G.R. No.

80447 January 31, 1989

BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC., petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. SOTERO CAILIPAN, JR. and ZENAIDA LOPEZ and
GEORGE L. CAILIPAN, respondents.

Sta. Maria & Associates for petitioner.

Punzalan and Associates Law Office for respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

On 10 April 1985 a Complaint for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage was filed by
private respondents, the Spouses Sotero Cailipan, Jr. and Zenaida Lopez, and their son George, of
legal age, against petitioner Baliwag Transit (Baliwag, for brevity). The Complaint alleged that
George, who was a paying passenger on a Baliwag bus on 17 December 1984, suffered multiple
serious physical injuries when he was thrown off said bus driven in a careless and negligent manner
by Leonardo Cruz, the authorized bus driver, along Barangay Patubig, Marilao, Bulacan. As a result,
he was confined in the hospital for treatment, incurring medical expenses, which were borne by his
parents, the respondent Spouses, in the sum of about P200,000.00 plus other incidental expenses
of about P10,000.00.

On 26 April 1985 an Answer was filed by petitioner alleging that the cause of the injuries sustained
by George was solely attributable to his own voluntary act in that, without warning and provocation,
he suddenly stood up from his seat and headed for the door of the bus as if in a daze, opened it and
jumped off while said bus was in motion, in spite of the protestations by the driver and without the
knowledge of the conductor.

Baliwag then filed a Third-Party Complaint against Fortune Insurance & Surety Company, Inc., on its
third-party liability insurance in the amount of P50,000.00. In its Answer, Fortune Insurance claimed
limited liability, the coverage being subject to a Schedule of Indemnities forming part of the
insurance policy.

On 14 November 1985 and 18 November 1985, respectively, Fortune Insurance and Baliwag each
filed Motions to Dismiss on the ground that George, in consideration of the sum of P8,020.50 had
executed a "Release of Claims" dated 16 May 1985. These Motions were denied by the Trial Court
in an Order dated 13 January 1986 as they were filed beyond the time for pleading and after the
Answer were already filed.

On 5 February 1986 Baliwag filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer, which was granted by the
Trial Court. The Amended Answer incorporated the affirmative defense in the Motion to Dismiss to
the effect that on 16 May 1985, George bad been paid all his claims for damages arising from the
incident subject matter of the complaint when he executed the following "Release of Claims":

For and in consideration of the payment to me/us of the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND
TWENTY and 50/100 PESOS ONLY (P8,020.50), the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, I/we, being of lawful age, do hereby release, acquit and forever
discharge Fortune Insurance and/or Baliwag transit, Inc. his/her heirs, executors and
assigns, from any and all liability now accrued or hereafter to accrue on account of
any and all claims or causes of action which I/we now or may here after have for
personal injuries, damage to property, loss of services, medical expenses, losses or
damages of any and every kind or nature whatsoever, now known or what may
hereafter develop by me/us sustained or received on or about 17th day of December,
1984 through Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Physical Injuries, and I/we hereby
declare that I/we fully understand the terms of this settlement and voluntarily accept
said sum for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and
settlement of the injuries and damages, expenses and inconvenience above
mentioned. (Rollo, p. 11)

During the preliminary hearing on the aforementioned affirmative defense, Baliwag waived the
presentation of testimonial evidence and instead offered as its Exhibit "1" the "Release of Claims"
signed by George and witnessed by his brother Benjamin L. Cailipan, a licensed engineer.

By way of opposition to petitioner's affirmative defense, respondent Sotero Cailipan, Jr. testified that
be is the father of George, who at the time of the incident was a student, living with his parents and
totally dependent on them for their support; that the expenses for his hospitalization were shouldered
by his parents; and that they had not signed the "Release of Claims."

In an Order dated 29 August 1986, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 20, 1 dismissed the
Complaint and Third-party Complaint, ruling that since the contract of carriage is between Baliwag
and George L. Cailipan, the latter, who is of legal age, had the exclusive right to execute the
Release of Claims despite the fact that he is still a student and dependent on his parents for support.
Consequently, the execution by George of the Release of Claims discharges Baliwag and Fortune
Insurance.

Aggrieved, the Spouses appealed to respondent Court of Appeals.

On 22 October 1987, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision 2 setting aside the appealed Order
and holding that the "Release of Claims" cannot operate as a valid ground for the dismissal of the
case because it does not have the conformity of all the parties, particularly George's parents, who
have a substantial interest in the case as they stand to be prejudiced by the judgment because they
spent a sizeable amount for the medical bills of their son; that the Release of Claims was secured by
Fortune Insurance for the consideration of P8,020.50 as the full and final settlement of its liability
under the insurance policy and not for the purpose of releasing Baliwag from its liability as a carrier
in this suit for breach of contract. The Appellate Court also ordered the remand of the case to the
lower Court for trial on the merits and for George to return the amount of P8,020.50 to Fortune
Insurance.

Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari by Baliwag assailing the Appellate Court judgment.

The issue brought to the fore is the legal effect of the Release of Claims executed by George during
the pendency of this case.

We hold that since the suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, the Release of Claims executed
by him, as the injured party, discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any and all liability is
valid. He was then of legal age, a graduating student of Agricultural Engineering, and had the
capacity to do acts with legal effect (Article 37 in relation to Article 402, Civil Code). Thus, he could
sue and be sued even without the assistance of his parents.
Significantly, the contract of carriage was actually between George, as the paying passenger, and
Baliwag, as the common carrier. As such carrier, Baliwag was bound to carry its passengers safely
as far as human care and foresight could provide, and is liable for injuries to them through the
negligence or wilful acts of its employees (Articles 1755 and 1759, Civil Code). Thus, George had
the right to be safely brought to his destination and Baliwag had the correlative obligation to do so.
Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as against each other, in an action upon
that contract, the real parties in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said
contract (Marimperio Compania Naviera, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-40234, December 14,
1987, 156 SCRA 368). A real party-in-interest -plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party-
in-interest-defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violates the
legal right of the former (Lee vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. 60973, May 28, 1988). In the absence of any
contract of carriage between Baliwag and George's parents, the latter are not real parties-in-interest
in an action for breach of that contract.

The general rule of the common law is that every action must be brought in the name
of the party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed. 15 Enc. P1. & Pr. p.
484. "For the immediate wrong and damage the person injured is the only one who
can maintain the action." Id. p. 578. The person who sustains an injury is the person
to bring an action for the injury against the wrongdoer." Dicey parties to Actions, 347.
(Cited in Green v. Shoemaker, 73 A 688, 23 L.R.A., N.S. 667).

There is no question regarding the genuineness and due execution of the Release of Claims. It is a
duly notarized public document. It clearly stipulates that the consideration of P8,020.50 received by
George was "to release and forever discharge Fortune Insurance and/or Baliwag from any and all
liabilities now accrued or to accrue on account of any and all claims or causes of action ... for
personal injuries, damage to property, loss of services, medical expenses, losses or damages of any
and every kind or nature whatsoever, sustained by him on 17 December 1984 thru Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Physical Injuries." Consequently, the ruling of respondent Appellate Court
that the "Release of Claims" was intended only as the full and final settlement of a third-party liability
for bodily injury claim and not for the purpose of releasing Baliwag from its liability, if any, in a breach
of a contract of carriage, has to be rejected for being contrary to the very terms thereof. If the terms
of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal
meaning of its stipulations shall control (Article 1370, Civil Code). The phraseology "any and all
claims or causes of action" is broad enough to include all damages that may accrue to the injured
party arising from the unfortunate accident.

The Release of Claims had the effect of a compromise agreement since it was entered into for the
purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of the cause of action
involved. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid
a litigation or put an end to one already commenced (Article 2028, Civil Code). The Release of
Claims executed by the injured party himself wrote finish to this litigation.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22 October 1987 of respondent Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 20, is REINSTATED, and the Complaint
and Third-Party Complaint are hereby ordered DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996

MR. & MRS. ENGRACIO FABRE, JR. and PORFIRIO CABIL, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, THE WORD FOR THE WORLD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, INC.,
AMYLINE ANTONIO, JOHN RICHARDS, GONZALO GONZALES, VICENTE V. QUE, JR., ICLI
CORDOVA, ARLENE GOJOCCO, ALBERTO ROXAS CORDERO, RICHARD BAUTISTA,
JOCELYN GARCIA, YOLANDA CORDOVA, NOEL ROQUE, EDWARD TAN, ERNESTO
NARCISO, ENRIQUETA LOCSIN, FRANCIS NORMAN O. LOPES, JULIUS CAESAR, GARCIA,
ROSARIO MA. V. ORTIZ, MARIETTA C. CLAVO, ELVIE SENIEL, ROSARIO MARA-MARA,
TERESITA REGALA, MELINDA TORRES, MARELLA MIJARES, JOSEFA CABATINGAN, MARA
NADOC, DIANE MAYO, TESS PLATA, MAYETTE JOCSON, ARLENE Y. MORTIZ, LIZA MAYO,
CARLOS RANARIO, ROSAMARIA T. RADOC and BERNADETTE FERRER, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:p

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals1 in CA-GR No. 28245, dated September 30, 1992, which
affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58, ordering petitioners jointly and severally to pay
damages to private respondent Amyline Antonio, and its resolution which denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a 1982 model Mazda minibus. They
used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in
Manila. The couple had a driver, Porfirio J. Cabil, whom they hired in 1981, after trying him out for
two weeks, His job was to take school children to and from the St. Scholastica's College in Malate,
Manila.

