exhibits "B"). On January 7, 1957, the bodies of the deceased were autopsied by Dr. Pastor Huertas, the Municipal Health Officer of Tiaong. Dr. Huertas testified on the cause of death of the victims as follows: t.hqw FISCAL YNGENTE: Q What could have caused the death of those women? A Shock.

With those injuries, has a person a chance to survive?

A No chance to survive. Q A What would you say death would come? Instantaneous.

Q How about the girl, the young girl about four years old, what could have caused the death? A Q A brain. Shock too. What could have caused the shock? Compound fracture of the skull and going out of the

Q What could have caused the fracture of the skull and the going out of the brain? A That is the impact against a steel object. (TSN., pp. 8182, July 1, 1959) The Court of First Instance of Quezon convicted defendantappellant Clemente Brias for double homicide thru reckless imprudence but acquitted Hermogenes Buencamino and Victor Millan The dispositive portion of the decision reads: t.hqw WHEREFORE, the court finds the defendant Clemente Brias guilty beyond doubt of the crime of double homicide thru reckless imprudence, defined and punished under Article 305 in connection with Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences him to suffer six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo in the amounts of P6,000 and P3,000, respectively, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. For lack of sufficient evidence against the defendant Hermogenes Buencamino and on the ground of reasonable doubt in the case of defendant Victor Millan the court hereby acquits them of the crime charged in the information and their bail bonds declared cancelled. As to the responsibility of the Manila Railroad Company in this case, this will be the subject of court determination in another proceeding. On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court. During the pendency of the criminal prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, the heirs of the deceased victims filed with the same court, a separate civil action for damages against the Manila Railroad Company entitled "Civil Case No. 5978, Manaleyo Gesmundo, et al., v. Manila Railroad Company". The separate civil action was filed for the recovery of P30,350.00 from the Manila Railroad Company as damages resulting from the accident. The accused-appellant alleges that the Court of Appeals made the following errors in its decision: I t.hqw

Q What could have caused that shock? A Q A Traumatic injury. What could have caused traumatic injury? The running over by the wheel of the train.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING PETITIONER-APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AS FOUND BY SAID COURT; and II t.hqw THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF DEATH INDEMNITY BY THE PETITIONER- APPELLANT, WITH SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY, AFTER THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED HAVE ALREADY COMMENCED A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY ARISING FROM THE SAME MISHAP. We see no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from those findings. It is undisputed that the victims were on board the second coach where the petitioner-appellant was assigned as conductor and that when the train slackened its speed and the conductor shouted "Lusacan, Lusacan", they stood up and proceeded to the nearest exit. It is also undisputed that the train unexpectedly resumed its regular speed and as a result "the old woman and the child stumbled and they were seen no more. In finding petitioner-appellant negligent, respondent Court t.hqw xxx xxx xxx

the name of the place. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed, some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark, there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped. It was negligence on the conductor's part to announce the next flag stop when said stop was still a full three minutes ahead. As the respondent Court of Appeals correctly observed, "the appellant's announcement was premature and erroneous. That the announcement was premature and erroneous is shown by the fact that immediately after the train slowed down, it unexpectedly accelerated to full speed. Petitioner-appellant failed to show any reason why the train suddenly resumed its regular speed. The announcement was made while the train was still in Barrio Lagalag. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner' appelant Brias. This announcement prompted the victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it picked up speed. The connection between the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant and the deaths of the victims is direct and natural, unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. Petitioner-appellant also argues that it was negligence per se for Martina Bool to go to the door of the coach while the train was still in motion and that it was this negligence that was the proximate cause of their deaths. We have carefully examined the records and we agree with the respondent court that the negligence of petitioner-appellant in prematurely and erroneously announcing the next flag stop was the proximate cause of the deaths of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo. Any negligence of the victims was at most contributory and does not exculpate the accused from criminal liability. With respect to the second assignment of error, the petitioner argues that after the heirs of Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo had actually commenced the separate civil action for damages in the same trial court during the pendency of the criminal action, the said court had no more power to include any civil liability in its judgment of conviction. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No. 5978 is culpa contractual, not an act or omission punishable by law. We also note from the appellant's arguments and from the title of the civil case that the party defendant is the Manila Railroad Company and not petitioner-appellant Brias Culpa contractual and an act or omission punishable by law are two distinct sources of obligation. The petitioner-appellant argues that since the information did not allege the existence of any kind of damages whatsoever coupled by the fact that no private prosecutors appeared and the prosecution witnesses were not interrogated on the issue of damages, the trial court erred in awarding death indemnity in its judgment of conviction.

The appellant's announcement was premature and erroneous, for it took a full three minutes more before the next barrio of Lusacan was reached. In making the erroneous and premature announcement, appellant was negligent. He ought to have known that train passengers invariably prepare to alight upon notice from the conductor that the destination was reached and that the train was about to stop. Upon the facts, it was the appellant's negligent act which led the victims to the door. Said acts virtually exposed the victims to peril, for had not the appellant mistakenly made the announcement, the victims would be safely ensconced in their seats when the train jerked while picking up speed, Although it might be argued that the negligent act of the appellant was not the immediate cause of, or the cause nearest in time to, the injury, for the train jerked before the victims stumbled, yet in legal contemplation appellant's negligent act was the proximate cause of the injury. As this Court held in Tucker v. Milan, CA G.R. No. 7059-R, June 3, 1953: 'The proximate cause of the injury is not necessarily the immediate cause of, or the cause nearest in time to, the injury. It is only when the causes are independent of each other that the nearest is to be charged with the disaster. So long as there is a natural, direct and continuous sequence between the negligent act the injury (sic) that it can reasonably be said that but for the act the injury could not have occurred, such negligent act is the proximate cause of the injury, and whoever is responsible therefore is liable for damages resulting therefrom. One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible intervenes to precipitate the loss. xxx xxx xxx

It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces

A perusal of the records clearly shows that the complainants in the criminal action for double homicide thru reckless imprudence did not only reserve their right to file an independent civil action but in fact filed a separate civil action against the Manila Railroad Company. The trial court acted within its jurisdiction when, despite the filing with it of the separate civil action against the Manila Railroad Company, it still awarded death indemnity in the judgment of conviction against the petitioner-appellant. It is well-settled that when death occurs as a result of the commission of a crime, the following items of damages may be recovered: (1) an indemnity for the death of the victim; (2) an indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and (6) interest in proper cases. The indemnity for loss of earning capacity, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and interests are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed slim of P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death. This indemnity arising from the fact of death due to a crime is fixed whereas the others are still subject to the determination of the court based on the evidence presented. The fact that the witnesses were not interrogated on the issue of damages is of no moment because the death indemnity fixed for death is separate and distinct from the other forms of indemnity for damages. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in that the award for death indemnity is increased to P12,000.00 for the death of Martina Bool instead of P6,000.00 and P12,000.00 for the death of Emelita Gesmundo instead of P3,000.00, but deleting the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency imposed by the lower court. The judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 52159

City on 16 September 1971 at about 6:00 P.M. While said bus No. 409 was in due course negotiating the distance between Iriga City and Naga City, upon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, on the way to Naga City, an unidentified man, a bystander along said national highway, hurled a stone at the left side of the bus, which hit petitioner above his left eye. Private respondent's personnel lost no time in bringing the petitioner to the provincial hospital in Naga City where he was confined and treated. Considering that the sight of his left eye was impaired, petitioner was taken to Dr. Malabanan of Iriga City where he was treated for another week. Since there was no improvement in his left eye's vision, petitioner went to V. Luna Hospital, Quezon City where he was treated by Dr. Capulong. Despite the treatment accorded to him by Dr. Capulong, petitioner lost partially his left eye's vision and sustained a permanent scar above the left eye. Thereupon, petitioner instituted before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I an action for recovery of damages sustained as a result of the stone-throwing incident. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment with the following dispositive part: Wherefore, judgment is hereby entered: 1. Ordering defendant transportation company to pay plaintiff Jose Pilapil the sum of P 10,000.00, Philippine Currency, representing actual and material damages for causing a permanent scar on the face and injuring the eye-sight of the plaintiff; 2. Ordering further defendant transportation company to pay the sum of P 5,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the plaintiff as moral and exemplary damages; 3. Ordering furthermore, defendant transportation company to reimburse plaintiff the sum of P 300.00 for his medical expenses and attorney's fees in the sum of P 1,000.00, Philippine Currency; and 4. To pay the costs.

December 22, 1989

JOSE PILAPIL, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALATCO TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., respondents. Martin Badong, Jr. for petitioner. Eufronio K. Maristela for private respondent.

SO ORDERED 1 From the judgment, private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals where the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 57354R. On 19 October 1979, the Court of Appeals, in a Special Division of Five, rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the judgment of the court a quo. Hence the present petition. In seeking a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner contends that said court has decided the issue not in accord with law. Specifically, petitioner argues that the nature of the business of a transportation company requires the assumption of certain risks, and the stoning of the bus by a stranger resulting in injury to petitioner-passenger is one such risk from which the common carrier may not exempt itself from liability. We do not agree. In consideration of the right granted to it by the public to engage in the business of transporting passengers and goods, a common

PADILLA, J.: This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision* rendered by the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1979 in CA-G.R. No. 57354-R entitled "Jose Pilapil, plaintiff-appellee versus Alatco Transportation Co., Inc., defendant-appellant," which reversed and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. 7230 ordering respondent transportation company to pay to petitioner damages in the total sum of sixteen thousand three hundred pesos (P 16,300.00). The record discloses the following facts: Petitioner-plaintiff Jose Pilapil, a paying passenger, boarded respondent-defendant's bus bearing No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga

carrier does not give its consent to become an insurer of any and all risks to passengers and goods. It merely undertakes to perform certain duties to the public as the law imposes, and holds itself liable for any breach thereof. Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are required to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passenger transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. The requirement of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is restated in Article 1755: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances." Further, in case of death of or injuries to passengers, the law presumes said common carriers to be at fault or to have acted negligently. 2 While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. 3 Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide. what constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances. Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured, merely relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to fasten the negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event. 4 In fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission and Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common carriers in the conduct of their business. Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires. 5 Petitioner contends that respondent common carrier failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it by proof on its part that it exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers. We do not agree. First, as stated earlier, the presumption of fault or negligence against the carrier is only a disputable presumption. It gives in where contrary facts are established proving either that the carrier had exercised the degree of diligence required by law or the injury suffered by the passenger was due to a fortuitous event. Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner was in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting or to the negligent or willful acts of private respondent's employees, and therefore

involving no issue of negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the injury arising wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or even knowledge or could not have prevented, the presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not and ought not to be held liable. To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers which is not the intention of the lawmakers. Second, while as a general rule, common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the safe transport of their passengers, it would seem that this is not the standard by which its liability is to be determined when intervening acts of strangers is to be determined directly cause the injury, while the contract of carriage Article 1763 governs: Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. Clearly under the above provision, a tort committed by a stranger which causes injury to a passenger does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier. The negligence for which a common carrier is held responsible is the negligent omission by the carrier's employees to prevent the tort from being committed when the same could have been foreseen and prevented by them. Further, under the same provision, it is to be noted that when the violation of the contract is due to the willful acts of strangers, as in the instant case, the degree of care essential to be exercised by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is only that of a good father of a family. Petitioner has charged respondent carrier of negligence on the ground that the injury complained of could have been prevented by the common carrier if something like mesh-work grills had covered the windows of its bus. We do not agree. Although the suggested precaution could have prevented the injury complained of, the rule of ordinary care and prudence is not so exacting as to require one charged with its exercise to take doubtful or unreasonable precautions to guard against unlawful acts of strangers. The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining vehicles as to absolutely prevent any and all injuries to passengers. Where the carrier uses cars of the most approved type, in general use by others engaged in the same occupation, and exercises a high degree of care in maintaining them in suitable condition, the carrier cannot be charged with negligence in this respect. 6 Finally, petitioner contends that it is to the greater interest of the State if a carrier were made liable for such stone-throwing incidents rather than have the bus riding public lose confidence in the transportation system. Sad to say, we are not in a position to so hold; such a policy would be better left to the consideration of Congress which is empowered to enact laws to protect the public from the increasing risks and dangers of lawlessness in society. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. 74387-90

November 14, 1988

all interposed counterclaims against the plaintiffs and crossclaims against each other. After trial on the merits, the lower court exonerated defendants Superlines and its driver Dasco from liability and attributed sole responsibility to defendants BLTB and its driver Pon, and ordered them jointly and severally to pay damages to the plaintiffs. Defendants BLTB and Armando Pon appealed from the decision of the lower court to respondent appellate court which affirmed with modification the judgment of the lower court as earlier stated. Hence, this petition to review by certiorari of defendant BLTB assigning a lone error, to wit: THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN ADJUDGING THAT THE ACTIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE BASED ON CULPA CONTRACTUAL. (p. 12, Rollo)

BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY & ARMANDO PON, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE HEIRS OF PAZ VDA. DE PAMFILO, THE HEIRS OF NORMA NERI, and BAYLON SALES and NENA VDA. DE ROSALES, respondents. Sibal, Custodia, Santos & Nofuente for petitioners. Restituto L. Opis for respondents Pamfilos and Rosaleses. Citizens Legal Assistance Office for N. Neri and Baylon Sales.

PARAS, J.: Before Us is a Petition to Review by Certiorari, the decision 1 of the respondent appellate court which affirmed with modification the joint decision of the trial court in four (4) cases involving similar facts and issues, finding favorably for the plaintiffs (private respondents herein), the dispositive portion of said appellate judgment reading as follows: WHEREFORE, with the modification that the death indemnity is raised to P30,000.00 to each set of the victims' heirs, the rest of the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs against the defendants-appellants. SO ORDERED. (p. 20, Rollo) From the records of the case We have gathered the following antecedent facts: The collision between Bus No. 1046 of the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB, for brevity) driven by Armando Pon and Bus No. 404 of Superlines Transportation Company (Superlines, for brevity) driven by Ruben Dasco took place at the highway traversing Barangay Isabong, Tayabas, Quezon in the afternoon of August 11, 1978, which collision resulted in the death of Aniceto Rosales, Francisco Pamfilo and Romeo Neri and in several injuries to Nena Rosales (wife of Anecito) and Baylon Sales, all passengers of the BLTB Bus No. 1046. The evidence shows that as BLTB Bus No. 1046 was negotiating the bend of the highway, it tried to overtake a Ford Fiera car just as Bus No. 404 of Superlines was coming from the opposite direction. Seeing thus, Armando Pon (driver of the BLTB Bus) made a belated attempt to slacken the speed of his bus and tried to return to his proper lane. It was an unsuccessful try as the two (2) buses collided with each other. Nena Vda. de Rosales and Baylon Sales and the surviving heirs of the deceased Francisco Pamfilo, Aniceto Rosales and Romeo Neri instituted separate cases in the Court of First Instance of Marinduque against BLTB and Superlines together with their respective drivers praying for damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses plus costs. Criminal cases against the drivers of the two buses were filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon. Defendants BLTB and Superlines, together with their drivers Pon and Dasco, denied liability by claiming that they exercised due care and diligence and shifted the fault, against each other. They It is argued by petitioners that if the intention of private respondents were to file an action based on culpa contractual or breach of contract of carriage, they could have done so by merely impleading BLTB and its driver Pon. As it was in the trial court, private respondents filed an action against all the defendants basing their action on culpa aquiliana or tort. Petitioners' contentions deserve no merit. A reading of the respondent court's decision shows that it anchored petitioners' liability both on culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana, to wit: The proximate cause of the collision resulting in the death of three and injuries to two of the passengers of BLTB was the negligence of the driver of the BLTB bus, who recklessly operated and drove said bus by overtaking a Ford Fiera car as he was negotiating the ascending bend of the highway (tsn, October 4, 1979, pp. 9-10, 35, 36, 61; Exhibit 6 Superlines, p. 47) which was divided into two lanes by a continuous yellow strip (tsn, October 4, 1979, p. 36). The driver of the BLTB bus admitted in his crossexamination that the continuous yellow line on the ascending bend of the highway signifies a no-overtaking zone (tsn, October 4, 1979, p. 36). It is no surprise then that the driver of the Superlines bus was exonerated by the lower court. He had a valid reason to presuppose that no one would overtake in such a dangerous situation. These facts show that patient imprudence of the BLTB driver. It is well settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in ordinary situation has the duty to see that the road is clear and not to proceed if he can not do so in safety (People v. Enriquez, 40 O.G. No. 5, 984). ... Before attempting to pass the vehicle ahead, the rear driver must see that the road is clear and if there is no sufficient room for a safe passage, or the driver ahead does not turn out so as to afford opportunity to pass, or if, after attempting to pass, the driver of the overtaking vehicle finds that he cannot make the passage in safety, the latter must slacken his speed so as to avoid the danger of a collision, even bringing his car to a stop if necessary. (3-4 Huddy Encyclopedia of Automobile Law, Sec. 212, p. 195). The above rule becomes more particularly applicable in this case when the overtaking took place on an ascending curved highway divided into two lanes by a continuous yellow line. Appellant Pon should have remembered that:

When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve there is special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver has not the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car is approaching from the opposite direction comes into view. (42 C.J. 42 906). Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (Art. 2165, Civil Code). In failing to observe these simple precautions, BLTB's driver undoubtedly failed to act with the diligence demanded by the circumstances. We now come to the subject of liability of the appellants. For his own negligence in recklessly driving the truck owned by his employer, appellant Armando Pon is primarily liable (Article 2176, Civil Code).<re||an1w> On the other hand the liability of Pon's employer, appellant BLTB, is also primary, direct and immediate in view of the fact that the death of or injuries to its passengers was through the negligence of its employee (Marahan v. Mendoza, 24 SCRA 888, 894), and such liability does not cease even upon proof that BLTB had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees (Article 1759, Civil Code). The common carrier's liability for the death of or injuries to its passengers is based on its contractual obligation to carry its passengers safely to their destination. That obligation is so serious that the Civil Code requires "utmost diligence of very cautious person (Article 1755, Civil Code). They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they have observed extraordinary diligence" (Article 1756, Civil Code). In the present case, the appellants have failed to prove extraordinary diligence. Indeed, this legal presumption was confirmed by the fact that the bus driver of BLTB was negligent. It must follow that both the driver and the owner must answer for injuries or death to its passengers. The liability of BLTB is also solidarily with its driver (Viluan v. Court of Appeals, 16 SCRA 742, 747) even though the liability of the driver springs from quasi delict while that of the bus company from contract. (pp. 17-19, Rollo) Conclusively therefore in consideration of the foregoing findings of the respondent appellate court it is settled that the proximate cause of the collision resulting in the death of three and injuries to two of the passengers of BLTB was the sole negligence of the driver of the BLTB Bus, who recklessly operated and drove said bus in a lane where overtaking is not allowed by Traffic Rules and Regulations. Such negligence and recklessness is binding against petitioner BLTB, more so when We consider the fact that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of the damages sought by the passenger. By the contract of carriage, the carrier BLTB assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier (Art. 1756, New Civil Code).

