8/8/2015

G.R.No.108897

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.108897October2,1997
SARKIESTOURSPHILIPPINES,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS(TENTHDIVISION),DR.ELINOG.FORTADES,MARISOLA.FORTADES
andFATIMAMINERVAA.FORTADES,respondents.

ROMERO,J.:
ThispetitionforreviewisseekingthereversalofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.18979
promulgatedonJanuary13,1993,aswellasitsresolutionofFebruary19,1993,denyingpetitioner'smotionfor
reconsiderationforbeingamererehashoftheargumentsraisedintheappellant'sbrief.
ThecasearosefromadamagesuitfiledbyprivaterespondentsElino,Marisol,andFatimaMinerva,allsurnamed
Fortades,againstpetitionerforbreachofcontractofcarriageallegedlyattendedbybadfaith.
OnAugust31,1984,Fatimaboardedpetitioner'sDeLuxeBusNo.5inManilaonherwaytoLegazpiCity.Her
brotherRaulhelpedherloadthreepiecesofluggagecontainingallofheroptometryreviewbooks,materialsand
equipment,triallenses,trialcontactlenses,passportandvisa,aswellashermotherMarisol'sU.S.immigration
(green) card, among other important documents and personal belongings. Her belongings were kept in the
baggagecompartmentofthebus,butduringastopoveratDaet,itwasdiscoveredthatonlyonebagremainedin
the open compartment. The others, including Fatima's things, were missing and might have dropped along the
way. Some of the passengers suggested retracing the route of the bus to try to recover the lost items, but the
driverignoredthemandproceededtoLegazpiCity.
Fatima immediately reported the loss to her mother who, in turn, went to petitioner's office in Legazpi City and
lateratitsheadofficeinManila.Petitioner,however,merelyofferedherP1,000.00foreachpieceofluggagelost,
which she turned down. After returning to Bicol, disappointed but not defeated, mother and daughter asked
assistancefromtheradiostationsandevenfromPhiltrancobusdriverswhopliedthesamerouteonAugust31st.
TheeffortpaidoffwhenoneofFatima'sbagswasrecovered.MarisolfurtherreportedtheincidenttotheNational
BureauofInvestigation'sfieldofficeinLegazpiCityandtothelocalpolice.
On September 20, 1984, respondents, through counsel, formally demanded satisfaction of their complaint from
petitioner.InaletterdatedOctober1,1984,thelatterapologizedforthedelayandsaidthat"(a)teamhasbeen
sentouttoBicolforthepurposeofrecoveringoratleastgettingthefulldetail"1oftheincident.
Aftermorethanninemonthsoffruitlesswaiting,respondentsdecidedtofilethecasebelowtorecoverthevalue
oftheremaininglostitems,aswellasmoralandexemplarydamages,attorney'sfeesandexpensesoflitigation.
Theyclaimedthatthelosswasduetopetitioner'sfailuretoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthecareofFatima's
luggageandthatpetitionerdealtwiththeminbadfaithfromthestart.Petitioner,ontheotherhand,disownedany
liability for the loss on the ground that Fatima allegedly did not declare any excess baggage upon boarding its
bus.
OnJune15,1988,aftertrialonthemerits,thecourtaquoadjudgedthecaseinfavorofrespondents,viz.:
PREMISESCONSIDERED,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffs(hereinrespondents)and
against the herein defendant Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc., ordering the latter to pay to the former the
followingsumsofmoney,towit:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_108897_1997.html

1/3

8/8/2015

G.R.No.108897

1. The sum of P30,000.00 equivalent to the value of the personal belongings of plaintiff Fatima Minerva
Fortades,etc.lessthevalueofoneluggagerecovered
2.ThesumofP90,000.00forthetransportationexpenses,aswellasmoraldamages
3.ThesumofP10,000.00bywayofexemplarydamages
4.ThesumofP5,000.00asattorney'sfeesand
5.ThesumofP5,000.00aslitigationexpensesoratotalofOneHundredFortyThousand(P140,000.00)
Pesos.
to be paid by herein defendant Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. to the herein plaintiffs within 30 days from
receiptofthisDecision.
SOORDERED.
Onappeal,theappellatecourtaffirmedthetrialcourt'sjudgment,butdeletedtheawardofmoralandexemplary
damages.Thus,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, except as above modified, fixing the award for transportation
expenses at P30,000.00 and the deletion of the award for moral and exemplary damages, the decision
appealedfromisAFFIRMED,withcostsagainstdefendantappellant.
SOORDERED.
ItsmotionforreconsiderationwaslikewiserejectedbytheCourtofAppeals,sopetitionerelevateditscasetothis
Courtforareview.
Afteracarefulscrutinyoftherecordsofthiscase,weareconvincedthatthetrialandappellatecourtsresolved
theissuesjudiciouslybasedontheevidenceathand.
PetitionerclaimsthatFatimadidnotbringanypieceofluggagewithher,andevenifshedid,nonewasdeclared
atthestartofthetrip.Thedocumentaryandtestimonialevidencepresentedatthetrial,however,establishedthat
Fatimaindeedboardedpetitioner'sDeLuxeBusNo.5intheeveningofAugust31,1984,andshebroughtthree
piecesofluggagewithher,astestifiedbyherbrotherRaul,2 who helped her pack her things and load them on said
bus. One of the bags was even recovered by a Philtranco bus driver. In its letter dated October 1, 1984, petitioner tacitly
admitteditsliabilitybyapologizingtorespondentsandassuringthemthateffortswerebeingmadetorecoverthelostitems.