On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF)
arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from
Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid petitioners the
amount of P3,000.00.

The group was scheduled to leave on November 2, 1984, at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. However,
as several members of the party were late, the bus did not leave the Tropical Hut at the corner of
Ortigas Avenue and EDSA until 8:00 o'clock in the evening. Petitioner Porfirio Cabil drove the
minibus.

The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen, Pangasinan. However, the bridge at
Carmen was under repair, sot hat petitioner Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area (it being his first
trip to La Union), was forced to take a detour through the town of Baay in Lingayen, Pangasinan. At
11:30 that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway, running on a south to
east direction, which he described as "siete." The road was slippery because it was raining, causing
the bus, which was running at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road shoulder.
The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and rammed the fence of one Jesus
Escano, then turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of
impacts. The bus came to rest off the road. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it and smashed its
front portion.

Several passengers were injured. Private respondent Amyline Antonio was thrown on the floor of the
bus and pinned down by a wooden seat which came down by a wooden seat which came off after
being unscrewed. It took three persons to safely remove her from this portion. She was in great pain
and could not move.
The driver, petitioner Cabil, claimed he did not see the curve until it was too late. He said he was not
familiar with the area and he could not have seen the curve despite the care he took in driving the
bus, because it was dark and there was no sign on the road. He said that he saw the curve when he
was already within 15 to 30 meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kilometers per hour, but it
was too late.

The Lingayen police investigated the incident the next day, November 3, 1984. On the basis of their
finding they filed a criminal complaint against the driver, Porfirio Cabil. The case was later filed with
the Lingayen Regional Trial Court. Petitioners Fabre paid Jesus Escano P1,500.00 for the damage
to the latter's fence. On the basis of Escano's affidavit of desistance the case against petitioners
Fabre was dismissed.

Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila.
As a result of the accident, she is now suffering from paraplegia and is permanently paralyzed from
the waist down. During the trial she described the operations she underwent and adduced evidence
regarding the cost of her treatment and therapy. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to the
Nazareth Hospital in Baay, Lingayen. As this hospital was not adequately equipped, she was
transferred to the Sto. Niño Hospital, also in the town of Ba-ay, where she was given sedatives. An
x-ray was taken and the damage to her spine was determined to be too severe to be treated there.
She was therefore brought to Manila, first to the Philippine General Hospital and later to the Makati
Medical Center where she underwent an operation to correct the dislocation of her spine.

In its decision dated April 17, 1989, the trial court found that:

No convincing evidence was shown that the minibus was properly checked for travel to a long
distance trip and that the driver was properly screened and tested before being admitted for
employment. Indeed, all the evidence presented have shown the negligent act of the defendants
which ultimately resulted to the accident subject of this case.

Accordingly, it gave judgment for private respondents holding:

Considering that plaintiffs Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. and Ms. Amyline Antonio
were the only ones who adduced evidence in support of their claim for damages, the Court is
therefore not in a position to award damages to the other plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment against defendants Mr. &
Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr. and Porfirio Cabil y Jamil pursuant to articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines and said defendants are ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs
the following amount:

1) P93,657.11 as compensatory and actual damages;

2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of plaintiff

Amyline Antonio;

3) P20,000.00 as moral damages;

4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees;

6) Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with respect to Amyline Antonio but
dismissed it with respect to the other plaintiffs on the ground that they failed to prove their respective
claims. The Court of Appeals modified the award of damages as follows:

1) P93,657.11 as actual damages;

2) P600,000.00 as compensatory damages;

3) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;

5) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

6) Costs of suit.

The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's finding that petitioner Cabil failed to exercise due
care and precaution in the operation of his vehicle considering the time and the place of the
accident. The Court of Appeals held that the Fabres were themselves presumptively negligent.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners raise the following issues:

I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE NEGLIGENT.

II. WHETHER OF NOT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE

INJURIES SUFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

III WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AND IN

THE POSITIVE, UP TO WHAT EXTENT.