Petitioners also contend that "a common carrier is not an absolute insurer against all risks of travel and are not liable for acts or accidents which cannot be foreseen or inevitable and that responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of its passenger prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code is not susceptible of a precise and definite formulation." (p. 13, Rollo) Petitioners' contention holds no water because they had totally failed to point out any factual basis for their defense of force majeure in the light of the undisputed fact that the cause of the collision was the sole negligence and recklessness of petitioner Armando Pon. For the defense of force majeure or act of God to prosper the accident must be due to natural causes and exclusively without human intervention. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED G.R. No. 75308 LOPE SARREAL, SR., vs. JAPAN AIRLINES CO., LTD., and HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT, respondents. March 23, 1992

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for a review of the Intermediate appelate Court's (now the Court of Appeals) decision promulgated on April 9, 1986, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial court dated April 11, 1984. The facts are as follows: The petitioner alleged in his complaint that the is a prominent international boxing matchmaker and business manager of world champion boxers which require him to take frequent international trips. On September 14, 1979, the petitioner purchased in Bangkok from private respondent Japan Air Lines (JAL) ticket no. 131-4442517-368, having various foreign destinations from Bangkok and back to Bangkok. On or about June 23, 1980, he was in Los Angleles, USA with his business representative Atty. Pol Tiglao, and Luis Espada, the boxing manager of World Flyweight Boxing Champion Hilario Zapata. They were negotiating a possible match between the latter and the winner of the " Netrnoi Vorasing - Brigildo Caada" main event fight which was scheduled on July 4, 1980 in Manila. This agreement was to be confirmed by the petitioner through overseas call in Manila on or before July 2, 1980. The petitioner then flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo arriving thereat on June 26, 1980. At the Narita Airport Office, the petitioner inquired if there was a JAL flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2, 1980. He explained to a lady employee of JAL that he had a very important business in Manila on July 2, 1980. He also told her that if he could not take a

flight from Bangkok to Manila on that date, he would not be going to Bangkok anymore. The JAL lady employee looked into her scheduled book put a stamp on the petitioner's ticket and told him not to worry because she has endorsed his JAL ticket to Thai International leaving Bangkok on July 2, 1980 for Manila. Relying on the assurance of the lady employee, the petitioner then proceeded to Bangkok. However, in the morning of July 2, 1980, when the petitioner was about to board the said Thai International, he was not allowed to board the said plane through it had available seats because he was told that his ticket was not endorseable. Since the petitioner failed to reach Manila by July 2, 1980, Espada cancelled his transaction with the petitioner and decided to have the champion fight in Japan instead. Had the petitioner been able to reach Manila on July 2, 1980, he could have confirmed the world championship match between the winner Vorasing and the champion Zapata from which Vorasing and the champion Zapata from which Vorasing could have earned at least US$20,000.00, twenty percent (20%) of which was equivalent to US$4,000.00 or approximately P30,000.00 which could have received by him and had the said world title fight been realized, petitioner would have earned around $120,000.00 net or approximately P900,000.00. (Rollo, p. 39) This led the petitioner to file an action for damages with the Regional Trail Court (RTC ), Pasay City against private respondent JAL premised on the breach of contract of carriage. On April 11, 1984, the RTC of Pasay City rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Japan Air Lines to pay plaintiff the following amounts: a) $20,000.00 or its pesos equivalent with legal rate of interest thereon from the time of filing of the complaint until the same is fully paid; b) c) d) e) P50,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; P10,00.00 for and as attorney's fees; and the costs of suit.

discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction in issuing its aforesaid Decision and the Resolution in question. At the outset, it appears that the above-stated issues involve a review of the factual findings of the respondent court which this Court is not prepared to do under the circumstances of this case. It is a long established and well observed axiom that subject only to a view clearly defined exceptions, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on this court and are not reviewable by it. (Lauron v. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 215 {1990]; Social Security System v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 1 {1989]; Rizal Cement Co., Inc. v. Villareal, 135 SCRA 15 [1985] In finding for the petitioner, the lower court held that JAL through the lady employee at Narita Airport had endorsed petitioner's ticket to Thai International on its July 2, 1980 10:30 A.M. scheduled flight. Assuming that petitioner's ticket was not at all endorsed to Thai International, the petitioner was nevertheless assured of a seat in Thai International by the JAL lady employee. JAL was held liable for breaching the contract of carriage entered into when it issued the ticket to the petitioner. JAL undertook the obligation to carry petitioner to his destination. The trial court ruled that since on July 2, 1980, JAL had no flight schedule from Bangkok to Manila, the request made by the lady employee of JAL to Thai International to accommodate petitioner in the latter's flight No. 620 on July 2, 1980 for Bangkok to Manila and the undisputed assurance by the said lady employee that petitioner would have a seat in that flight became definitely part of that contract of carriage. This argument is not based on the records. The evidence on record, reveals that the ticket bears no endorsement at all nor an assurance that petitioner would get a seat in Thai International flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2. The ticket purchased by the petitioner was a discounted one and as testified by the JAL Traffic Supervisor, it was not endorseable. The petitioner also testified that it was not his intention to have his ticket endorsed. We quote: Atty. Fojas: You mentioned also a while ago that you requested the Japan Air Lines Office In Tokyo for an indorsement of this ticket now marked Exhibit "A". To which air line did you request the indorsement. A I don't exactly request because I do not know the schedule. What I actually request to Japan Air Lines Office was to book me in any flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2, and she looked her book, look for the schedule and she told me she will indorse my ticket to Thai International. (p. 11, tsn, February 10, 1981) xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. (p. 273, Record) (Rollo, p. 28) On appeal by JAL, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside said decision and entered a new one dismissing the complaint for damages. (Rollo, p. 35) The petitioner now alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance in a way that is not in accord with law and/or applicable decisions of this Court; that the questioned decision dated April 9, 1986 and the resolution of July 11, 1986 are contrary to and not supported by the evidence on record; and that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

Q What else if any did the lady of the Japan Air Lines in Tokyo tell you in connection with your request for endorsement of the ticket relative to your trip from Bangkok to Manila on July 2, 1980? xxx xxx xxx

A It is not an indorsement. It is a request for a date, any date or any flight leaving on July 2, I didn't request for an indorsement.

xxx

xxx

xxx

A Well, with experience and it is only a request, it is not actually very sure but the lady told me by average Thai International run about half full from Bangkok to Manila so she assured me in getting a seat in this flight on July 2 form Bangkok to Manila; and I was a told in the morning I was there, they had seats available but they could'nt take me in. (pp. 17-18. tsn, id). (Rollo, pp. 33-34) We agree with the respondent court that the assurance made by the lady employee to the petitioner was merely the latter's chances of getting a seat in Thai International flight from Bangkok to Manila considering that from the data gathered by said lady employee, Thai International on the average runs about half full on its flight from Bangkok to Manila. It was from this reliable information that petitioner decided to make the side trip to Bangkok. There was no assurance from the lady employee nor from Thai International that the petitioner's ticket would be honored by the airline. (Rollo, p. 34) The stub that the lady employee put on the petitioner's ticket showed among other coded items, under the column "status" the letters "RQ" which was understood to mean "Request". Clearly, this does not mean a confirmation but only a request. JAL Traffic Supervisor explained that it would have been different if what was written on the stub were the letters "ok" in which case the petitioner would have been assured of a seat on said flight. But in this case, the petitioner was more of a wait-listed passenger than a regularly booked passenger. The petitioner is said to be a well-traveled person who average two long trips to Europe and two trips to Bangkok every month since 1945. He claims to have used practically all the airlines but mostly Philippine Airlines whenever he travels abroad in connection with his occupation as international boxing matchmaker and manager of world-champion boxers. (Rollo, p. 64) Certainly, a man of such stature was aware of the restrictions carried by his ticket and the usual procedure that goes with traveling. The petitioner ought to know that it was still necessary to verify first from Thai International if they would honor the endorsment of his JAL ticket or confirm with the airline if he had a seat in the July 2 flight. The petitioner left Narita on June 26, 1980. He was scheduled to leave for Manila on July 2, 1980. It is standard procedure for any passenger with a two day stop over in a foreign city to confirm the validity of his ticket and the availability of a seat on his next flight out of that city. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to take these standard precautions. JAL can not now be faulted for the petitioner's omission or negligence. Under the circumstances, we find no justification for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. He has failed to show that the findings of the respondent court are not based on substantial evidence or that it conclusions are contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the respondent court is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 118971. September 15, 1999]

RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 40, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: The question for determination in this case is the liability for libel of a citizen who denounces a barangay official for misconduct in office. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40, found petitioner guilty and fined him P1,000.00 on the ground that petitioner failed to prove the truth of the charges and that he was motivated by vengeance in uttering the defamatory statement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a decision[1] dated February 1, 1995, affirmed. Hence, this petition for review. The decision appealed from should be reversed. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner Rodolfo R. Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. Sometime in April 1986, he and some 37 families from the area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo. After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA officials, petitioner and his companions were met and interviewed by newspaper reporters at the NHA compound concerning their complaint. The next day, April 22, 1986, the following news article[2] appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa: Nananawagan kahapon kay pangulong Corazon Aquino ang 38 mahihirap na pamilya sa Tondo Foreshore Area na umanoy inagawan ng lupa ng kanilang barangay chairman sa pakikipagsabwatan sa ilang pinuno ng National Housing Authority sapul 1980. Sinabi nila na nakipagsabwatan umano si Chairman Jaime Olmedo ng barangay 66, Zone 6, Tondo Foreshore Area, sa mga project manager ng NHA upang makamkam ang may 14 na lote ng lupa sa naturang lugar. Binanggit ni Rodolfo R. Vasquez, 40, Tagapagsalita ng (mga) pamilyang apektado, na umaabot lang sa 487.87 metro kuwadrado ang kabuuan ng mga lupa na kinatitirikan ng mga barung-barung ng 38 pamilya. Naninirahan na kami sa mga lupang nabanggit sapul 1950 at pinatunayan sa mga survey ng NHA noong nakalipas na taon na may karapatan kami sa mga lupang ito ng pamahalaan, ani Vasquez. Pawang lupa ng gobyerno ang mga lupa at ilegal man na patituluhan, nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng NHA, sabi ni Vasquez. Sinabi rin ng mga pamilya na protektado ng dating pinuno ng city hall ng Maynila, MHS Minister Conrado Benitez, at ilang pinuno ng pulisya ang barangay chairman kaya nakalusot ang mga ginawa nitong katiwalian. Bukod sa pagkamkam ng mga lupaing gobyerno, kasangkot din umano si Olmedo sa mga ilegal na pasugalan sa naturang lugar at maging sa mga nakawan ng manok. Sapin-sapin na ang mga kaso na idinulog namin noong nakalipas na mga taon, pero pinawalang saysay ang lahat ng iyon, kabilang na ang tangkang pagpatay sa akin kaugnay ng pagrereklamo sa pangangamkam ng lupa noong 1984, sabi pa ni Vasquez.

Based on the newspaper article, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against petitioner alleging that the latters statements cast aspersions on him and damaged his reputation. After conducting preliminary investigation, the city prosecutor filed the following information in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40: The undersigned accuses RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ of the crime of libel committed as follows: That on or about April 22, 1986, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with malicious intent of impeaching the reputation and character of one Jaime Olmedo, chairman of Barangay 66, Zone 6 in Tondo, Manila, and with evident intent of exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously caused the publication of an article entitled 38 Pamilya Inagawan ng Lupa in Ang Tinig ng Masa, a daily newspaper sold to the public and of general circulation in the Philippines in its April 22, 1986 issue, which portion of the said article reads as follows: Nananawagan kahapon kay pangulong Corazon Aquino ang 38 mahihirap na pamilya sa Tondo Foreshore Area na umanoy inagawan ng lupa ng kanilang barangay chairman sa pakikipagsabwatan sa ilang pinuno ng National Housing Authority sapul 1980. Sinabi nila na nakipagsabwatan umano si Chairman Jaime Olmedo ng barangay 66, Zone 6, Tondo Foreshore Area sa mga project manager ng NHA upang makamkam ang may 14 na lote ng lupa sa naturang lugar. x x x Pawang lupa ng gobyerno ang mga lupa at ilegal man na patituluhan, nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng NHA, sabi ni Vasquez. Sinabi rin ng mga pamilya na protektado ng dating pinuno ng city hall ng Maynila, MHS Minister Conrado Benitez, at ilang pinuno ng pulisya ang barangay chairman kaya nakalusot ang mga ginawa nitong katiwalian. Bukod sa pagkamkam ng mga lupaing gobyerno, kasangkot din umano si Olmedo sa mga ilegal na pasugalan sa naturang lugar at maging sa mga nakawan ng manok. x x x with which statements, the said accused meant and intended to convey, as in fact he did mean and convey false and malicious imputations that said Jaime Olmedo is engaged in landgrabbing and involved in illegal gambling and stealing of chickens at the Tondo Foreshore Area, Tondo, Manila, which statements, as he well knew, were entirely false and malicious, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and reputation of said Jaime Olmedo, thereby tending to impeach, besmirch and destroy the honor, character and reputation of Jaime Olmedo, as in fact, the latter was exposed to dishonor, discredit, public hatred, contempt and ridicule. Contrary to law. Upon being arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, whereupon the case was tried. The prosecution presented Barangay Chairman Olmedo and his neighbor, Florentina Calayag, as witnesses. On the other hand, the defense presented Ciriaco Cabuhat, Nicasio Agustin, Estrelita Felix, Fernando Rodriguez all residents of the Tondo Foreshore Area and petitioner as its witnesses.