The records also reveal that respondents went to great lengths just to salvage their loss. The incident was
reportedtothepolice,theNBI,andtheregionalandheadofficesofpetitioner.Marisolevensoughttheassistance
ofPhiltrancobusdriversandtheradiostations.Toexpeditethereplacementofhermother'slostU.S.immigration
documents,Fatimaalsohadtoexecuteanaffidavitofloss.3Clearly,theywouldnothavegonethroughallthattrouble
inpursuitofafanciedloss.

Fatimawasnottheonlyonewholostherluggage.Apparently,otherpassengershadsufferedasimilarfate:Dr.
LitaSamaristatestifiedthatpetitionerofferedherP1,000.00forherlostbaggageandsheacceptedit4 Carleen
CarulloMagnolostherchemicalengineeringreviewmaterials,whileherbrotherlostabacaproductshewastransportingto
Bicol.5

Petitioner'sreceiptofFatima'spersonalluggagehavingbeenthusestablished,itmustnowbedeterminedif,asa
commoncarrier,itisresponsiblefortheirloss.UndertheCivilCode,"(c)ommoncarriers,fromthenatureoftheir
businessandforreasonsofpublicpolicy,areboundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthe
goods . . . transported by them," 6 and this liability "lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possessionof,andreceivedbythecarrierfortransportationuntilthesamearedelivered,actuallyorconstructively,bythe
carrier to . . . the person who has a right to receive them,"7 unless the loss is due to any of the excepted causes under
Article1734thereof.8

Thecauseofthelossinthecaseatbarwaspetitioner'snegligenceinnotensuringthatthedoorsofthebaggage
compartmentofitsbusweresecurelyfastened.Asaresultofthislackofcare,almostalloftheluggagewaslost,
totheprejudiceofthepayingpassengers.AstheCourtofAppealscorrectlyobserved:
. . . . Where the common carrier accepted its passenger's baggage for transportation and even had it
placed in the vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier's
own lookout. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the baggage. In the instant case, defendant
appellant'semployeeevenhelpedFatimaMinervaFortadesandherbrotherloadtheluggages/baggages
in the bus' baggage compartment, without asking that they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid for
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_108897_1997.html

2/3

8/8/2015

G.R.No.108897

(TSN,August4,1986,pp.29,34,54,57,70December23,1987,p.35).Neitherwasthisrequiredofthe
otherpassengers(TSN,August4,1986,p.104February5,1988p.13).
Finally, petitioner questions the award of actual damages to respondents. On this point, we likewise agree with
thetrialandappellatecourts'conclusions.ThereisnodisputethatofthethreepiecesofluggageofFatima,only
onewasrecovered.Theothertwocontainedoptometrybooks,materials,equipment,aswellasvitaldocuments
and personal belongings. Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and Manila in their efforts to be
compensatedfortheloss.Duringthetrial,FatimaandMarisolhadtotravelfromtheUnitedStatesjusttobeable
to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting their lost documents. Under these circumstances, the
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the
transportationexpenses,butdisagreeswiththedeletionoftheawardofmoralandexemplarydamageswhich,in
view of the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith on the fault of petitioner having been duly
established,shouldbegrantedtorespondentsintheamountofP20,000.00andP5,000.00,respectively.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 13, 1993, and its resolution dated
February19,1993,areherebyAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONthatpetitionerisorderedtopayrespondents
anadditionalP20,000.00asmoraldamagesandP5,000.00asexemplarydamages.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,Melo,FranciscoandPanganiban,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Rollo,p.63.
2TSN,August4,1986,pp.29,34,4041,54,57,70.
3Exhibit"E."
4TSN,August4,1986,p.83.
5TSN,February5,1988,pp.8,1416.
6Article1733.
7Article1736.
8Suchas"(1)Flood,storm,earthquake,lightning,orothernaturaldisasterorcalamity(2)Actofthe
publicenemyinwar,whetherinternationalorcivil(3)Actoromissionoftheshipperorownerofthe
goods(4)Thecharacterofthegoodsordefectsinthepackingorinthecontainers(5)Orderoract
ofcompetentpublicauthority.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_108897_1997.html

3/3