Petitioners challenge the propriety of the award of compensatory damages in the amount of
P600,000.00. It is insisted that, on the assumption that petitioners are liable an award of
P600,000.00 is unconscionable and highly speculative. Amyline Antonio testified that she was a
casual employee of a company called "Suaco," earning P1,650.00 a month, and a dealer of Avon
products, earning an average of P1,000.00 monthly. Petitioners contend that as casual employees
do not have security of tenure, the award of P600,000.00, considering Amyline Antonio's earnings, is
without factual basis as there is no assurance that she would be regularly earning these amounts.

With the exception of the award of damages, the petition is devoid of merit.

First, it is unnecessary for our purpose to determine whether to decide this case on the theory that
petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage or culpa contractual or on the theory of quasi
delict or culpa aquiliana as both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for 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." 2 In either case, the question is whether the bus driver,
petitioner Porfirio Cabil, was negligent.
The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the Fabres, who owned the bus,
failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employee is fully supported by the evidence on record. These factual findings of the two courts we
regard as final and conclusive, supported as they are by the evidence. Indeed, it was admitted by
Cabil that on the night in question, it was raining, and as a consequence, the road was slippery, and
it was dark. He averred these facts to justify his failure to see that there lay a sharp curve ahead.
However, it is undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour and only
slowed down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead. 3 By then it was too late for
him to avoid falling off the road. Given the conditions of the road and considering that the trip was
Cabil's first one outside of Manila, Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate speed. There
is testimony 4 that the vehicles passing on that portion of the road should only be running 20
kilometers per hour, so that at 50 kilometers per hour, Cabil was running at a very high speed.

Considering the foregoing — the fact that it was raining and the road was slippery, that it was dark,
that he drove his bus at 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal speed was only
20 kilometers an hour, and that he was unfamiliar with the terrain, Cabil was grossly negligent and
should be held liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio.

Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise to the presumption that
his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection and supervisions of their
employee.

Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed a
professional driver's license. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications,
experience and record of service. 5 Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the
formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and issuance of proper
instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.6

In the case at bar, the Fabres, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus to La Union, apparently did not
consider the fact that Cabil had been driving for school children only, from their homes to the St.
Scholastica's College in Metro Manila. 7They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship.
They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship. They had tested him for certain matters,
such as whether he could remember the names of the children he would be taking to school, which
were irrelevant to his qualification to drive on a long distance travel, especially considering that the
trip to La Union was his first. The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be
casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an employer. 8

Petitioners argue that they are not liable because (1) an earlier departure (made impossible by the
congregation's delayed meeting) could have a averted the mishap and (2) under the contract, the
WWCF was directly responsible for the conduct of the trip. Neither of these contentions hold water.
The hour of departure had not been fixed. Even if it had been, the delay did not bear directly on the
cause of the accident. With respect to the second contention, it was held in an early case that:

[A] person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver directions as to the place to which he
wishes to be conveyed, but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver, is not
responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from
a collision between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence or the automobile driver. 9

As already stated, this case actually involves a contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not
have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on
common carriers to apply to them. As this Court has held: 10
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.

The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business
activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation
service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an
occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general
community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from
a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately
refrained from making such distinctions.

As common carriers, the Fabres were found to exercise "extraordinary diligence" for
the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not
excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of their employee. As Art. 1759 of the Code provides:

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the
negligence or willful acts of the former's employees although such employees may
have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the
common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised
all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employees.

The same circumstances detailed above, supporting the finding of the trial court and of the appellate
court that petitioners are liable under Arts. 2176 and 2180 for quasi delict, fully justify findings them
guilty of breach of contract of carriage under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1759 of the Civil Code.

Secondly, we sustain the award of damages in favor of Amyline Antonio. However, we think the
Court of Appeals erred in increasing the amount of compensatory damages because private
respondents did not question this award as inadequate. 11 To the contrary, the award of P500,000.00
for compensatory damages which the Regional Trial Court made is reasonable considering the
contingent nature of her income as a casual employee of a company and as distributor of beauty
products and the fact that the possibility that she might be able to work again has not been
foreclosed. In fact she testified that one of her previous employers had expressed willingness to
employ her again.