On May 28, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of P1,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Hence, this petition for review. Petitioner contends that I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT PINPOINTING PETITIONER AS THE SOURCE OF THE ALLEGED LIBELOUS ARTICLE. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER IMPUTED THE QUESTIONED ACTS TO COMPLAINANT. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE ALLEGED IMPUTATIONS WERE MADE MALICIOUSLY. IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH FAILED TO APPRECIATE PETITIONERS DEFENSE OF TRUTH. V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF LIBEL WERE PROVEN. We will deal with these contentions in the order in which they are made. First. Petitioner claims he was unfairly singled out as the source of the statements in the article when any member of the 38 complainant-families could have been the source of the alleged libelous statements.[3] The reference is to the following portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals: . . . In his sworn statement, appellant admitted he was the source of the libelous article (Exh. B). He affirmed this fact when he testified in open court as follows: That his allegation on the act of landgrabbing by Olmedo was based on the alleged report and pronouncements of the NHA representatives (p. 5, tsn, Oct. 18, 1989); that said allegations were made by him before the local press people in the pursuit of fairness and truthfulness and not in bad faith (pp. 8-9, id.); that the only inaccurate account in the published article of Ang Tinig ng Masa is the reference to the 487.87 sq.m. lot, on which Olmedos residence now stands, attributed by the reporter as the lot currently occupied by appellants and his fellow complainants (pp. 4-5, tsn, Nov. 15, 1989; pp. 4-5, tsn, January 15, 1990); and that after the interview, he never expected that his statement would be the cause of the much-publicized libelous article (pp. 4-6, tsn, Nov. 15, 1989).[4] It is true petitioner did not directly admit that he was the source of the statements in the questioned article. What he said in his sworn statement[5] was that the contents of the article are true in almost all respects, thus: 9. Tama ang nakalathala sa pahayagang Ang Masa maliban na lang sa tinutukoy na ako at ang mga kasamahang maralitang tagalungsod ay nakatira sa humigit kumulang 487.87 square meters sapagkat ang nabanggit na 487.87 square meters ay siyang kinatitirikan ng bahay ni Barangay Chairman Olmedo kung saan nakaloob ang anim na lote - isang paglabag sa batas o regulasyon ng NHA; 10. Ang ginawa kong pahayag na nailathala sa Ang Masa ay sanhi ng aking nais na maging mabuting mamamayan at upang maituwid ang mga katiwaliang nagaganap sa Tondo Foreshore

Area kung saan ako at sampu ng aking mga kasamang maralitang taga-lungsod ay apektado at naaapi. This was likewise what he stated in his testimony in court both on direct[6] and on cross-examination.[7] However, by claiming that what he had told the reporter was made by him in the performance of a civic duty, petitioner in effect admitted authorship of the article and not only of the statements attributed to him therein, to wit: Pawang lupa ng gobyerno ang mga lupa at ilegal man na patituluhan, nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng NHA, sabi ni Vasquez. . . . . Sapin-sapin na ang mga kaso na idinulog namin noong nakalipas na mga taon, pero pinawalang saysay ang lahat ng iyon, kabilang na ang tangkang pagpatay sa akin kaugnay ng pagrereklamo sa pangangamkam ng lupa noong 1984, sabi pa ni Vasquez. Petitioner cannot claim to have been the source of only a few statements in the article in question and point to the other parties as the source of the rest, when he admits that he was correctly identified as the spokesperson of the families during the interview. Second. Petitioner points out that the information did not set out the entire news article as published. In fact, the second statement attributed to petitioner was not included in the information. But, while the general rule is that the information must set out the particular defamatory words verbatim and as published and that a statement of their substance is insufficient,[8] United States v. Eguia, 38 Phil. 857 (1918).8 a defect in this regard may be cured by evidence.[9] In this case, the article was presented in evidence, but petitioner failed to object to its introduction. Instead, he engaged in the trial of the entire article, not only of the portions quoted in the information, and sought to prove it to be true. In doing so, he waived objection based on the defect in the information. Consequently, he cannot raise this issue at this late stage.[10] Third. On the main issue whether petitioner is guilty of libel, petitioner contends that what he said was true and was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. To find a person guilty of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.[11] An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.[12] There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person.[13] It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself.*14+

On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement.[15] Finally, malice or ill will must be present. Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or security duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. In this case, there is no doubt that the first three elements are present. The statements that Olmedo, through connivance with NHA officials, was able to obtain title to several lots in the area and that he was involved in a number of illegal activities (attempted murder, gambling and theft of fighting cocks) were clearly defamatory. There is no merit in his contention that landgrabbing, as charged in the information, has a technical meaning in law.[16] Such act is so alleged and proven in this case in the popular sense in which it is understood by ordinary people. As held in United States v. Sotto:[17] . . . [F]or the purpose of determining the meaning of any publication alleged to be libelous that construction must be adopted which will give to the matter such a meaning as is natural and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally understand what was uttered. The published matter alleged to be libelous must be construed as a whole. In applying these rules to the language of an alleged libel, the court will disregard any subtle or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on being called to account. The whole question being the effect the publication had upon the minds of the readers, and they not having been assisted by the offered explanation in reading the article, it comes too late to have the effect of removing the sting, if any there be, from the words used in the publication. Nor is there any doubt that the defamatory remarks referred to complainant and were published. Petitioner caused the publication of the defamatory remarks when he made the statements to the reporters who interviewed him.[18] The question is whether from the fact that the statements were defamatory, malice can be presumed so that it was incumbent upon petitioner to overcome such presumption. Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.[19] In this case, contrary to the findings of the trial court, on which the Court of Appeals relied, petitioner was able to prove the truth of his charges against the barangay official. His allegation that, through connivance with NHA officials, complainant was able to

obtain title to several lots at the Tondo Foreshore Area was based on the letter[20] of NHA Inspector General Hermogenes Fernandez to petitioners counsel which reads: 09 August 1983 Atty. Rene V. Sarmiento Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) 55 Third Street New Manila, Quezon City Dear Atty. Sarmiento: In connection with your request that you be furnished with a copy of the results of the investigation regarding the complaints of some Tondo residents against Chairman Jaime Olmedo, we are providing you a summary of the findings based on the investigation conducted by our Office which are as follows: 1. Based on the subdivision plan of Block 260, SB 8, Area III, Jaime Olmedos present structure is constructed on six lots which were awarded before by the defunct Land Tenure Administration to different persons as follows: Lot 4 - Juana Buenaventura - 79.76 sq. m. Lot 6 - Servando Simbulan Lot 7 - Alfredo Vasquez Lot 8 - Martin Gallardo Lot 9 - Daniel Bayan Lot 1 - Fortunato de Jesus - 48.50 sq. m. - 78.07 sq. m. - 78.13 sq. m. - 70.87 sq. m. - 85.08 sq. m. (OIT No. 7800)

202.23 sq. m. Inside this compound is another structure owned and occupied by Amelia Dofredo, a censused houseowner. The titled lot of Victoria now has an area of 338.20 sq. m. For your information. (s/t) HERMOGENES C. FERNANDEZ Inspector General Public Assistance & Action Office In addition, petitioner acted on the basis of two memoranda,[21] both dated November 29, 1983, of then NHA General Manager Gaudencio Tobias recommending the filing of administrative charges against the NHA officials responsible for the alleged irregular consolidation of lots [in Tondo to Jaime and Victoria Olmedo.+ With regard to the other imputations made by petitioner against complainant, it must be noted that what petitioner stated was that various charges (for attempted murder against petitioner, gambling, theft of fighting cocks) had been filed by the residents against their barangay chairman but these had all been dismissed. Petitioner was able to show that Olmedos involvement in the theft of fighting cocks was the subject of an affidavitcomplaint,[22] dated October 19, 1983, signed by Fernando Rodriguez and Ben Lareza, former barangay tanods of Barangay 66, Zone 6, Tondo. Likewise, petitioner presented a resolution,[23] dated March 10, 1988, of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in TBP-87-03694, stating that charges of malversation and corrupt practices had been filed against Olmedo and nine (9) other barangay officials but the same were dismissed. Indeed, the prosecutions own evidence bears out petitioners statements. The prosecution presented the resolution[24]in TBP Case No. 84-01854 dismissing the charge of attempted murder filed by petitioner against Jaime Olmedo and his son-in-law, Jaime Reyes. The allegation concerning this matter is thus true. It was error for the trial court to hold that petitioner only tried to prove that the complainant [barangay chairman] is guilty of the crimes alluded to; accused, however, has not proven that the complainant committed the crimes. For that is not what petitioner said as reported in the Ang Tinig ng Masa. The fact that charges had been filed against the barangay official, not the truth of such charges, was the issue. In denouncing the barangay chairman in this case, petitioner and the other residents of the Tondo Foreshore Area were not only acting in their self-interest but engaging in the performance of a civic duty to see to it that public duty is discharged faithfully and well by those on whom such duty is incumbent. The recognition of this right and duty of every citizen in a democracy is inconsistent with any requirement placing on him the burden of proving that he acted with good motives and for justifiable ends. For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This is the gist of the ruling in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan,[25] which this Court has cited with approval in several of its own decisions.*26+ This is the rule of actual malice. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove not only that the charges made by petitioner were false but also that petitioner made them with

The above-mentioned lots were not yet titled, except for Lot 1. Fortunato de Jesus sold the said lot to a certain Jovita Bercasi, a sister-in-law of Jaime Olmedo. The other remaining lots were either sold to Mr. Olmedo and/or to his immediate relatives. Lot 14 is also titled in the name of Mariano Bercasi, father-in-law of Jaime Olmedo, with an area of 47.40 sq. m. The lot assigned to Chairman Olmedo has a total area of 487.87 sq. m. 2. Block 261, SB 8, Area III Lot No. 7 is titled in the name of Jaime Olmedo, consisting an area of 151.67 sq. m. A four-door apartment owned by Mr. Olmedo is being rented to uncensused residents. 3. Block 262, SB 8, Area III Lot No. 13 is allocated to Delfin Olmedo, nephew of Jaime Olmedo, but this lot is not yet titled. 4. Block 256, SB 5, Area III Victoria Olmedo, uncensused, is a daughter of Jaime Olmedo. Her structure is erected on a non-titled lot. The adjacent lot is titled in the name of Victoria. It was issued OCT No. 10217 with an area of

knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. A rule placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations would not only be contrary to Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code. It would, above all, infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Such a rule would deter citizens from performing their duties as members of a self- governing community. Without free speech and assembly, discussions of our most abiding concerns as a nation would be stifled. As Justice Brandeis has said, public discussion is a political duty and the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.*27+ Complainant contends that petitioner was actuated by vengeful political motive rather than by his firm conviction that he and his fellow residents had been deprived of a property right because of acts attributable to their barangay chairman. The Court of Appeals, sustaining complainants contention, held: That the said imputations were malicious may be inferred from the facts that appellant and complainant are enemies, hence, accused was motivated by vengeance in uttering said defamatory statements and that accused is a leader of Ciriaco Cabuhat who was defeated by complainant when they ran for the position of barangay captain. . . .[28] As already stated, however, in accordance with Art. 361, if the defamatory matter either constitutes a crime or concerns the performance of official duties, and the accused proves the truth of his charge, he should be acquitted.[29] Instead of the claim that petitioner was politically motivated in making the charges against complainant, it would appear that complainant filed this case to harass petitioner. Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Persons responsible.Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. . . . Yet, in this case, neither the reporter, editor, nor the publisher of the newspaper was charged in court. What was said in an analogous case[30] may be applied mutatis mutandis to the case at bar: It is curious that the ones most obviously responsible for the publication of the allegedly offensive news report, namely, the editorial staff and the periodical itself, were not at all impleaded. The charge was leveled against the petitioner and, curiouser still, his clients who have nothing to do with the editorial policies of the newspaper. There is here a manifest effort to persecute and intimidate the petitioner for his temerity in accusing the ASAC agents who apparently enjoyed special privilegesand perhaps also immunitiesduring those oppressive times. The noninclusion of the periodicals was a transparent hypocrisy, an ostensibly pious if not at all convincing pretense of respect for freedom of expression that was in fact one of the most desecrated liberties during the past despotism.[31]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-56487

October 21, 1991

REYNALDA GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Pedro G. Peralta for petitioner. Florentino G. Libatique for private respondent.

FELICIANO, J.:p At noon time on 11 July 1973, petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian boarded, as a paying passenger, respondent's "Thames" mini bus at a point in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union, bound for Bauang, of the same province. On the way, while the bus was running along the highway in Barrio Payocpoc, Bauang, Union, "a snapping sound" was suddenly heard at one part of the bus and, shortly thereafter, the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers, including petitioner Gatchalian, were injured. They were promptly taken to Bethany Hospital at San Fernando, La Union, for medical treatment. Upon medical examination, petitioner was found to have sustained physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead, specifically described as follows: lacerated wound, forehead; abrasion, elbow, left; abrasion, knee, left; abrasion, lateral surface, leg, left. 1 On 14 July 1973, while injured. passengers were confined in the hospital, Mrs. Adela Delim, wife of respondent, visited them and later paid for their hospitalization and medical expenses. She also gave petitioner P12.00 with which to pay her transportation expense in going home from the hospital. However, before Mrs. Delim left, she had the injured passengers, including petitioner, sign an already prepared Joint Affidavit which stated, among other things: That we were passengers of Thames with Plate No. 52-222 PUJ Phil. 73 and victims after the said Thames met an accident at Barrio Payocpoc Norte, Bauang, La Union while passing through the National Highway No. 3; That after a thorough investigation the said Thames met the accident due to mechanical defect and went off the road and turned turtle to the east canal of the road into a creek causing physical injuries to us; xxx xxx xxx

That we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries. xxx xxx xxx 2

(Emphasis supplied)

Notwithstanding this document, petitioner Gathalian filed with the then Court of First Instance of La Union an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. She alleged in the complaint that her injuries sustained from the vehicular mishap had left her with a conspicuous white scar measuring 1 by 1/2 inches on the forehead, generating mental suffering and an inferiority complex on her part; and that as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friends. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. She prayed for an award of: P10,000.00 for loss of employment and other opportunities; P10,000.00 for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her forehead; P30,000.00 for moral damages; and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees. In defense, respondent averred that the vehicular mishap was due to force majeure, and that petitioner had already been paid and moreover had waived any right to institute any action against him (private respondent) and his driver, when petitioner Gatchalian signed the Joint Affidavit on 14 July 1973. After trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that when petitioner Gatchalian signed the Joint Affidavit, she relinquished any right of action (whether criminal or civil) that she may have had against respondent and the driver of the minibus. On appeal by petitioner, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conclusion that there had been a valid waiver, but affirmed the dismissal of the case by denying petitioner's claim for damages: We are not in accord, therefore, of (sic) the ground of the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, although we conform to the trial court's disposition of the case its dismissal. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING considerations, there being no error committed by the lower court in dismissing the plaintiffappellant's complaint, the judgment of dismissal is hereby affirmed. Without special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. 3 In the present Petition for Review filed in forma pauperis, petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask this Court to award her actual or compensatory damages as well as moral damages. We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeals who held that no valid waiver of her cause of action had been made by petitioner. The relevant language of the Joint Affidavit may be quoted again: That we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries. (Emphasis supplied) A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. 4 A waiver may not casually be attributed

to a person when the terms thereof do not explicitly and clearly evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such person. The degree of explicitness which this Court has required in purported waivers is illustrated in Yepes and Susaya v. Samar Express Transit (supra), where the Court in reading and rejecting a purported waiver said: . . . It appears that before their transfer to the Leyte Provincial Hospital, appellees were asked to sign as, in fact, they signed the document Exhibit I wherein they stated that "in consideration of the expenses which said operator has incurred in properly giving us the proper medical treatment, we hereby manifest our desire to waive any and all claims against the operator of the Samar Express Transit." xxx xxx xxx

Even a cursory examination of the document mentioned above will readily show that appellees did not actually waive their right to claim damages from appellant for the latter's failure to comply with their contract of carriage. All that said document proves is that they expressed a "desire" to make the waiver which obviously is not the same as making an actual waiver of their right. A waiver of the kind invoked by appellant must be clear and unequivocal (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of July 8, 1887) which is not the case of the one relied upon in this appeal. (Emphasis supplied) If we apply the standard used in Yepes and Susaya, we would have to conclude that the terms of the Joint Affidavit in the instant case cannot be regarded as a waiver cast in "clear and unequivocal" terms. Moreover, the circumstances under which the Joint Affidavit was signed by petitioner Gatchalian need to be considered. Petitioner testified that she was still reeling from the effects of the vehicular accident, having been in the hospital for only three days, when the purported waiver in the form of the Joint Affidavit was presented to her for signing; that while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but that, seeing the other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its entirety. Considering these circumstances there appears substantial doubt whether petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit (prepared by or at the instance of private respondent) she signed and whether she actually intended thereby to waive any right of action against private respondent. Finally, because what is involved here is the liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in respect of whose safety a common carrier must exercise extraordinary diligence, we must construe any such purported waiver most strictly against the common carrier. For a waiver to be valid and effective, it must not be contrary to law, morals, public policy or good customs. 5 To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like those exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render that standard unenforceable. 6 We believe such a purported waiver is offensive to public policy. Petitioner Gatchalian also argues that the Court of Appeals, having by majority vote held that there was no enforceable waiver of her right of action, should have awarded her actual or compensatory and moral damages as a matter of course.