With respect to the other awards, while the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals do
not sufficiently indicate the factual and legal basis for them, we find that they are nevertheless
supported by evidence in the records of this case. Viewed as an action for quasi delict, this case falls
squarely within the purview of Art. 2219(2) providing for the payment of moral damages in cases
of quasi delict. On the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage, the award
of moral damages is authorized by Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2220, since Cabil's gross negligence
amounted to bad faith.12 Amyline Antonio's testimony, as well as the testimonies of her father and
copassengers, fully establish the physical suffering and mental anguish she endured as a result of
the injuries caused by petitioners' negligence.
The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees was also properly made. However, for the
same reason that it was error for the appellate court to increase the award of compensatory
damages, we hold that it was also error for it to increase the award of moral damages and reduce
the award of attorney's fees, inasmuch as private respondents, in whose favor the awards were
made, have not appealed. 13

As above stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals can be sustained either on the theory of quasi
delict or on that of breach of contract. The question is whether, as the two courts below held,
petitioners, who are the owners and driver of the bus, may be made to respond jointly and severally
to private respondent. We hold that they may be. In Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 14 on facts similar to those in this case, this Court held the bus company and the driver
jointly and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger. Again, in Bachelor
Express, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals 15 a driver found negligent in failing to stop the bus in order to let off passengers when a
fellow passenger ran amuck, as a result of which the passengers jumped out of the speeding bus
and suffered injuries, was held also jointly and severally liable with the bus company to the injured
passengers.

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. Buño, 16 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus
Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 17 and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 18 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, 19 thus:

Nor should it make any 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. 20

It is true that in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 21 this Court exonerated the
jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and their families while holding the owners of
the jeepney jointly and severally liable, but that is because that case was expressly tried and
decided exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual. As this Court there explained:

The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo (the driver) and spouses Mangune and
Carreon (the jeepney owners) were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and
Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly
and severally liable with carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind
this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier is exclusively
responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver
(see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). 22

As in the case of BLTB, private respondents in this case and her coplaintiffs did not stake out their
claim against the carrier and the driver exclusively on one theory, much less on that of breach of
contract alone. After all, it was permitted for them to allege alternative causes of action and join as
many parties as may be liable on such causes of action 23 so long as private respondent and her
coplaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury. What is clear from the cases is the intent of the
plaintiff there to recover from both the carrier and the driver, thus, justifying the holding that the
carrier and the driver were jointly and severally liable because their separate and distinct acts
concurred to produce the same injury.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to award
of damages. Petitioners are ORDERED to PAY jointly and severally the private respondent Amyline
Antonio the following amounts:

1) P93,657.11 as actual damages;

2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of plaintiff Amyline Antonio;

3) P20,000.00 as moral damages;

4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;

5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; and

6) costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 122494 October 8, 1998

EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HERNANDEZ TRADING CO. INC., respondents.

MARTINEZ, J.:

Petitioner Everett Steamship Corporation, through this petition for review, seeks the reversal of the
decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated June 14, 1995, in CA-G.R. No. 428093, which affirmed
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 126, in Civil Case No. C-
15532, finding petitioner liable to private respondent Hernandez Trading Co., Inc. for the value
of the lost cargo.

Private respondent imported three crates of bus spare parts marked as MARCO C/No. 12,
MARCO C/No. 13 and MARCO C/No. 14, from its supplier, Maruman Trading Company, Ltd.
(Maruman Trading), a foreign corporation based in Inazawa, Aichi, Japan. The crates were
shipped from Nagoya, Japan to Manila on board "ADELFAEVERETTE," a vessel owned by
petitioner's principal, Everett Orient Lines. The said crates were covered by Bill of Lading No.
NGO53MN.

Upon arrival at the port of Manila, it was discovered that the crate marked MARCO C/No. 14
was missing. This was confirmed and admitted by petitioner in its letter of January 13, 1992
addressed to private respondent, which thereafter made a formal claim upon petitioner for
the value of the lost cargo amounting to One Million Five Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Five
Hundred (Y1,552,500.00) Yen, the amount shown in an Invoice No. MTM-941, dated November
14, 1991. However, petitioner offered to pay only One Hundred Thousand (Y100,000.00) Yen,
the maximum amount stipulated under Clause 18 of the covering bill of lading which limits
the liability of petitioner.

Private respondent rejected the offer and thereafter instituted a suit for collection docketed
as Civil Case No. C-15532, against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City,
Branch 126.

At the pre-trial conference, both parties manifested that they have no testimonial evidence to
offer and agreed instead to file their respective memoranda.

On July 16, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment 2 in favor of private respondent, ordering
petitioner to pay: (a) Y1,552,500.00; (b) Y20,000.00 or its peso equivalent representing the
actual value of the lost cargo and the material and packaging cost; (c) 10% of the total
amount as an award for and as contingent attorney's fees; and (d) to pay the cost of the suit.
The trial court ruled:

Considering defendant's categorical admission of loss and its failure to

overcome the presumption of negligence and fault, the Court conclusively
finds defendant liable to the plaintiff. The next point of inquiry the Court wants
to resolve is the extent of the liability of the defendant. As stated earlier,
plaintiff contends that defendant should be held liable for the whole value for
the loss of the goods in the amount of Y1,552,500.00 because the terms
appearing at the back of the bill of lading was so written in fine prints and that
the same was not signed by plaintiff or shipper thus, they are not bound by
clause stated in paragraph 18 of the bill of lading. On the other hand,
defendant merely admitted that it lost the shipment but shall be liable only up
to the amount of Y100,000.00.

The Court subscribes to the provisions of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code —

Art. 1750. "A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by
the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction or deterioration of
the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the
circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon."

It is required, however, that the contract must be reasonable and just under the
circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. The requirements
provided in Art. 1750 of the New Civil Code must be complied with before a
common carrier can claim a limitation of its pecuniary liability in case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods it has undertaken to transport.

In the case at bar, the Court is of the view that the requirements of said article
have not been met. The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the
bill of lading in letters so small that they are hard to read would not warrant the
presumption that the plaintiff or its supplier was aware of these conditions
such that he had "fairly and freely agreed" to these conditions. It can not be
said that the plaintiff had actually entered into a contract with the defendant,
embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the bill of lading that was
issued by the defendant to plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals deleted the award of attorney's fees but affirmed the trial
court's findings with the additional observation that private respondent can not be bound by
the terms and conditions of the bill of lading because it was not privy to the contract of
carriage. It said:

As to the amount of liability, no evidence appears on record to show that the

appellee (Hernandez Trading Co.) consented to the terms of the Bill of Lading.
The shipper named in the Bill of Lading is Maruman Trading Co., Ltd. whom
the appellant (Everett Steamship Corp.) contracted with for the transportation
of the lost goods.

Even assuming arguendo that the shipper Maruman Trading Co., Ltd. accepted
the terms of the bill of lading when it delivered the cargo to the appellant, still it
does not necessarily follow that appellee Hernandez Trading, Company as
consignee is bound thereby considering that the latter was never privy to the
shipping contract.

xxx xxx xxx

Never having entered into a contract with the appellant, appellee should
therefore not be bound by any of the terms and conditions in the bill of lading.

Hence, it follows that the appellee may recover the full value of the shipment
lost, the basis of which is not the breach of contract as appellee was never a
privy to the any contract with the appellant, but is based on Article 1735 of the
New Civil Code, there being no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the
appellant has overcome the presumption of negligence provided for in the law.

Petitioner now comes to us arguing that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in ruling that the
consent of the consignee to the terms and conditions of the bill of lading is necessary to
make such stipulations binding upon it; (2) in holding that the carrier's limited package
liability as stipulated in the bill of lading does not apply in the instant case; and (3) in
allowing private respondent to fully recover the full alleged value of its lost cargo.

We shall first resolve the validity of the limited liability clause in the bill of lading.

A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the common carrier's liability for loss or destruction
of a cargo to a certain sum, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is
sanctioned by law, particularly Articles 1749 and 1750 of the Civil Code which provide:

Art. 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value
of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner
declares a greater value, is binding.

Art. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or
shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is
reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been freely and fairly
agreed upon.

Such limited-liability clause has also been consistently upheld by this Court in a number of
cases.3 Thus, inSea Land Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 4, we ruled:

It seems clear that even if said section 4 (5) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act did not exist, the validity and binding effect of the liability limitation clause
in the bill of lading here are nevertheless fully sustainable on the basis alone
of the cited Civil Code Provisions. That said stipulation is just and reasonable
is arguable from the fact that it echoes Art. 1750 itself in providing a limit to
liability only if a greater value is not declared for the shipment in the bill of
lading. To hold otherwise would amount to questioning the justness and
fairness of the law itself, and this the private respondent does not pretend to
do. But over and above that consideration, the just and reasonable character
of such stipulation is implicit in it giving the shipper or owner the option of
avoiding accrual of liability limitation by the simple and surely far from
onerous expedient of declaring the nature and value of the shipment in the bill
of lading.

Pursuant to the afore-quoted provisions of law, it is required that the stipulation limiting the
common carrier's liability for loss must be "reasonable and just under the circumstances,
and has been freely and fairly agreed upon."