We have already noted that a duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting the safety of its passengers is imposed upon a common carrier. 7 In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently "unless it proves that it [had] observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755." 8 In fact, because of this statutory presumption, it has been held that a court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier in order to hold it liable. 9 To overcome this presumption, the common carrier must slow to the court that it had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the injuries. 10 The standard of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is considerably more demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence, i.e., the diligence of a good paterfamilias established in respect of the ordinary relations between members of society. A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely" as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all the circumstances". 11 Thus, the question which must be addressed is whether or not private respondent has successfully proved that he had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the mishap involving his minibus. The records before the Court are bereft of any evidence showing that respondent had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Curiously, respondent did not even attempt, during the trial before the court a quo, to prove that he had indeed exercised the requisite extraordinary diligence. Respondent did try to exculpate himself from liability by alleging that the mishap was the result of force majeure. But allegation is not proof and here again, respondent utterly failed to substantiate his defense of force majeure. To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the defense of force majeure. In Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Company, 12 the Court summed up the essential characteristics of force majeure by quoting with approval from the Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola: Thus, where fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability non-performance. The Partidas, the antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines "caso fortuito" as 'an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robber. In its dissertation on the phrase "caso fortuito" the Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola says: 'In legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a "caso fortuito" presents the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the "caso fortuito", or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. Upon the other hand, the record yields affirmative evidence of fault or negligence on the part of respondent common carrier. In

her direct examination, petitioner Gatchalian narrated that shortly before the vehicle went off the road and into a ditch, a "snapping sound" was suddenly heard at one part of the bus. One of the passengers, an old woman, cried out, "What happened?" ("Apay addan samet nadadaelen?"). The driver replied, nonchalantly, "That is only normal" ("Ugali ti makina dayta"). The driver did not stop to check if anything had gone wrong with the bus. Moreover, the driver's reply necessarily indicated that the same "snapping sound" had been heard in the bus on previous occasions. This could only mean that the bus had not been checked physically or mechanically to determine what was causing the "snapping sound" which had occurred so frequently that the driver had gotten accustomed to it. Such a sound is obviously alien to a motor vehicle in good operating condition, and even a modicum of concern for life and limb of passengers dictated that the bus be checked and repaired. The obvious continued failure of respondent to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus, coupled with the driver's refusal or neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the "snapping sound" and the cry of alarm from one of the passengers, constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers, and hence gross negligence on the part of respondent and his driver. We turn to petitioner's claim for damages. The first item in that claim relates to revenue which petitioner said she failed to realize because of the effects of the vehicular mishap. Petitioner maintains that on the day that the mini-bus went off the road, she was supposed to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a substitute teacher's job, a job which she had held off and on as a "casual employee." The Court of Appeals, however, found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public school since, being a casual employee and not a Civil Service eligible, she had been laid off. Her employment as a substitute teacher was occasional and episodic, contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers. In view of her employment status as such, the Court of Appeals held that she could not be said to have in fact lost any employment after and by reason of the accident. 13 Such was the factual finding of the Court of Appeals, a finding entitled to due respect from this Court. Petitioner Gatchalian has not submitted any basis for overturning this finding of fact, and she may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation or conjecture. 14 Petitioner's claim for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her forehead, is another matter. A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. If the scar is relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may be expected to be correspondingly modest. In Araneta, et al. vs. Areglado, et al., 15 this Court awarded actual or compensatory damages for, among other things, the surgical removal of the scar on the face of a young boy who had been injured in a vehicular collision. The Court there held: We agree with the appellants that the damages awarded by the lower court for the injuries suffered by Benjamin Araneta are inadequate. In allowing not more than P1,000.00 as compensation for the "permanent deformity and something like an inferiority complex" as well as for the "pathological

condition on the left side of the jaw" caused to said plaintiff, the court below overlooked the clear evidence on record that to arrest the degenerative process taking place in the mandible and restore the injured boy to a nearly normal condition, surgical intervention was needed, for which the doctor's charges would amount to P3,000.00, exclusive of hospitalization fees, expenses and medicines. Furthermore, the operation, according to Dr. Dio, would probably have to be repeated in order to effectuate a complete cure, while removal of the scar on the face obviously demanded plastic surgery. xxx xxx xxx

P30,000.00 as moral damages; and 3) P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, the aggregate amount to bear interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum counting from the promulgation of this decision until full payment thereof. Costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985

ROBERTO JUNTILLA, petitioner, vs. CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON and BERFOL CAMORO, respondents. Valentin A. Zozobrado for petitioner. Ruperto N. Alfarara for respondents.

The father's failure to submit his son to a plastic operation as soon as possible does not prove that such treatment is not called for. The damage to the jaw and the existence of the scar in Benjamin Araneta's face are physical facts that can not be reasoned out of existence. That the injury should be treated in order to restore him as far as possible to his original condition is undeniable. The father's delay, or even his negligence, should not be allowed to prejudice the son who has no control over the parent's action nor impair his right to a full indemnity. . . . Still, taking into account the necessity and cost of corrective measures to fully repair the damage; the pain suffered by the injured party; his feelings of inferiority due to consciousness of his present deformity, as well as the voluntary character of the injury inflicted; and further considering that a repair, however, skillfully conducted, is never equivalent to the original state, we are of the opinion that the indemnity granted by the trial court should be increased to a total of P18,000.00. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner estimated that the cost of having her scar surgically removed was somewhere between P10,000.00 to P15,000.00. 16 Upon the other hand, Dr. Fe Tayao Lasam, a witness presented as an expert by petitioner, testified that the cost would probably be between P5,000.00 to P10,000.00. 17 In view of this testimony, and the fact that a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the mishap in 1973 which may be expected to increase not only the cost but also very probably the difficulty of removing the scar, we consider that the amount of P15,000.00 to cover the cost of such plastic surgery is not unreasonable. Turning to petitioner's claim for moral damages, the longestablished rule is that moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. 18 Since we have earlier concluded that respondent common carrier and his driver had been grossly negligent in connection with the bus mishap which had injured petitioner and other passengers, and recalling the aggressive manuevers of respondent, through his wife, to get the victims to waive their right to recover damages even as they were still hospitalized for their injuries, petitioner must be held entitled to such moral damages. Considering the extent of pain and anxiety which petitioner must have suffered as a result of her physical injuries including the permanent scar on her forehead, we believe that the amount of P30,000.00 would be a reasonable award. Petitioner's claim for P1,000.00 as atttorney's fees is in fact even more modest. 19 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 24 October 1980, as well as the decision of the then Court of First Instance of La Union dated 4 December 1975 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Respondent is hereby ORDERED to pay petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian the following sums: 1) P15,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages to cover the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on petitioner's forehead; 2)

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for review, on questions of law, of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu which reversed the decision of the City Court of Cebu and exonerated the respondents from any liability arising from a vehicular accident. The background facts which led to the filing of a complaint for breach of contract and damages against the respondents are summarized by the Court of First Instance of Cebu as follows: The facts established after trial show that the plaintiff was a passenger of the public utility jeepney bearing plate No. PUJ-71-7 on the course of the trip from Danao City to Cebu City. The jeepney was driven by defendant Berfol Camoro. It was registered under the franchise of defendant Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by defendant Fernando Banzon. When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. In the process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle. Upon landing on the ground, the plaintiff momentarily lost consciousness. When he came to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on his right palm. Aside from this, he suffered injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his back. (Exh. "D"). Because of his shock and injuries, he went back to Danao City but on the way, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch was lost. Upon his arrival in Danao City, he immediately entered the Danao City Hospital to attend to his injuries, and also requested his father-in-law to proceed immediately to the place of the accident and look for the watch. In spite of the efforts of his father-in-law, the wrist watch, which he bought for P 852.70 (Exh. "B") could no longer be found. xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner Roberto Juntilla filed Civil Case No. R-17378 for breach of contract with damages before the City Court of Cebu City, Branch I against Clemente Fontanar, Fernando Banzon and Berfol Camoro. The respondents filed their answer, alleging inter alia that the accident that caused losses to the petitioner was beyond the control of the respondents taking into account that the tire that exploded was newly bought and was only slightly used at the time it blew up.

After trial, Judge Romulo R. Senining of the Civil Court of Cebu rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the latter are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P750.00 as reimbursement for the lost Omega wrist watch, the sum of P246.64 as unrealized salary of the plaintiff from his employer, the further sum of P100.00 for the doctor's fees and medicine, an additional sum of P300.00 for attorney's fees and the costs. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XIV. Judge Leonardo B. Canares reversed the judgment of the City Court of Cebu upon a finding that the accident in question was due to a fortuitous event. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered exonerating the defendants from any liability to the plaintiff without pronouncement as to costs. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of First Instance. The petitioner raises the following alleged errors committed by the Court of First Instance of Cebu on appeal a. The Honorable Court below committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to take cognizance of the fact that defendants and/or their employee failed to exercise "utmost and/or extraordinary diligence" required of common carriers contemplated under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. b. The Honorable Court below committed grave abuse of discretion by deciding the case contrary to the doctrine laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Necesito et al. v. Paras, et al. We find the petition impressed with merit. The City Court and the Court of First Instance of Cebu found that the right rear tire of the passenger jeepney in which the petitioner was riding blew up causing the vehicle to fall on its side. The petitioner questions the conclusion of the respondent court drawn from this finding of fact. The Court of First Instance of Cebu erred when it absolved the carrier from any liability upon a finding that the tire blow out is a fortuitous event. The Court of First Instance of Cebu ruled that: After reviewing the records of the case, this Court finds that the accident in question was due to a fortuitous event. A tire blowout, such as what happened in the case at bar, is an inevitable accident that exempts the carrier from liability, there being absence of a showing that there was misconduct or negligence on the part of the operator in the operation and maintenance of the vehicle involved. The fact that the right rear tire exploded, despite being brand new, constitutes a clear case of caso fortuito which can be a proper basis for exonerating the defendants from liability. ...

The Court of First Instance relied on the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Rodriguez v. Red Line Transportation Co., CA G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, where the Court of Appeals ruled that: A tire blow-out does not constitute negligence unless the tire was already old and should not have been used at all. Indeed, this would be a clear case of fortuitous event. The foregoing conclusions of the Court of First Instance of Cebu are based on a misapprehension of overall facts from which a conclusion should be drawn. The reliance of the Court of First Instance on the Rodriguez case is not in order. In La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Jesus, et al. (17 SCRA 23), we held that: Petitioner maintains that a tire blow-out is a fortuitous event and gives rise to no liability for negligence, citing the rulings of the Court of Appeals in Rodriguez v. Red Line Transportation Co., CA G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, and People v. Palapad, CA-G.R. No. 18480, June 27, 1958. These rulings, however, not only are not binding on this Court but were based on considerations quite different from those that obtain in the case at bar. The appellate court there made no findings of any specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendants and confined itself to the question of whether or not a tire blow-out, by itself alone and without a showing as to the causative factors, would generate liability. ... In the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respondents. The records show that the passenger jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch immediately after its right rear tire exploded. The evidence shows that the passenger jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the accident. We agree with the observation of the petitioner that a public utility jeep running at a regular and safe speed will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire blows up. There is also evidence to show that the passenger jeepney was overloaded at the time of the accident. The petitioner stated that there were three (3) passengers in the front seat and fourteen (14) passengers in the rear. While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to compensate for any conditions liable to cause accidents. The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident. In Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we laid down the following essential characteristics of caso fortuito: xxx xxx xxx

... In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. And (4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. (5 Encyclopedia Juridica Espanola, 309.)

In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent of the human will. The accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed limits, and to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all times. Relative to the contingency of mechanical defects, we held in Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al. (104 Phil. 75), that: ... The preponderance of authority is in favor of the doctrine that a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to this theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability' (10 Am. Jur. 205, s, 1324; see also Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Southern R. Co. v. Hussey, 74 ALR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; and Ed Note, 29 ALR 788.: Ann. Cas. 1916E 929). The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. ... It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into the said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with a due regard for all the circumstances. The records show that this obligation was not met by the respondents. The respondents likewise argue that the petitioner cannot recover any amount for failure to prove such damages during the trial. The respondents submit that if the petitioner was really injured, why was he treated in Danao City and not in Mandaue City where the accident took place. The respondents argue that the doctor who issued the medical certificate was not presented during the trial, and hence not cross-examined. The respondents also claim that the petitioner was not wearing any wrist watch during the accident. It should be noted that the City Court of Cebu found that the petitioner had a lacerated wound on his right palm aside from injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his back, and that on his way back to Danao City, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch was lost. These are findings of facts of the City Court of Cebu which we find no reason to disturb. More so when we consider the fact that the Court of First Instance of Cebu impliedly concurred in these matters when it confined itself to the question of whether or not the tire blow out was a fortuitous event.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IV appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the City Court of Cebu, Branch I is REINSTATED, with the modification that the damages shall earn interest at 12% per annum and the attorney's fees are increased to SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00). Damages shall earn interests from January 27, 1975. SO ORDERED. June 30, 1958 G.R. No. L-10606 GERMAN NECESITO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees. Tomas Besa and Federico Agrava for appellants. Jose W. Diokno for appellees. , J.: These cases involve ex contractu against the owners and operators of the common carrier known as Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, filed by one passenger, and the heirs of another, who injured as a result of the fall into a river of the vehicle in which they were riding. In the morning of January 28, 1964, Severina Garces and her oneyear old son, Precillano Necesito, carrying vegetables, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines at Agno, Pangasinan. The passenger truck, driven by Francisco Bandonell, then proceeded on its regular run from Agno to Manila. After passing Mangatarem, Pangasinan truck No. 199 entered a wooden bridge, but the front wheels swerved to the right; the driver lost control, and after wrecking the bridges wooden rails, the truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep. The mother, Severina Garces, was drowned; the son, Precillano Necesito, was injured, suffering abrasions and fracture of the left femur. He was brought to the Provincial Hospital at Dagupan, where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of line. The money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables were lost. Two actions for damages and attorneys fees totalling over P85,000 having been filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Cases Nos. 908 and 909) against the carrier, the latter pleaded that the accident was due to engine or mechanical trouble independent or beyond the control of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell. After joint trial, the Court of First Instance found that the bus was proceeding slowly due to the bad condition of the road; that the accident was caused by the fracture of the right steering knuckle, which was defective in that its center or core was not compact but bubbled and cellulous, a condition that could not be known or ascertained by the carrier despite the fact that regular thirtyday inspections were made of the steering knuckle, since the steel exterior was smooth and shiny to the depth of 3/16 of an inch all around; that the knuckles are designed and manufactured for heavy duty and may last up to ten years; that the knuckle of bus No. 199 that broke on January 28, 1954, was last inspected on January 5, 1954, and was due to be inspected again on February 5th. Hence, the trial court, holding that the accident was exclusively due to fortuitous event, dismissed both actions. Plaintiffs appealed directly to this Court in view of the amount in controversy.

We are inclined to agree with the trial court that it is not likely that bus No. 199 of the Philippine Rabbit Lines was driven over the deeply rutted road leading to the bridge at a speed of 50 miles per hour, as testified for the plaintiffs. Such conduct on the part of the driver would have provoked instant and vehement protest on the part of the passengers because of the attendant discomfort, and there is no trace of any such complaint in the records. We are thus forced to assume that the proximate cause of the accident was the reduced strength of the steering knuckle of the vehicle caused by defects in casting it. While appellants hint that the broken knuckle exhibited in court was not the real fitting attached to the truck at the time of the accident, the records they registered no objection on that ground at the trial below. The issue is thus reduced to the question whether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle, and whether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier exercised the diligence required by law (Art. 1755, new Civil Code). ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for the all the circumstances. It is clear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passengers safety. His liability rests upon negligence, his failure to exercise the utmost degree of diligence that the law requires, and by Art. 1756, in case of a passengers death or injury the carrier bears the burden of satisfying the court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence required. In the American law, where the carrier is held to the same degree of diligence as under the new Civil Code, the rule on the liability of carriers for defects of equipment is thus expressed: The preponderance of authority is in favor of the doctrine that a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to this theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability (10 Am. Jur. 205, s, 1324; see also Pennsylvania R. Co. vs. Roy, 102 U. S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Southern R. Co. vs. Hussey, 74 ALR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; and Ed Note, 29 ALR 788; Ann. Cas. 1916E 929). The rationale of the carriers liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not in insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. Thus Hannen, J., in Francis vs. Cockrell, LR 5 Q. B. 184, said: In the ordinary course of things, the passenger does not know whether the carrier has himself manufactured the means of carriage, or contracted with someone else for its manufacture. If the carrier has contracted with someone else the passenger does not usually know who that person is, and in no case has he any share in the selection. The liability of the manufacturer must

depend on the terms of the contract between him and the carrier, of which the passenger has no knowledge, and over which he can have no control, while the carrier can introduce what stipulations and take what securities he may think proper. For injury resulting to the carrier himself by the manufacturers want of care, the carrier has a remedy against the manufacturer; but the passenger has no remedy against the manufacturer for damage arising from a mere breach of contract with the carrier . . . . Unless, therefore, the presumed intention of the parties be that the passenger should, in the event of his being injured by the breach of the manufacturers contract, of which he has no knowledge, be without remedy, the only way in which effect can be given to a different intention is by supposing that the carrier is to be responsible to the passenger, and to look for his indemnity to the person whom he selected and whose breach of contract has caused the mischief. (29 ALR 789) And in the leading case of Morgan vs. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 15 LRA (NS) 790, 16 Ann. Cas. 608, the Court, in holding the carrier responsible for damages caused by the fracture of a car axle, due to a sand hole in the course of moulding the axle, made the following observations. The carrier, in consideration of certain well-known and highly valuable rights granted to it by the public, undertakes certain duties toward the public, among them being to provide itself with suitable and safe cars and vehicles in which carry the traveling public. There is no such duty on the manufacturer of the cars. There is no reciprocal legal relation between him and the public in this respect. When the carrier elects to have another build its cars, it ought not to be absolved by that facts from its duty to the public to furnish safe cars. The carrier cannot lessen its responsibility by shifting its undertaking to anothers shoulders. Its duty to furnish safe cars is side by side with its duty to furnish safe track, and to operate them in a safe manner. None of its duties in these respects can be sublet so as to relieve it from the full measure primarily exacted of it by law. The carrier selects the manufacturer of its cars, if it does not itself construct them, precisely as it does those who grade its road, and lay its tracks, and operate its trains. That it does not exercise control over the former is because it elects to place that matter in the hands of the manufacturer, instead of retaining the supervising control itself. The manufacturer should be deemed the agent of the carrier as respects its duty to select the material out of which its cars and locomotive are built, as well as in inspecting each step of their construction. If there be tests known to the crafts of car builders, or iron moulders, by which such defects might be discovered before the part was incorporated into the car, then the failure of the manufacturer to make the test will be deemed a failure by the carrier to make it. This is not a vicarious responsibility. It extends, as the necessity of this business demands, the rule of respondeat superior to a situation which falls clearly within its scope and spirit. Where an injury is inflicted upon a passenger by the breaking or wrecking of a part of the train on which he is riding, it is presumably the result of negligence at some point by the carrier. As stated by Judge Story, in Story on Bailments, sec. 601a: When the injury or damage happens to the passenger by the breaking down or overturning of the coach, or by any other accident occurring on the ground, the presumption prima facie is that it occurred by the negligence of the coachmen, and onus probandi is on the proprietors of the coach to establish that there has been no negligence whatever, and that the damage or injury has been occasioned by inevitable casualty, or by some cause which human care and foresight could not prevent; for the law will, in tenderness to human life and limb, hold the proprietors liable for the slightest negligence, and will compel them to repel

by satisfactory proofs every imputation thereof. When the passenger has proved his injury as the result of a breakage in the car or the wrecking of the train on which he was being carried, whether the defect was in the particular car in which he was riding or not, the burden is then cast upon the carrier to show that it was due to a cause or causes which the exercise of the utmost human skill and foresight could not prevent. And the carrier in this connection must show, if the accident was due to a latent defect in the material or construction of the car, that not only could it not have discovered the defect by the exercise of such care, but that the builders could not by the exercise of the same care have discovered the defect or foreseen the result. This rule applies the same whether the defective car belonged to the carrier or not. In the case now before us, the record is to the effect that the only test applied to the steering knuckle in question was a purely visual inspection every thirty days, to see if any cracks developed. It nowhere appears that either the manufacturer or the carrier at any time tested the steering knuckle to ascertain whether its strength was up to standard, or that it had no hidden flaws would impair that strength. And yet the carrier must have been aware of the critical importance of the knuckles resistance; that its failure or breakage would result in loss of balance and steering control of the bus, with disastrous effects upon the passengers. No argument is required to establish that a visual inspection could not directly determine whether the resistance of this critically important part was not impaired. Nor has it been shown that the weakening of the knuckle was impossible to detect by any known test; on the contrary, there is testimony that it could be detected. We are satisfied that the periodical visual inspection of the steering knuckle as practiced by the carriers agents did not measure up to the required legal standard of utmost diligence of very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can provide, and therefore that the knuckles failure can not be considered a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from responsibility (Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657; Son vs. Cebu Autobus Co., 94 Phil. 892.) It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to test the strength of each and every part of its vehicles before each trip; but we are of the opinion that a due regard for the carriers obligations toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to determine the condition and strength of those vehicle portions the failure of which may endanger the safe of the passengers. As to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, we agree with appellee that no allowance may be made for moral damages, since under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code, in case of suits for breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and there is none in the case before us. As to exemplary damages, the carrier has not acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner to warrant their award. Hence, we believe that for the minor Precillano Necesito (G. R. No. L-10605), an indemnity of P5,000 would be adequate for the abrasions and fracture of the femur, including medical and hospitalization expenses, there being no evidence that there would be any permanent impairment of his faculties or bodily functions, beyond the lack of anatomical symmetry. As for the death of Severina Garces (G. R. No. L-10606) who was 33 years old, with seven minor children when she died, her heirs are obviously entitled to indemnity not only for the incidental loses of property (cash, wrist watch and merchandise) worth P394 that she carried at the time of the accident and for the burial expenses of P490, but also for

the loss of her earnings (shown to average P120 a month) and for the deprivation of her protection, guidance and company. In our judgment, an award of P15,000 would be adequate (cf Alcantara vs. Surro, 49 O.G. 2769; 93 Phil. 472). The low income of the plaintiffs-appellants makes an award for attorneys fees just and equitable (Civil Code, Art. 2208, par. 11). Considering that he two cases filed were tried jointly, a fee of P3,500 would be reasonable. In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the defendants-appellees are sentenced to indemnify the plaintiffs-appellants in the following amounts: P5,000 to Precillano Necesito, and P15,000 to the heirs of the deceased Severina Garces, plus P3,500 by way of attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Costs against defendants-appellees. So ordered. Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur. Felix, J., concurs in the result. RESOLUTION September 11, 1958 REYES, J. B. L., J.: Defendants-appellees have Submitted a motion asking this Court to reconsider its decision of June 30, 1958, and that the same be modified with respect to (1) its holding the carrier liable for the breakage of the steering knuckle that caused the autobus No. 199 to overturn, whereby the passengers riding in it were injured; (2) the damages awarded, that appellees argue to be excessive; and (3) the award of attorneys fees. (1) The rule prevailing in this jurisdiction as established in previous decisions of this Court, cited in our main opinion, is that a carrier is liable to its passengers for damages caused by mechanical defects of the conveyance. As early as 1924, in Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 659 this Court ruled: As far as the record shows, the accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or else through the negligence of its driver. That is not caso fortuito. And in Son vs. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Phil. 892, this Court held a common carrier liable in damages to passenger for injuries cause by an accident due to the breakage of a faulty drag-link spring. It can be seen that while the courts of the United States are at variance on the question of a carriers liability for latent mechanical defects, the rule in this jurisdiction has been consistent in holding the carrier responsible. This Court has quoted from American and English decisions, not because it felt bound to follow the same, but merely in approval of the rationale of the rule as expressed therein, since the previous Philippine cases did not enlarge on the ideas underlying the doctrine established thereby. The new evidence sought to be introduced do not warrant the grant of a new trial, since the proposed proof available when the original trial was held. Said evidence is not newly discovered.

(2) With regard to the indemnity awarded to the child Precilliano Necesito, the injuries suffered by him are incapable of accurate pecuniary estimation, particularly because the full effect of the injury is not ascertainable immediately. This uncertainty, however, does not preclude the right to an indemnity, since the injury is patent and not denied (Civil Code, Art. 2224). The reasons behind this award are expounded by the Code Commission in its report: There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to ones commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress, from the defendants wrongful act. (Report of the Code Commission, p. 75) In awarding to the heirs of the deceased Severina Garces an indemnity for the loss of her guidance, protection and company, although it is but moral damage, the Court took into account that the case of a passenger who dies in the course of an accident, due to the carriers negligence constitutes an exception to the general rule. While, as pointed out in the main decision, under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code there can be no recovery of moral damages for a breach of contract in the absence of fraud malice or bad faith, the case of a violation of the contract of carriage leading to a passengers death escapes this general rule, in view of Article 1764 in connection with Article 2206, No. 3 of the new Civil Code. ART. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a comman carrier. ART. 2206. ... (3) The spouse, legitimate and eligimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Being a special rule limited to cases of fatal injuries, these articles prevail over the general rule of Art. 2220. Special provisions control general ones (Lichauco & Co. vs. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138; Sancio vs. Lizarraga, 55 Phil. 601). It thus appears that under the new Civil Code, in case of accident due to a carriers negligence, the heirs of a deceased passenger may recover moral damages, even though a passenger who is injured, but manages to survive, is not entitled to them. There is, therefore, no conflict between our main decision in the instant case and that of Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxi Cab Co., 101 Phil. 523, where the passenger suffered injuries, but did not lose his life. (3) In the Cachero case this Court disallowed attorneys fees to the injured plaintiff because the litigation arose out of his exaggerated and unreasonable deeds for an indemnity that was out of proportion with the compensatory damages to which he was solely entitled. But in the present case, plaintiffs original claims can not be deemed a priori wholly unreasonable, since they had a right to indemnity for moral damages besides compensatory ones, and moral damages are not determined by set and invariable bounds.

Neither does the fact that the contract between the passengers and their counsel was on a contingent basis affect the formers right to counsel fees. As pointed out for appellants, the Courts award is an party and not to counsel. A litigant who improvidently stipulate higher counsel fees than those to which he is lawfully entitled, does not for that reason earn the right to a larger indemnity; but, by parity of reasoning, he should not be deprived of counsel fees if by law he is entitled to recover them. We find no reason to alter the main decision heretofore rendered. Ultimately, the position taken by this Court is that a common carriers contract is not to be regarded as a game of chance wherein the passenger stakes his limb and life against the carriers property and profits. Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. So ordered. G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, respondents. No. 71478 May 29, 1987 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE NISSHIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., and DOWA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD., respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: These two cases, both for the recovery of the value of cargo insurance, arose from the same incident, the sinking of the M/S ASIATICA when it caught fire, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. The basic facts are not in controversy: In G.R. No. 69044, sometime in or prior to June, 1977, the M/S ASIATICA, a vessel operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., (referred to hereinafter as Petitioner Carrier) loaded at Kobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages valued at P256,039.00 consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and 7 cases of spare parts valued at P92,361.75, consigned to Central Textile Mills, Inc. Both sets of goods were insured against marine risk for their stated value with respondent Development Insurance and Surety Corporation. In G.R. No. 71478, during the same period, the same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, in two (2) containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corporation, and two cases of surveying instruments consigned to Aman Enterprises and General Merchandise. The 128 cartons were insured for their stated value by respondent Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., for US $46,583.00, and the 2 cases by respondent Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., for US $11,385.00. Enroute for Kobe, Japan, to Manila, the vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. The respective respondent Insurers paid the corresponding marine insurance

values to the consignees concerned and were thus subrogated unto the rights of the latter as the insured. G.R. NO. 69044 On May 11, 1978, respondent Development Insurance & Surety Corporation (Development Insurance, for short), having been subrogated unto the rights of the two insured companies, filed suit against petitioner Carrier for the recovery of the amounts it had paid to the insured before the then Court of First instance of Manila, Branch XXX (Civil Case No. 6087). Petitioner-Carrier denied liability mainly on the ground that the loss was due to an extraordinary fortuitous event, hence, it is not liable under the law. On August 31, 1979, the Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Development Insurance in the amounts of P256,039.00 and P92,361.75, respectively, with legal interest, plus P35,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner Carrier took an appeal to the then Court of Appeals which, on August 14, 1984, affirmed. Petitioner Carrier is now before us on a Petition for Review on Certiorari. G.R. NO. 71478 On June 16, 1978, respondents Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co. NISSHIN for short), and Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (DOWA, for brevity), as subrogees of the insured, filed suit against Petitioner Carrier for the recovery of the insured value of the cargo lost with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 11 (Civil Case No. 116151), imputing unseaworthiness of the ship and non-observance of extraordinary diligence by petitioner Carrier. Petitioner Carrier denied liability on the principal grounds that the fire which caused the sinking of the ship is an exempting circumstance under Section 4(2) (b) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA); and that when the loss of fire is established, the burden of proving negligence of the vessel is shifted to the cargo shipper. On September 15, 1980, the Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of NISSHIN and DOWA in the amounts of US $46,583.00 and US $11,385.00, respectively, with legal interest, plus attorney's fees of P5,000.00 and costs. On appeal by petitioner, the then Court of Appeals on September 10, 1984, affirmed with modification the Trial Court's judgment by decreasing the amount recoverable by DOWA to US $1,000.00 because of $500 per package limitation of liability under the COGSA. Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari by Petitioner Carrier.

Division. The same was granted; the Resolution of the Second Division of September 25, 1985 was set aside and the Petition was given due course. At the outset, we reject Petitioner Carrier's claim that it is not the operator of the M/S Asiatica but merely a charterer thereof. We note that in G.R. No. 69044, Petitioner Carrier stated in its Petition: There are about 22 cases of the "ASIATICA" pending in various courts where various plaintiffs are represented by various counsel representing various consignees or insurance companies. The common defendant in these cases is petitioner herein, being the operator of said vessel. ... 1 Petitioner Carrier should be held bound to said admission. As a general rule, the facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of that party and binding upon it. 2 And an admission in one pleading in one action may be received in evidence against the pleader or his successor-in-interest on the trial of another action to which he is a party, in favor of a party to the latter action. 3 The threshold issues in both cases are: (1) which law should govern the Civil Code provisions on Common carriers or the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act? and (2) who has the burden of proof to show negligence of the carrier? On the Law Applicable The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. 4 As the cargoes in question were transported from Japan to the Philippines, the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code. 5 However, in all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. 6 Thus, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a special law, is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code. 7 On the Burden of Proof Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods, according to all the circumstances of each case. 8 Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity; xxx xxx xxx 9

Both Petitions were initially denied for lack of merit. G.R. No. 69044 on January 16, 1985 by the First Division, and G. R. No. 71478 on September 25, 1985 by the Second Division. Upon Petitioner Carrier's Motion for Reconsideration, however, G.R. No. 69044 was given due course on March 25, 1985, and the parties were required to submit their respective Memoranda, which they have done. On the other hand, in G.R. No. 71478, Petitioner Carrier sought reconsideration of the Resolution denying the Petition for Review and moved for its consolidation with G.R. No. 69044, the lowernumbered case, which was then pending resolution with the First

Petitioner Carrier claims that the loss of the vessel by fire exempts it from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity. " However, we are of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must be so as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. 10 It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by lightning 11 or by other natural disaster or calamity. 12 It may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. 13 Article 1680 of the Civil Code, which considers fire as an extraordinary fortuitous event refers to leases of rural lands

where a reduction of the rent is allowed when more than one-half of the fruits have been lost due to such event, considering that the law adopts a protection policy towards agriculture. 14 As the peril of the fire is not comprehended within the exception in Article 1734, supra, Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention in Article 1734, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary deligence required by law. In this case, the respective Insurers. as subrogees of the cargo shippers, have proven that the transported goods have been lost. Petitioner Carrier has also proved that the loss was caused by fire. The burden then is upon Petitioner Carrier to proved that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. In this regard, the Trial Court, concurred in by the Appellate Court, made the following Finding of fact: The cargoes in question were, according to the witnesses defendant placed in hatches No, 2 and 3 cf the vessel, Boatswain Ernesto Pastrana noticed that smoke was coming out from hatch No. 2 and hatch No. 3; that where the smoke was noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have started twenty-four 24) our the same was noticed; that carbon dioxide was ordered released and the crew was ordered to open the hatch covers of No, 2 tor commencement of fire fighting by sea water: that all of these effort were not enough to control the fire. Pursuant to Article 1733, common carriers are bound to extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods. The evidence of the defendant did not show that extraordinary vigilance was observed by the vessel to prevent the occurrence of fire at hatches numbers 2 and 3. Defendant's evidence did not likewise show he amount of diligence made by the crew, on orders, in the care of the cargoes. What appears is that after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage. Consequently, the crew could not have even explain what could have caused the fire. The defendant, in the Court's mind, failed to satisfactorily show that extraordinary vigilance and care had been made by the crew to prevent the occurrence of the fire. The defendant, as a common carrier, is liable to the consignees for said lack of deligence required of it under Article 1733 of the Civil Code. 15 Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law, Petitioner Carrier cannot escape liability for the loss of the cargo. And even if fire were to be considered a "natural disaster" within the meaning of Article 1734 of the Civil Code, it is required under Article 1739 of the same Code that the "natural disaster" must have been the "proximate and only cause of the loss," and that the carrier has "exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster. " This Petitioner Carrier has also failed to establish satisfactorily. Nor may Petitioner Carrier seek refuge from liability under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, It is provided therein that: Sec. 4(2). Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from (b) carrier. Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the

xxx

xxx

xxx

In this case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, in effect, found, as a fact, that there was "actual fault" of the carrier shown by "lack of diligence" in that "when the smoke was noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have started twenty-four (24) hours before the same was noticed; " and that "after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage." The foregoing suffices to show that the circumstances under which the fire originated and spread are such as to show that Petitioner Carrier or its servants were negligent in connection therewith. Consequently, the complete defense afforded by the COGSA when loss results from fire is unavailing to Petitioner Carrier. On the US $500 Per Package Limitation: Petitioner Carrier avers that its liability if any, should not exceed US $500 per package as provided in section 4(5) of the COGSA, which reads: (5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in bill of lading. This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence, but all be conclusive on the carrier. By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed: Provided, That such maximum shall not be less than the figure above named. In no event shall the carrier be Liable for more than the amount of damage actually sustained. xxx xxx xxx

Article 1749 of the New Civil Code also allows the limitations of liability in this wise: Art. 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability as limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding. It is to be noted that the Civil Code does not of itself limit the liability of the common carrier to a fixed amount per package although the Code expressly permits a stipulation limiting such liability. Thus, the COGSA which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, steps in and supplements the Code by establishing a statutory provision limiting the carrier's liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value of the goods by the shipper in the bill of lading. The provisions of the Carriage of Goods by.Sea Act on limited liability are as much a part of a bill of lading as though physically in it and as much a part thereof as though placed therein by agreement of the parties. 16 In G.R. No. 69044, there is no stipulation in the respective Bills of Lading (Exhibits "C-2" and "I-3") 1 7 limiting the carrier's liability for the loss or destruction of the goods. Nor is there a declaration of a higher value of the goods. Hence, Petitioner Carrier's liability should not exceed US $500 per package, or its peso equivalent, at the time of payment of the value of the goods lost, but in no case "more than the amount of damage actually sustained."