The bill of lading subject of the present controversy specifically provides, among others:

18. All claims for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted and settled
on the basis of the shipper's net invoice cost plus freight and insurance
premiums, if paid, and in no event shall the carrier be liable for any loss of
possible profits or any consequential loss.
The carrier shall not be liable for any loss of or any damage to or in any
connection with, goods in an amount exceeding One Hundred thousand Yen in
Japanese Currency (Y100,000.00) or its equivalent in any other currency per
package or customary freight unit (whichever is least)unless the value of the
goods higher than this amount is declared in writing by the shipper before
receipt of the goods by the carrier and inserted in the Bill of Lading and extra
freight is paid as required. (Emphasis supplied)

The above stipulations are, to our mind, reasonable and just. In the bill of lading, the carrier
made it clear that its liability would only be up to One Hundred Thousand (Y100,000.00) Yen.
However, the shipper, Maruman Trading, had the option to declare a higher valuation if the
value of its cargo was higher than the limited liability of the carrier. Considering that the
shipper did not declare a higher valuation, it had itself to blame for not complying with the
stipulations.

The trial court's ratiocination that private respondent could not have "fairly and freely"
agreed to the limited liability clause in the bill of lading because the said conditions were
printed in small letters does not make the bill of lading invalid.

We ruled in PAL, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals5 that the "jurisprudence on the matter reveals the
consistent holding of the court that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and that it
has on numerous occasions upheld the binding effect thereof." Also, in Philippine American
General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Sweet Lines, Inc. 6 this Court, speaking through the learned
Justice Florenz D. Regalado, held:

. . . Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., instructs us that "contracts of
adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the
other . . . are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the
contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if the adheres he gives his
consent." In the present case, not even an allegation of ignorance of a party
excuses non-compliance with the contractual stipulations since the
responsibility for ensuring full comprehension of the provisions of a contract
of carriage devolves not on the carrier but on the owner, shipper, or consignee
as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied)

It was further explained in Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals 7 that stipulations in contracts of
adhesion are valid and binding.

While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane
ticket . . ., he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such
provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid
and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or
assent to the regulation." It 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. . . ., 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Greater vigilance, however, is required of the courts when dealing with contracts of adhesion
in that the said contracts must be carefully scrutinized "in order to shield the unwary (or
weaker party) from deceptive schemes contained in ready-made covenants,"8 such as the bill
of lading in question. The stringent requirement which the courts are enjoined to observe is
in recognition of Article 24 of the Civil Code which mandates that "(i)n all contractual,
property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his
moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the
courts must be vigilant for his protection."

The shipper, Maruman Trading, we assume, has been extensively engaged in the trading
business. It can not be said to be ignorant of the business transactions it entered into
involving the shipment of its goods to its customers. The shipper could not have known, or
should know the stipulations in the bill of lading and there it should have declared a higher
valuation of the goods shipped. Moreover, Maruman Trading has not been heard to complain
that it has been deceived or rushed into agreeing to ship the cargo in petitioner's vessel. In
fact, it was not even impleaded in this case.

The next issue to be resolved is whether or not private respondent, as consignee, who is not
a signatory to the bill of lading is bound by the stipulations thereof.

Again, in Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (supra), we held that even if
the consignee was not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper and the
carrier, the consignee can still be bound by the contract. Speaking through Mr. Chief Justice
Narvasa, we ruled:

To begin with, there is no question of the right, in principle, of a consignee in a

bill of lading to recover from the carrier or shipper for loss of, or damage to
goods being transported under said bill, although that document may have
been-as in practice it oftentimes is-drawn up only by the consignor and the
carrier without the intervention of the
onsignee. . . . .

. . . the right of a party in the same situation as respondent here, to recover for
loss of a shipment consigned to him under a bill of lading drawn up only by
and between the shipper and the carrier, springs from either a relation of
agency that may exist between him and the shipper or consignor, or his status
as stranger in whose favor some stipulation is made in said contract, and who
becomes a party thereto when he demands fulfillment of that stipulation, in
this case the delivery of the goods or cargo shipped. In neither capacity can he
assert personally, in bar to any provision of the bill of lading, the alleged
circumstance that fair and free agreement to such provision was vitiated by its
being in such fine print as to be hardly readable. Parenthetically, it may be
observed that in one comparatively recent case (Phoenix Assurance Company
vs. Macondray & Co., Inc., 64 SCRA 15) where this Court found that a similar
package limitation clause was "printed in the smallest type on the back of the
bill of lading," it nonetheless ruled that the consignee was bound thereby on
the strength of authority holding that such provisions on liability limitation are
as much a part of a bill of lading as through physically in it and as though
placed therein by agreement of the parties.

There can, therefore, be no doubt or equivocation about the validity and

enforceability of freely-agreed-upon stipulations in a contract of carriage or bill
of lading limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the
shipper declares a higher value and inserts it into said contract or bill. This
proposition, moreover, rests upon an almost uniform weight of authority.
(Emphasis supplied).