The actual total loss for the 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes was P256,039 (Exhibit "C"), which was exactly the amount of the insurance coverage by Development Insurance (Exhibit "A"), and the amount affirmed to be paid by respondent Court. The goods were shipped in 28 packages (Exhibit "C-2") Multiplying 28 packages by $500 would result in a product of $14,000 which, at the current exchange rate of P20.44 to US $1, would be P286,160, or "more than the amount of damage actually sustained." Consequently, the aforestated amount of P256,039 should be upheld. With respect to the seven (7) cases of spare parts (Exhibit "I-3"), their actual value was P92,361.75 (Exhibit "I"), which is likewise the insured value of the cargo (Exhibit "H") and amount was affirmed to be paid by respondent Court. however, multiplying seven (7) cases by $500 per package at the present prevailing rate of P20.44 to US $1 (US $3,500 x P20.44) would yield P71,540 only, which is the amount that should be paid by Petitioner Carrier for those spare parts, and not P92,361.75. In G.R. No. 71478, in so far as the two (2) cases of surveying instruments are concerned, the amount awarded to DOWA which was already reduced to $1,000 by the Appellate Court following the statutory $500 liability per package, is in order. In respect of the shipment of 128 cartons of garment fabrics in two (2) containers and insured with NISSHIN, the Appellate Court also limited Petitioner Carrier's liability to $500 per package and affirmed the award of $46,583 to NISSHIN. it multiplied 128 cartons (considered as COGSA packages) by $500 to arrive at the figure of $64,000, and explained that "since this amount is more than the insured value of the goods, that is $46,583, the Trial Court was correct in awarding said amount only for the 128 cartons, which amount is less than the maximum limitation of the carrier's liability." We find no reversible error. The 128 cartons and not the two (2) containers should be considered as the shipping unit. In Mitsui & Co., Ltd. vs. American Export Lines, Inc. 636 F 2d 807 (1981), the consignees of tin ingots and the shipper of floor covering brought action against the vessel owner and operator to recover for loss of ingots and floor covering, which had been shipped in vessel supplied containers. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Division, modified and affirmed holding that: When what would ordinarily be considered packages are shipped in a container supplied by the carrier and the number of such units is disclosed in the shipping documents, each of those units and not the container constitutes the "package" referred to in liability limitation provision of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 4(5), 46 U.S.C.A.& 1304(5). Even if language and purposes of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act left doubt as to whether carrier-furnished containers whose contents are disclosed should be treated as packages, the interest in securing international uniformity would suggest that they should not be so treated. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 4(5), 46 U.S.C.A. 1304(5). ... After quoting the statement in Leather's Best, supra, 451 F 2d at 815, that treating a container as a package is inconsistent with the congressional purpose of establishing a reasonable minimum

level of liability, Judge Beeks wrote, 414 F. Supp. at 907 (footnotes omitted): Although this approach has not completely escaped criticism, there is, nonetheless, much to commend it. It gives needed recognition to the responsibility of the courts to construe and apply the statute as enacted, however great might be the temptation to "modernize" or reconstitute it by artful judicial gloss. If COGSA's package limitation scheme suffers from internal illness, Congress alone must undertake the surgery. There is, in this regard, obvious wisdom in the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in Hartford that technological advancements, whether or not forseeable by the COGSA promulgators, do not warrant a distortion or artificial construction of the statutory term "package." A ruling that these large reusable metal pieces of transport equipment qualify as COGSA packages at least where, as here, they were carrier owned and supplied would amount to just such a distortion. Certainly, if the individual crates or cartons prepared by the shipper and containing his goods can rightly be considered "packages" standing by themselves, they do not suddenly lose that character upon being stowed in a carrier's container. I would liken these containers to detachable stowage compartments of the ship. They simply serve to divide the ship's overall cargo stowage space into smaller, more serviceable loci. Shippers' packages are quite literally "stowed" in the containers utilizing stevedoring practices and materials analogous to those employed in traditional on board stowage. In Yeramex International v. S.S. Tando,, 1977 A.M.C. 1807 (E.D. Va.) rev'd on other grounds, 595 F 2nd 943 (4 Cir. 1979), another district with many maritime cases followed Judge Beeks' reasoning in Matsushita and similarly rejected the functional economics test. Judge Kellam held that when rolls of polyester goods are packed into cardboard cartons which are then placed in containers, the cartons and not the containers are the packages. xxx xxx xxx

The case of Smithgreyhound v. M/V Eurygenes, 18 followed the Mitsui test: Eurygenes concerned a shipment of stereo equipment packaged by the shipper into cartons which were then placed by the shipper into a carrier- furnished container. The number of cartons was disclosed to the carrier in the bill of lading. Eurygenes followed the Mitsui test and treated the cartons, not the container, as the COGSA packages. However, Eurygenes indicated that a carrier could limit its liability to $500 per container if the bill of lading failed to disclose the number of cartons or units within the container, or if the parties indicated, in clear and unambiguous language, an agreement to treat the container as the package. (Admiralty Litigation in Perpetuum: The Continuing Saga of Package Limitations and Third World Delivery Problems by Chester D. Hooper & Keith L. Flicker, published in Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 6, 1982-83, Number 1) (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the Bill of Lading (Exhibit "A") disclosed the following data: 2 Containers (128) Cartons)

Men's Garments Fabrics and Accessories Freight Prepaid Say: Two (2) Containers Only.

take until August 25, 1979, or more than six months, to prepare its written interrogatories. Only the defendant itself is to blame for its failure to adduce evidence in support of its defenses. xxx xxx xxx 22

Considering, therefore, that the Bill of Lading clearly disclosed the contents of the containers, the number of cartons or units, as well as the nature of the goods, and applying the ruling in the Mitsui and Eurygenes cases it is clear that the 128 cartons, not the two (2) containers should be considered as the shipping unit subject to the $500 limitation of liability. True, the evidence does not disclose whether the containers involved herein were carrier-furnished or not. Usually, however, containers are provided by the carrier. 19 In this case, the probability is that they were so furnished for Petitioner Carrier was at liberty to pack and carry the goods in containers if they were not so packed. Thus, at the dorsal side of the Bill of Lading (Exhibit "A") appears the following stipulation in fine print: 11. (Use of Container) Where the goods receipt of which is acknowledged on the face of this Bill of Lading are not already packed into container(s) at the time of receipt, the Carrier shall be at liberty to pack and carry them in any type of container(s). The foregoing would explain the use of the estimate "Say: Two (2) Containers Only" in the Bill of Lading, meaning that the goods could probably fit in two (2) containers only. It cannot mean that the shipper had furnished the containers for if so, "Two (2) Containers" appearing as the first entry would have sufficed. and if there is any ambiguity in the Bill of Lading, it is a cardinal principle in the construction of contracts that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 20 This applies with even greater force in a contract of adhesion where a contract is already prepared and the other party merely adheres to it, like the Bill of Lading in this case, which is draw. up by the carrier. 21 On Alleged Denial of Opportunity to Present Deposition of Its Witnesses: (in G.R. No. 69044 only) Petitioner Carrier claims that the Trial Court did not give it sufficient time to take the depositions of its witnesses in Japan by written interrogatories. We do not agree. petitioner Carrier was given- full opportunity to present its evidence but it failed to do so. On this point, the Trial Court found:

Petitioner Carrier was afforded ample time to present its side of the case. 23 It cannot complain now that it was denied due process when the Trial Court rendered its Decision on the basis of the evidence adduced. What due process abhors is absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. 24 On the Award of Attorney's Fees: Petitioner Carrier questions the award of attorney's fees. In both cases, respondent Court affirmed the award by the Trial Court of attorney's fees of P35,000.00 in favor of Development Insurance in G.R. No. 69044, and P5,000.00 in favor of NISSHIN and DOWA in G.R. No. 71478. Courts being vested with discretion in fixing the amount of attorney's fees, it is believed that the amount of P5,000.00 would be more reasonable in G.R. No. 69044. The award of P5,000.00 in G.R. No. 71478 is affirmed. WHEREFORE, 1) in G.R. No. 69044, the judgment is modified in that petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines shall pay the Development Insurance and Surety Corporation the amount of P256,039 for the twenty-eight (28) packages of calorized lance pipes, and P71,540 for the seven (7) cases of spare parts, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint on June 13, 1978, plus P5,000 as attorney's fees, and the costs. 2) In G.R.No.71478,the judgment is hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-48757

May 30, 1988

MAURO GANZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GELACIO E. TUMAMBING, respondents. Antonio B. Abinoja for petitioner. Quijano, Arroyo & Padilla Law Office for respondents.

SARMIENTO, J.: xxx xxx xxx The private respondent instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila 1 an action against the petitioner for damages based on culpa contractual. The antecedent facts, as found by the respondent Court, 2 are undisputed: On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the lighter LCT "Batman" (Exhibit 1, Stipulation of Facts, Amended Record on Appeal, p. 38). Pursuant to that agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter "Batman" to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water (t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 31). On December 1, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain's supervision. When about half of the scrap iron was

Indeed, since after November 6, 1978, to August 27, 1979, not to mention the time from June 27, 1978, when its answer was prepared and filed in Court, until September 26, 1978, when the pre-trial conference was conducted for the last time, the defendant had more than nine months to prepare its evidence. Its belated notice to take deposition on written interrogatories of its witnesses in Japan, served upon the plaintiff on August 25th, just two days before the hearing set for August 27th, knowing fully well that it was its undertaking on July 11 the that the deposition of the witnesses would be dispensed with if by next time it had not yet been obtained, only proves the lack of merit of the defendant's motion for postponement, for which reason it deserves no sympathy from the Court in that regard. The defendant has told the Court since February 16, 1979, that it was going to take the deposition of its witnesses in Japan. Why did it

already loaded (t.s.n., December 14, 1972, p. 20), Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them, Mayor Jose Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing (t.s.n., March 19, 1971, p. 9; September 28, 1972, pp. 6-7).<re||an1w> The gunshot was not fatal but Tumambing had to be taken to a hospital in Balanga, Bataan, for treatment (t.s.n., March 19, 1971, p. 13; September 28, 1972, p. 15). After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. But on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron (t.s.n., June 16, 1972, pp. 8-9) where the lighter was docked (t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 31). The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO (Record on Appeal, pp. 20-22). Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron (Stipulation of Facts, Record on Appeal, p. 40; t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 10.) On the basis of the above findings, the respondent Court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered ordering defendant-appellee Mauro Ganzon to pay plaintiff-appellant Gelacio E. Tumambimg the sum of P5,895.00 as actual damages, the sum of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the amount of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against defendant-appellee Ganzon. 3 In this petition for review on certiorari, the alleged errors in the decision of the Court of Appeals are: I THE COURT OF APPEALS FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY OF BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION AND IN IMPOSING A LIABILITY AGAINST HIM COMMENCING FROM THE TIME THE SCRAP WAS PLACED IN HIS CUSTODY AND CONTROL HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW. II THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN CONDEMNING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ACTS OF HIS EMPLOYEES IN DUMPING THE SCRAP INTO THE SEA DESPITE THAT IT WAS ORDERED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WITHOUT HIS PARTICIPATION. III THE APPELLATE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE LOSS OF THE SCRAP WAS DUE TO A FORTUITOUS EVENT AND THE PETITIONER IS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF. 4 The petitioner, in his first assignment of error, insists that the scrap iron had not been unconditionally placed under his custody and control to make him liable. However, he completely agrees with the respondent Court's finding that on December 1, 1956, the private respondent delivered the scraps to Captain Filomeno Niza for loading in the lighter "Batman," That the petitioner, thru his employees, actually received the scraps is freely admitted. Significantly, there is not the slightest allegation or showing of any condition, qualification, or restriction accompanying the delivery by the private respondent-shipper of the scraps, or the receipt of

the same by the petitioner. On the contrary, soon after the scraps were delivered to, and received by the petitioner-common carrier, loading was commenced. By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitionercarrier's extraordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. 5 The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded. The petitioner has failed to show that the loss of the scraps was due to any of the following causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, namely: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) or civil; (3) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international

Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; (5) Order or act of competent public authority.

Hence, the petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. 6 By reason of this presumption, the court is not even required to make an express finding of fault or negligence before it could hold the petitioner answerable for the breach of the contract of carriage. Still, the petitioner could have been exempted from any liability had he been able to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods in his custody, according to all the circumstances of the case, or that the loss was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. As it was, there was hardly any attempt on the part of the petitioner to prove that he exercised such extraordinary diligence. It is in the second and third assignments of error where the petitioner maintains that he is exempt from any liability because the loss of the scraps was due mainly to the intervention of the municipal officials of Mariveles which constitutes a caso fortuito as defined in Article 1174 of the Civil Code. 7 We cannot sustain the theory of caso fortuito. In the courts below, the petitioner's defense was that the loss of the scraps was due to an "order or act of competent public authority," and this contention was correctly passed upon by the Court of Appeals which ruled that: ... In the second place, before the appellee Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of authority. The appellee failed to establish this. Indeed, no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such

an order was given in evidence. Neither has it been shown that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles. What we have in the record is the stipulation of the parties that the cargo of scrap iron was accilmillated by the appellant through separate purchases here and there from private individuals (Record on Appeal, pp. 38-39). The fact remains that the order given by the acting mayor to dump the scrap iron into the sea was part of the pressure applied by Mayor Jose Advincula to shakedown the appellant for P5,000.00. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for appellee Mauro Ganzon and his representatives to carry out. Now the petitioner is changing his theory to caso fortuito. Such a change of theory on appeal we cannot, however, allow. In any case, the intervention of the municipal officials was not In any case, of a character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. Moreover, there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner's employees. The mere difficulty in the fullfilment of the obligation is not considered force majeure. We agree with the private respondent that the scraps could have been properly unloaded at the shore or at the NASSCO compound, so that after the dispute with the local officials concerned was settled, the scraps could then be delivered in accordance with the contract of carriage. There is no incompatibility between the Civil Code provisions on common carriers and Articles 361 8 and 362 9 of the Code of Commerce which were the basis for this Court's ruling in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Ynchausti & Co.10 and which the petitioner invokes in tills petition. For Art. 1735 of the Civil Code, conversely stated, means that the shipper will suffer the losses and deterioration arising from the causes enumerated in Art. 1734; and in these instances, the burden of proving that damages were caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier rests upon him. However, the carrier must first establish that the loss or deterioration was occasioned by one of the excepted causes or was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Be that as it may, insofar as Art. 362 appears to require of the carrier only ordinary diligence, the same is .deemed to have been modified by Art. 1733 of the Civil Code. Finding the award of actual and exemplary damages to be proper, the same will not be disturbed by us. Besides, these were not sufficiently controverted by the petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED; the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. G.R. No. L-50076 September 14, 1990 NORBERTO QUISUMBING, SR., and GUNTHER LOEFFLER petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondents. N.J. Quisumbing & Associates for petitioners Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent.

NARVASA, J.: Having met with no success in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and in the Court of Appeals, the petitioners are now in this Court in a third and final attempt to recover from the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (hereafter, simply PAL) the value of jewelry, other valuables and money taken from them by four (4) armed robbers on board one of the latter's airplanes while on a flight from Mactan City to Manila, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. The petitioners accept the correctness of the basic facts adopted by the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance, to wit: 1 1. . . . Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. and Gunther Leoffler were among the of ... (PAL's) Fokker 'Friendship' PIC-536 plane in its flight of November 6,1968 which left Mactan City at about 7:30 in the evening with Manila for its destination. 2. After the plane had taken off, Florencio O. Villarin, a Senior NBI Agent who was also a passenger of the said plane, noticed a certain 'Zaldy,' a suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez, seated at the front seat near the door leading to the cockpit of the plane. A check by Villarin with the passenger's ticket in the possession of flight Stewardess Annie Bontigao, who was seated at the last seat right row, revealed that 'Zaldy' had used the name 'Cardente,' one of his aliases known to Villarin. Villarin also came to know from the stewardess that 'Zaldy' had three companions on board the plane." 3. Villarin then scribbled a note addressed to the pilot of the plane requesting the latter to contact NBI duty agents in Manila for the said agents to ask the Director of the NBI to send about six NBI agents to meet the plane because the suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez was on board (Exh. 'G'). The said note was handed by Villarin to the stewardess who in tum gave the same to the pilot. 4. After receiving the note, which was about 15 minutes after take off, the pilot of the plane, Capt. Luis Bonnevie, Jr., came out of the cockpit and sat beside Villarin at the rear portion of the plane and explained that he could not send the message because it would be heard by all ground aircraft stations. Villarin, however, told the pilot of the danger of commission of violent acts on board the plane by the notorious 'Zaldy' and his three companions. 5. While the pilot and Villarin were talking, 'Zaldy' and one of his companions walked to the rear and stood behind them. Capt. Bonnevie then stood up and went back to the cockpit. 'Zaldy' and his companions returned to their seats, but after a few minutes they moved back to the rear throwing ugly looks at Villarin who, sensing danger, stood up and went back to his original seat across the aisle on the second to the last seat near the window. 'Zaldy and his companion likewise went back to their respective seats in front. 6. Soon thereafter an exchange of gunshots ensued between Villarin and 'Zaldy' and the latter's companions. 'Zaldy' announced to the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit that it was a hold-up and ordered the pilot not to send any SOS. The hold-uppers divested passengers of their belongings. 7. Specifically, ... Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. was divested of jewelries and cash in the total amount of P18,650.00 out of which recoveries were made amounting to P4,550.00. . . Gunther

Leoffler was divested of a wrist watch, cash and a wallet in the total of P1,700.00. As a result of the incident ... Quisumbing, Sr.suffered shock, because a gun had been pointed at him by one of the holduppers. 8. Upon landing at the Manila International Airport. 'Zaldy' and his three companions succeeded in escaping. Demands were thereafter made on PAL by Quisumbing and Loeffler "to indemnify ... (them) on their aforesaid loss, but ... (PAL) refused ... (averring that) it is not liable to (them) in law or in fact." 2 Contending that the "aforesaid loss is a result of breach of ... (PAL's) contractual obligation to carry ... (them) and their belongings and effects to their Manila destination without loss or damage, and constitutes a serious dereliction of ... (PAL's) legal duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the same." , Quisumbing and Loeffler brought suit against PAL in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, as stated in this opinion's opening paragraph, to recover the value of the property lost by them to the robbers as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. 3 The plaintiffs declared that their suit was instituted "... pursuant to Civil Code articles 1754, 998, 2000 and 2001 and on the ground that in relation to said Civil Code article 2001 the complained-of act of the armed robbers is not a force majeure, as the 'use of arms' or 'irresistible force' was not taken advantage of by said armed robbers in gaining entrance to defendant's ill-fated plane in questions. And, with respect to said Civil Code article 1998, it is not essential that the lost effects and belongings of plaintiffs were actually delivered to defendant's plane personnel or that the latter were notified thereof (De los Santos v. Tamn Khey, [CA] 58 O.G. 7693)." 4 PAL filed answer denying liability, alleging inter alia that the robbery during the flight and after the aircraft was forcibly landed at the Manila Airport did indeed constitute force majeure, and neither of the plaintiffs had notified PAL "or its crew or employees that they were in possession of cash, German marks and valuable jewelries and watches" or surrendered said items to "the crew or personnel on board the aircraft." 5 After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment 'dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with costs against ... (them)." 6 The Court opined that since the plaintiffs "did not notify defendant or its employees that they were in possession of the cash, jewelries, and the wallet they are now claiming," the very provision of law invoked by them, Article 1998 of the Civil Code, denies them any recourse against PAL. The Court also pointed out that... while it is true that the use of gems was not taken advantage of by the robbers in gaining entrance to defendant's ill-fated plane, the armed robbery that took place constitutes force majeure for which defendant is not liable because the robbers were able to gain entrance to the plane with the guns they used already in their possession, which fact could not have been prevented nor avoided by the defendant since it was not authorized to search its passengers for firearms and deadly weapons as shown in Exhibits '6', '7', '8,' and '8-A.' As its robbery constitutes force majeure, defendant is not liable. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals. 7 The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. 8 It rejected the argument that "the use of arms or ... irresistible force" referred to in Article 2001 constitutes force majeure only if resorted to gain entry into

the airplane, and not if it attends "the robbery itself." The Court ruled that under the facts, "the highjacking-robbery was force majeure," observing that ... hijackers do not board an airplane through a blatant display of firepower and violent fury. Firearms, hand-grenades, dynamite, and explosives are introduced into the airplane surreptitiously and with the utmost cunning and stealth, although there is an occasional use of innocent hostages who will be coldly murdered unless a plane is given to the hijackers' complete disposal. The objective of modern-day hijackers is to display the irresistible force amounting to force majeure only when it is most effective and that is when the jetliner is winging its way at Himalayan altitudes and ill-advised heroics by either crew or passengers would send the multi-million peso airplane and the priceless lives of all its occupants into certain death and destruction. ... The Appellate Court also ruled that in light of the evidence PAL could not be faulted for want of diligence, particularly for failing "to take positive measures to implement Civil Aeronautics Administration regulations prohibiting civilians from carrying firearms on board aircrafts;" and that "the absence of coded transmissions, the amateurish behaviour of the pilot in dealing with the NBI agent, the allegedly open cockpit door, and the failure to return to Mactan, in the light of the circumstances of the case ..., were not negligent acts sufficient to overcome the force majeure nature of the armed robbery." In fact, the Court went on to says, 9 ... it is illusive to assume that had these precautions been taken, the hijacking or the robbery would not have succeeded. The mandatory use of the most sophisticated electronic detection devices and magnetometers, the imposition of severe penalties, the development of screening procedures, the compilation of hijacker behavioural profiles, the assignment of sky marshals, and the weight of outraged world opinion may have minimized hijackings but all these have proved ineffective against truly determined hijackers. World experience shows that if a group of armed hijackers want to take over a plane in flight, they can elude the latest combined government and airline industry measures. And as our own experience in Zamboanga City illustrates, the use of force to overcome hijackers, results in the death and injury of innocent passengers and crew members. We are not in the least bit suggesting that the Philippine Airlines should not do everything humanly possible to protect passengers from hijackers' acts. We merely state that where the defendant has faithfully complied with the requirements of government agencies and adhered to the established procedures and precautions of the airline industry at any particular time, its failure to take certain steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been taken is not the negligence or misconduct which mingles with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause. Under the circumstance of the instant case, the acts of the airline and its crew cannot be faulted as negligence. The hijackers had already shown their willingness to kill. One passenger was in fact killed and another survived gunshot wounds. The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew were more important than their properties. Cooperation with the hijackers until they released their hostages at the runway end near the South Superhighway was dictated by the circumstances. Insisting that the evidence demonstrates negligence on the part of the PAL crew "occurring before and exposing them to hijacking," Quisumbing and Loeffler have come up to this Court praying that the judgments of the trial Court and the Court of

Appeals be reversed and another rendered in their favor. Once again, the issue will be resolved against them. A careful analysis of the record in relation to the memoranda and other pleadings of the parties, convinces this Court of the correctness of the essential conclusion of both the trial and appellate courts that the evidence does indeed fail to prove any want of diligence on the part of PAL, or that, more specifically, it had failed to comply with applicable regulations or universally accepted and observed procedures to preclude hijacking; and that the particular acts singled out by the petitioners as supposedly demonstrative of negligence were, in the light of the circumstances of the case, not in truth negligent acts "sufficient to overcome the force majeure nature of the armed robbery." The Court quite agrees, too, with the Appellate Tribunal's wry observation that PAL's "failure to take certain steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been taken is not the negligence or misconduct which mingles with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause." No success can therefore attend petitioners' appeal, not only because they wish to have a review and modification of factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals, which established and uniformly observed axiom proscribes, 10 but also because those factual conclusions have in this Court's view been correctly drawn from the proofs on record. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 60673

back again at the end of it to try if he can get through without having to register his attache case. However, the same man in charge of handcarry control did not fail to notice him and ordered him again to register his baggage. For fear that he would miss the plane if he insisted and argued on personally taking the valise with him, he acceded to checking it in. He then gave his attache case to his brother who happened to be around and who checked it in for him, but without declaring its contents or the value of its contents. He was given a Baggage Claim Tag No. P-749-713. (Exhibit "B" for the plaintiff-respondent) Upon arriving in Manila on the same date, January 16, 1975, Rapadas claimed and was given all his checked-in baggages except the attache case. Since Rapadas felt ill on his arrival, he sent his son, Jorge Rapadas to request for the search of the missing luggage. The petitioner exerted efforts to locate the luggage through the Pan American World Airways-Manila International Airport (PAN AM-MIA) Baggage Service. On January 30, 1975, the petitioner required the private respondent to put the request in writing. The respondent filled in a Baggage Claim Blank Form. Thereafter, Rapadas personally followed up his claim. For several times, he called up Mr. Panuelos, the head of the Baggage Section of PAN AM. He also sent letters demanding and reminding the petitioner of his claim. Rapadas received a letter from the petitioner's counsel dated August 2, 1975 offering to settle the claim for the sum of one hundred sixty dollars ($160.00) representing the petitioner's alleged limit of liability for loss or damage to a passenger's personal property under the contract of carriage between Rapadas and PAN AM. Refusing to accept this kind of settlement, Rapadas filed the instant action for damages on October 1, 1975. Rapadas alleged that PAN AM discriminated or singled him out in ordering that his luggage be checked in. He also alleged that PAN AM neglected its duty in the handling and safekeeping of his attache case from the point of embarkation in Guam to his destination in Manila. He placed the value of the lost attache case and its contents at US$42,403.90. According to him, the loss resulted in his failure to pay certain monetary obligations, failure to remit money sent through him to relatives, inability to enjoy the fruits of his retirement and vacation pay earned from working in Tonga Construction Company (he retired in August 1974) and inability to return to Tonga to comply with then existing contracts. In its answer, petitioner-defendant PAN AM acknowledged responsibility for the loss of the attache case but asserted that the claim was subject to the "Notice of Baggage Liability Limitations" allegedly attached to and forming part of the passenger ticket. The petitioner argued that the same notice was also conspicuously posted in its offices for the guidance of the passengers. At the trial, private respondent showed proof of his retirement award and vacation pay amounting to $4,750.00. He claimed that the attache case also contained other money consisting of $1,400 allegedly given to him by his son, Jaime, as a round trip fare of his (plaintiff-respondent) wife, but which amount was later found to be actually intended by Jaime as payment for arrears of a lot purchased from Tropical Homes, Inc.; $3,000 allegedly given by his brothers for payment of taxes and for constructing improvements on the Rapadas estates; and $300.00 birthday present of the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Ruben Canonizado to plaintiff-respondent's wife. He also claimed having kept several items in the attache case, namely (1) contracts and records of employment, letters of commendation, testimonials and

May 19, 1992

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSE K. RAPADAS and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Froilan P. Pobre for private respondent.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the trial court decision on the liability of petitioner Pan American World Airways for damages due to private respondent. The trial court ruled that the petitioner can not avail of a limitation of liabilities for lost baggages of a passenger. The dispositive portion of the trial court decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff by way of actual damages the equivalent peso value of the amount of $5,228.90 and 100 paengs, nominal damages in the amount of P20,000.00 and attorney's fees of P5,000.00, and the costs of the suit. Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. (Rollo, p. 13) On January 16, 1975, private respondent Jose K. Rapadas held Passenger Ticket and Baggage Claim Check No. 026-394830084-5 for petitioner's Flight No. 841 with the route from Guam to Manila. While standing in line to board the flight at the Guam airport, Rapadas was ordered by petitioner's handcarry control agent to check-in his Samsonite attache case. Rapadas protested pointing to the fact that other co-passengers were permitted to handcarry bulkier baggages. He stepped out of the line only to go

newspaper clippings on his achievement for 13 years in Tonga, New Zealand and Australia, drafts of manuscripts, photographs and drivers license alleged to be worth $20,000.00; a Polaroid camera, films, calculator, and other personal items worth $403.90; memorabilia, autographs personally acquired from Charles Lindberg, Lawrence Rockefeller and Ryoichi Sasakawa, a commemorative palladium coin worth Tongan 100 paengs and unused Tongan stamps, all totalling $7,500.00; and a plan worth $5,000.00 drawn by his son Jaime, who is an architect, for the construction of a residential house and a 6-story commercial building. Rapadas claimed the amount of the attache case itself to be $25.50. (See Decision in Civil Case No. 99564 in Amended Record on Appeal, pp. 61-85) The lower court ruled in favor of complainant Rapadas after finding no stipulation giving notice to the baggage liability limitation. The court rejected the claim of defendant PANAM that its liability under the terms of the passenger ticket is only up to $160.00. However, it scrutinized all the claims of the plaintiff. It discredited insufficient evidence to show discriminatory acts or bad faith on the part of petitioner PANAM. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Hence, this petition. The main issue raised in the case at bar is whether or not a passenger is bound by the terms of a passenger ticket declaring that the limitations of liability set forth in the Warsaw Convention (October 12, 1929; 137 League of Nations Treaty Series II; See Proclamation No. 201 [1955], 51 O.G. 4933 [October, 1955]) as amended by the Hague Protocol (September 28, 1955; 478 UNTS 373; III PTS 515), shall apply in case of loss, damage or destruction to a registered luggage of a passenger. The petitioner maintains that its liability for the lost baggage of respondent Rapadas was limited to $160.00 since the latter did not declare a higher value for his baggage and did not pay the corresponding additional charges. The private respondent, on the other hand, insists that he is entitled to as much damages as those awarded by the court and affirmed by the respondent appellate court. After a review of the various arguments of the opposing parties as well as the records of the case, the Court finds sufficient basis under the particular facts of this case for the availment of the liability limitations under the Warsaw Convention. There is no dispute, and the courts below admit, that there was such a Notice appearing on page two (2) of the airline ticket stating that the Warsaw Convention governs in case of death or injury to a passenger or of loss, damage or destruction to a passenger's luggage. The Notice states: If the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the country of departure the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and the Convention governs and in most cases limits the liability of carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to baggage. See also notice headed "Advice to International Passengers on Limitation of Liability." (The latter notice refers to limited liability for death or personal injury to passengers with proven damages not exceeding US $75,000 per passenger; Exhibit "K" for plaintiff respondent, Table of Exhibits, p. 19)

Furthermore, paragraph 2 of the "Conditions of Contract" also appearing on page 2 of the ticket states: 2. Carriage hereunder is subject to the rules and limitations relating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention unless such carriage is not "international carriage" as defined by that Convention. (Exhibit "K", supra) We note that plaintiff-respondent Rapadas presented as proof of the Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check No. 026-394830084-5 a xerox copy of its page 2 which contains the Notice and Conditions of Contract, and also page 3 which recites the Advice to International Passengers on Limitation of Liability. He also presented two xerox copies of Flight Coupon No. 3 of the same passenger ticket showing the fares paid for the trips Honolulu to Guam, Guam to Manila, and Manila to Honolulu to prove his obligations which remained unpaid because of the unexpected loss of money allegedly placed inside the missing attache case. Rapadas explained during the trial that the same passenger ticket was returned by him to one Mr. S.L. Faupula of the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, Ltd., Tonga who demanded the payment of the fares or otherwise, the return of the unused plane tickets (including the subject Passenger Ticket & Baggage Check No. 026-394830084-5). The issuance of these tickets was facilitated by Mr. Faupula on credit. Meanwhile, the petitioner offered as evidence Exhibit "1" also showing page 2 of the passenger ticket to prove the notice and the conditions of the contract of carriage. It likewise offered Exhibit "1-A", a xerox copy of a "Notice of Baggage Liability Limitations" which the trial court disregarded and held to be nonexistent. The same Exhibit "1-A" contained the following stipulations: NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1) for most international travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately $8.16 per pound ($18.00 per kilo; now $20.00 per Exhibit "13") for checked baggage and $360 (now $400 per Exhibit "13") per passenger for unchecked baggage; (2) for travel wholly between U.S. points, to $500 per passenger on most carriers (a few have lower limits). Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier. (Table of Exhibits, p. 45) The original of the Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check No. 026394830084-5 itself was not presented as evidence as it was among those returned to Mr. Faupula. Thus, apart from the evidence offered by the defendant airline, the lower court had no other basis for determining whether or not there was actually a stipulation on the specific amounts the petitioner had expressed itself to be liable for loss of baggage. Although the trial court rejected the evidence of the defendantpetitioner of a stipulation particularly specifying what amounts it had bound itself to pay for loss of luggage, the Notice and paragraph 2 of the "Conditions of Contract" should be sufficient notice showing the applicability of the Warsaw limitations. The Warsaw Convention, as amended, specifically provides that it is applicable to international carriage which it defines in Article 1, par. 2 as follows:

(2) For the purposes of this Convention, the expression "international carriage" means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a breach in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a High Contracting Party. Carriage between two points within the territory of a single High Contracting Party without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not international carriage for the purposes of this Convention. ("High Contracting Party" refers to a state which has ratified or adhered to the Convention, or which has not effectively denounced the Convention [Article 40A(l)]). Nowhere in the Warsaw Convention, as amended, is such a detailed notice of baggage liability limitations required. Nevertheless, it should become a common, safe and practical custom among air carriers to indicate beforehand the precise sums equivalent to those fixed by Article 22 (2) of the Convention. The Convention governs the availment of the liability limitations where the baggage check is combined with or incorporated in the passenger ticket which complies with the provisions of Article 3, par. l (c). (Article 4, par. 2) In the case at bar, the baggage check is combined with the passenger ticket in one document of carriage. The passenger ticket complies with Article 3, par. l (c) which provides: (l) In respect of the carriage of passengers a ticket shall be delivered containing: (a) (b) ... ...

Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00 . . . (91 SCRA 223 at page 231) We hasten to add that while contracts of adhesion are not entirely prohibited, neither is a blind reliance on them encouraged. In the face of facts and circumstances showing they should be ignored because of their basically one sided nature, the Court does not hesitate to rule out blind adherence to their terms. (See Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, 83 SCRA 361, 368369[1978]) The arguments of the petitioner do not belie the fact that it was indeed accountable for the loss of the attache case. What the petitioner is concerned about is whether or not the notice, which it did not fail to state in the plane ticket and which it deemed to have been read and accepted by the private respondent will be considered by this Court as adequate under the circumstances of this case. As earlier stated, the Court finds the provisions in the plane ticket sufficient to govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline for loss of luggage. The passenger, upon contracting with the airline and receiving the plane ticket, was expected to be vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. If the passenger fails to adduce evidence to overcome the stipulations, he cannot avoid the application of the liability limitations. The facts show that the private respondent actually refused to register the attache case and chose to take it with him despite having been ordered by the PANAM agent to check it in. In attempting to avoid registering the luggage by going back to the line, private respondent manifested a disregard of airline rules on allowable handcarried baggages. Prudence of a reasonably careful person also dictates that cash and jewelry should be removed from checked-in-luggage and placed in one's pockets or in a handcarried Manila-paper or plastic envelope. The alleged lack of enough time for him to make a declaration of a higher value and to pay the corresponding supplementary charges cannot justify his failure to comply with the requirement that will exclude the application of limited liability. Had he not wavered in his decision to register his luggage, he could have had enough time to disclose the true worth of the articles in it and to pay the extra charges or remove them from the checked-in-luggage. Moreover, an airplane will not depart meantime that its own employee is asking a passenger to comply with a safety regulation. Passengers are also allowed one handcarried bag each provided it conforms to certain prescribed dimensions. If Mr. Rapadas was not allowed to handcarry the lost attache case, it can only mean that he was carrying more than the allowable weight for all his luggages or more than the allowable number of handcarried items or more than the prescribed dimensions for the bag or valise. The evidence on any arbitrary behavior of a Pan Am employee or inexcusable negligence on the part of the carrier is not clear from the petition. Absent such proof, we cannot hold the carrier liable because of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mistreatment. We are not by any means suggesting that passengers are always bound to the stipulated amounts printed on a ticket, found in a contract of adhesion, or printed elsewhere but referred to in handouts or forms. We simply recognize that the reasons behind stipulations on liability limitations arise from the difficulty, if not impossibility, of establishing with a clear preponderance of evidence the contents of a lost valise or suitcase. Unless the contents are declared, it will always be the word of a passenger

(c) a notice to the effect that, if the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the country of departure, the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and that the Convention governs and in most cases limits the liability of carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to baggage. We have held in the case of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals, supra, and reiterated in a similar case where herein petitioner was also sued for damages, Pan American World Airways v. Intermediate Appellate Court (164 SCRA 268 [1988]) that: It (plane ticket) is what is known as a contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. (Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., p. 462, citing Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, January 31, 1951, p. 49) And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.

against that of the airline. If the loss of life or property is caused by the gross negligence or arbitrary acts of the airline or the contents of the lost luggage are proved by satisfactory evidence other than the self-serving declarations of one party, the Court will not hesitate to disregard the fine print in a contract of adhesion. (See Sweet Lines Inc. v. Teves, supra) Otherwise, we are constrained to rule that we have to enforce the contract as it is the only reasonable basis to arrive at a just award. We note that the finding on the amount lost is more of a probability than a proved conclusion. The trial court stated: xxx xxx xxx

petitioner is ordered to pay the private respondent damages in the amount of US$400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, P10,000.00 in attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 121824

January 29, 1998

BRITISH AIRWAYS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOP MAHTANI, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: We come now to the actual loss of $4,750.00 which the plaintiff claims was the amount of his retirement award and vacation pay. According to the plaintiff, this was in cash of $100 denominations and was placed in an envelope separate from the other money he was carrying. Plaintiff presented the memorandum award, Exhibit T-1 and the vouchers of payment, Exhibits T-2 and T-3. Under the circumstances, recited by the plaintiff in which the loss occurred, the Court believes that plaintiff could really have placed this amount in the attache case considering that he was originally handcarrying said attache case and the same was looked, and he did not expect that he would be required to check it in. . . . (Amended Record on Appeal, p. 75; Emphasis ours) The above conclusion of the trial court does not arise from the facts. That the attache case was originally handcarried does not beg the conclusion that the amount of $4,750.00 in cash could have been placed inside. It may be noted that out of a claim for US$42,403.90 as the amount lost, the trial court found for only US$5,228.90 and 100 paengs. The court had doubts as to the total claim. The lost luggage was declared as weighing around 18 pounds or approximately 8 kilograms. At $20.00 per kilogram, the petitioner offered to pay $160.00 as a higher value was not declared in advance and additional charges were not paid. We note, however, that an amount of $400.00 per passenger is allowed for unchecked luggage. Since the checking-in was against the will of the respondent, we treat the lost bag as partaking of involuntarily and hurriedly checked-in luggage and continuing its earlier status as unchecked luggage. The fair liability under the petitioner's own printed terms is $400.00. Since the trial court ruled out discriminatory acts or bad faith on the part of Pan Am or other reasons warranting damages, there is no factual basis for the grant of P20,000.00 damages. As to the question of whether or not private respondent should be paid attorney's fees, the Court sustains the finding of the trial court and the respondent appellate court that it is just and equitable for the private respondent to recover expenses for litigation in the amount of P5,000.00. Article 22(4) of the Warsaw Convention, as amended does not preclude an award of attorney's fees. That provision states that the limits of liability prescribed in the instrument "shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and other expenses of litigation incurred by the plaintiff." We, however, raise the award to P10,000.00 considering the resort to the Court of Appeals and this Court. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The In this appeal by certiorari, petitioner British Airways (BA) seeks to set aside the decision of respondent Court of Appeals 1 promulgated on September 7, 1995, which affirmed the award of damages and attorney's fees made by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 17, in favor of private respondent GOP Mahtani as well as the dismissal of its third-party complaint against Philippine Airlines (PAL). 2 The material and relevant facts are as follows: On April 16, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India. In anticipation of his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans. The latter, in turn, purchased a ticket from BA where the following itinerary was indicated: 3 CARRIER FLIGHT DATE TIME STATUS MANILA MNL PR 310 Y 16 APR. 1730 OK HONGKONG HKG BA 20 M 16 APR. 2100 OK

BOMBAY BOM BA 19 M 23 APR. 0840

to pay plaintiff the sum of Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos for the value of the two (2) suit cases; Four Hundred U.S. ($400.00) Dollars representing the value of the contents of plaintiff's luggage; Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for moral and actual damages and twenty percent (20%) of the total amount imposed against the defendant for attorney's fees and costs of this action. The Third-Party Complaint against third-party defendant Philippine Airlines is DISMISSED for lack of cause of action. SO ORDERED.

OK HONGKONG HKG PR 311 Y MANILA SO ORDERED. 10 MNL Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight to Hongkong via PAL, and upon arrival in Hongkong he had to take a connecting flight to Bombay on board BA. Prior to his departure, Mahtani checked in at the PAL counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothings and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hongkong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay. Unfortunately, when Mahtani arrived in Bombay he discovered that his luggage was missing and that upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been diverted to London. After patiently waiting for his luggage for one week, BA finally advised him to file a claim by accomplishing the "Property Irregularity Report." 4 Back in the Philippines, specifically on June 11, 1990, Mahtani filed his complaint for damages and attorney's fees 5 against BA and Mr. Gumar before the trial court, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-9076. On September 4, 1990, BA filed its answer with counter claim 6 to the complaint raising, as special and affirmative defenses, that Mahtani did not have a cause of action against it. Likewise, on November 9, 1990, BA filed a third-party complaint 7 against PAL alleging that the reason for the non-transfer of the luggage was due to the latter's late arrival in Hongkong, thus leaving hardly any time for the proper transfer of Mahtani's luggage to the BA aircraft bound for Bombay. On February 25, 1991, PAL filed its answer to the third-party complaint, wherein it disclaimed any liability, arguing that there was, in fact, adequate time to transfer the luggage to BA facilities in Hongkong. Furthermore, the transfer of the luggage to Hongkong authorities should be considered as transfer to BA. 8 After appropriate proceedings and trial, on March 4, 1993, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani, 9 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant for which defendant is ordered BA is now before us seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision. In essence, BA assails the award of compensatory damages and attorney's fees, as well as the dismissal of its third-party complaint against PAL. 11 Regarding the first assigned issue, BA asserts that the award of compensatory damages in the separate sum of P7,000.00 for the loss of Mahtani's two pieces of luggage was without basis since Mahtani in his complaint 12 stated the following as the value of his personal belongings: 8. On the said travel, plaintiff took with him the following items and its corresponding value, to wit: 1. 2. personal belonging P10,000.00 Dissatisfied, BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which however, affirmed the trial court's findings. Thus: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, finding the Decision appealed from to be in accordance with law and evidence, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against defendant-appellant.

gifts for his parents and relatives $5,000.00

Moreover, he failed to declare a higher valuation with respect to his luggage, a condition provided for in the ticket, which reads: 13 Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: 1. For most international travel (including domestic corporations of international journeys) the liability limit is approximately U.S. $9.07 per pound (U.S. $20.000) per kilo for checked baggage and U.S. $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage. Before we resolve the issues raised by BA, it is needful to state that the nature of an airline's contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: a contract to deliver a cargo or merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers to their destination. A business intended to serve the traveling public primarily, it is imbued with public interest, hence, the law governing common carriers imposes an exacting standard. 14 Neglect or malfeasance by the carrier's employees could predictably furnish bases for an action for damages. 15

In the instant case, it is apparent that the contract of carriage was between Mahtani and BA. Moreover, it is indubitable that his luggage never arrived in Bombay on time. Therefore, as in a number of cases 16 we have assessed the airlines' culpability in the form of damages for breach of contract involving misplaced luggage. In determining the amount of compensatory damages in this kind of cases, it is vital that the claimant satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. 17 In this regard, the trial court granted the following award as compensatory damages: Since plaintiff did not declare the value of the contents in his luggage and even failed to show receipts of the alleged gifts for the members of his family in Bombay, the most that can be expected for compensation of his lost luggage (2 suit cases) is Twenty U.S. Dollars ($20.00) per kilo, or combined value of Four Hundred ($400.00) U.S. Dollars for Twenty kilos representing the contents plus Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos representing the purchase price of the two (2) suit cases. However, as earlier stated, it is the position of BA that there should have been no separate award for the luggage and the contents thereof since Mahtani failed to declare a separate higher valuation for the luggage, 18 and therefore, its liability is limited, at most, only to the amount stated in the ticket. Considering the facts of the case, we cannot assent to such specious argument. Admittedly, in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is needed to recover a greater amount. Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention, 19 provides as follows: xxx xxx xxx

Given the foregoing postulates, the inescapable conclusion is that BA had waived the defense of limited liability when it allowed Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the misplacement of his luggage, without any objection. In this regard, we quote the pertinent transcript of stenographic notes of Mahtani's direct testimony: 24 Q court? A Q A Q A Q How much are you going to ask from this

P100,000.00. What else? Exemplary damages. How much? P100,000.00. What else?

A The things I lost, $5,000.00 for the gifts I lost and my personal belongings, P10,000.00. Q A 30%. What about the filing of this case? The court expenses and attorney's fees is

Indeed, it is a well-settled doctrine that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. However, such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. 25 BA has precisely failed in this regard. To compound matters for BA, its counsel failed, not only to interpose a timely objection, but even conducted his own crossexamination as well. 26 In the early case of Abrenica v. Gonda, 27 we ruled that: . . . (I)t has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection is when, from the question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of proof, the inadmissibility of evidence is, or may be inferred. Needless to say, factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect. 28 Since the actual value of the luggage involved appreciation of evidence, a task within the competence of the Court of Appeals, its ruling regarding the amount is assuredly a question of fact, thus, a finding not reviewable by this Court. 29 As to the issue of the dismissal of BA's third-party complaint against PAL, the Court of Appeals justified its ruling in this wise, and we quote: 30 Lastly, we sustain the trial court's ruling dismissing appellant's third-party complaint against PAL.

(2) In the transportation of checked baggage and goods, the liability of the carrier shall be limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at time the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery. American jurisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an amount in excess of the limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such tariff being binding, on the passenger regardless of the passenger's lack of knowledge thereof or assent thereto. 20 This doctrine is recognized in this jurisdiction. 21 Notwithstanding the foregoing, we have, nevertheless, ruled against blind reliance on adhesion contracts where the facts and circumstances justify that they should be disregarded. 22 In addition, we have held that benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when questions and answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked. 23

The contract of air transportation in this case pursuant to the ticket issued by appellant to plaintiff-appellee was exclusively between the plaintiff Mahtani and defendant-appellant BA. When plaintiff boarded the PAL plane from Manila to Hongkong, PAL was merely acting as a subcontractor or agent of BA. This is shown by the fact that in the ticket issued by appellant to plaintiffappellee, it is specifically provided on the "Conditions of Contract," paragraph 4 thereof that: 4. . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is regarded as a single operation. The rule that carriage by plane although performed by successive carriers is regarded as a single operation and that the carrier issuing the passenger's ticket is considered the principal party and the other carrier merely subcontractors or agent, is a settled issue. We cannot agree with the dismissal of the third-complaint. In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempengko, 31 we expounded on the nature of a third-party complaint thus: The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a "third party" who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by the defendant, who acts, as thirdparty plaintiff to enforce against such third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Were it not for this provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the thirdparty. But the Rules permit defendant to bring in a third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff's claim against a third-party in the original and principal case with the object of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular set of facts. Undeniably, for the loss of his luggage, Mahtani is entitled to damages from BA, in view of their contract of carriage. Yet, BA adamantly disclaimed its liability and instead imputed it to PAL which the latter naturally denies. In other words, BA and PAL are blaming each other for the incident. In resolving this issue, it is worth observing that the contract of air transportation was exclusively between Mahtani and BA, the latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hongkong leg of the former's journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. In fact, the fourth paragraph of the "Conditions of Contracts" of the ticket 32 issued by BA to Mahtani confirms that the contract was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay. 4. . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is regarded as a single operation. Prescinding from the above discussion, it is undisputed that PAL, in transporting Mahtani from Manila to Hongkong acted as the agent of BA. Parenthetically, the Court of Appeals should have been cognizant of the well-settled rule that an agent is also responsible for any

negligence in the performance of its function. 33 and is liable for damages which the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act. 34 Hence, the Court of Appeals erred when it opined that BA, being the principal, had no cause of action against PAL, its agent or sub-contractor. Also, it is worth mentioning that both BA and PAL are members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), wherein member airlines are regarded as agents of each other in the issuance of the tickets and other matters pertaining to their relationship. 35 Therefore, in the instant case, the contractual relationship between BA and PAL is one of agency, the former being the principal, since it was the one which issued the confirmed ticket, and the latter the agent. Our pronouncement that BA is the principal is consistent with our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals. 36 In that case, Lufthansa issued a confirmed ticket to Tirso Antiporda covering five-leg trip aboard different airlines. Unfortunately, Air Kenya, one of the airlines which was to carry Antiporda to a specific destination "bumped" him off. An action for damages was filed against Lufthansa which, however, denied any liability, contending that its responsibility towards its passenger is limited to the occurrence of a mishap on its own line. Consequently, when Antiporda transferred to Air Kenya, its obligation as a principal in the contract of carriage ceased; from there on, it merely acted as a ticketing agent for Air Kenya. In rejecting Lufthansa's argument, we ruled: In the very nature of their contract, Lufthansa is clearly the principal in the contract of carriage with Antiporda and remains to be so, regardless of those instances when actual carriage was to be performed by various carriers. The issuance of confirmed Lufthansa ticket in favor of Antiporda covering his entire five-leg trip abroad successive carriers concretely attest to this. Since the instant petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Mahtani can only sue BA alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract. However, this is not to say that PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of its negligent acts. In China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 37 while not exactly in point, the case, however, illustrates the principle which governs this particular situation. In that case, we recognized that a carrier (PAL), acting as an agent of another carrier, is also liable for its own negligent acts or omission in the performance of its duties. Accordingly, to deny BA the procedural remedy of filing a thirdparty complaint against PAL for the purpose of ultimately determining who was primarily at fault as between them, is without legal basis. After all, such proceeding is in accord with the doctrine against multiplicity of cases which would entail receiving the same or similar evidence for both cases and enforcing separate judgments therefor. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of a third-party complaint is precisely to avoid delay and circuitry of action and to enable the controversy to be disposed of in one suit. 38 It is but logical, fair and equitable to allow BA to sue PAL for indemnification, if it is proven that the latter's negligence was the proximate cause of Mahtani's unfortunate experience, instead of totally absolving PAL from any liability. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43309 dated September 7, 1995 is

hereby MODIFIED, reinstating the third-party complaint filed by British Airways dated November 9, 1990 against Philippine Airlines. No costs. SO ORDERED.