When private respondent formally claimed reimbursement for the missing goods from
petitioner and subsequently filed a case against the latter based on the very same bill of
lading, it (private respondent) accepted the provisions of the contract and thereby made itself
a party thereto, or at least has come to court to enforce it.9 Thus, private respondent cannot
now reject or disregard the carrier's limited liability stipulation in the bill of lading. In other
words, private respondent is bound by the whole stipulations in the bill of lading and must
respect the same.

Private respondent, however, insists that the carrier should be liable for the full value of the
lost cargo in the amount of Y1,552,500.00, considering that the shipper, Maruman Trading,
had "fully declared the shipment . . ., the contents of each crate, the dimensions, weight and
value of the contents," 10 as shown in the commercial Invoice No. MTM-941.

This claim was denied by petitioner, contending that it did not know of the contents, quantity
and value of "the shipment which consisted of three pre-packed crates described in Bill of
Lading No. NGO-53MN merely as '3 CASES SPARE PARTS.'" 11

The bill of lading in question confirms petitioner's contention. To defeat the carrier's limited
liability, the aforecited Clause 18 of the bill of lading requires that the shipper should have
declared in writing a higher valuation of its goods before receipt thereof by the carrier and
insert the said declaration in the bill of lading, with extra freight paid. These requirements in
the bill of lading were never complied with by the shipper, hence, the liability of the carrier
under the limited liability clause stands. The commercial Invoice No. MTM-941 does not in
itself sufficiently and convincingly show that petitioner has knowledge of the value of the
cargo as contended by private respondent. No other evidence was proffered by private
respondent to support is contention. Thus, we are convinced that petitioner should be liable
for the full value of the lost cargo.

In fine, the liability of petitioner for the loss of the cargo is limited to One Hundred Thousand
(Y100,000.00) Yen, pursuant to Clause 18 of the bill of lading.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 14, 1995 in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
42803 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 172822 Petitioner,

MOF COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
SHIN YANG BROKERAGE CORPORATION Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The necessity of proving lies with the person who sues.

The refusal of the consignee named in the bill of lading to pay the freightage on the claim that it is
not privy to the contract of affreightment propelled the shipper to sue for collection of money,
stressing that its sole evidence, the bill of lading, suffices to prove that the consignee is bound to
pay. Petitioner now comes to us by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 praying
for the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) judgment that dismissed its action for sum of money for
insufficiency of evidence.

Factual Antecedents

On October 25, 2001, Halla Trading Co., a company based in Korea, shipped to Manila secondhand
cars and other articles on board the vessel Hanjin Busan 0238W. The bill of lading covering the
shipment, i.e., Bill of Lading No. HJSCPUSI14168303,2 which was prepared by the carrier Hanjin
Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin), named respondent Shin Yang Brokerage Corp. (Shin Yang) as the
consignee and indicated that payment was on a "Freight Collect" basis, i.e., that the
consignee/receiver of the goods would be the one to pay for the freight and other charges in the total
amount of ₱57,646.00.3

The shipment arrived in Manila on October 29, 2001. Thereafter, petitioner MOF Company, Inc.
(MOF), Hanjin’s exclusive general agent in the Philippines, repeatedly demanded the payment of
ocean freight, documentation fee and terminal handling charges from Shin Yang. The latter,
however, failed and refused to pay contending that it did not cause the importation of the goods, that
it is only the Consolidator of the said shipment, that the ultimate consignee did not endorse in its
favor the original bill of lading and that the bill of lading was prepared without its consent.

Thus, on March 19, 2003, MOF filed a case for sum of money before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Pasay City (MeTC Pasay) which was docketed as Civil Case No. 206-03 and raffled to Branch 48.
MOF alleged that Shin Yang, a regular client, caused the importation and shipment of the goods and
assured it that ocean freight and other charges would be paid upon arrival of the goods in Manila.
Yet, after Hanjin's compliance, Shin Yang unjustly breached its obligation to pay. MOF argued that
Shin Yang, as the named consignee in the bill of lading, entered itself as a party to the contract and
bound itself to the "Freight Collect" arrangement. MOF thus prayed for the payment of ₱57,646.00
representing ocean freight, documentation fee and terminal handling charges as well as damages
and attorney’s fees.

Claiming that it is merely a consolidator/forwarder and that Bill of Lading No. HJSCPUSI14168303
was not endorsed to it by the ultimate consignee, Shin Yang denied any involvement in shipping the
goods or in promising to shoulder the freightage. It asserted that it never authorized Halla Trading
Co. to ship the articles or to have its name included in the bill of lading. Shin Yang also alleged that
MOF failed to present supporting documents to prove that it was Shin Yang that caused the
importation or the one that assured payment of the shipping charges upon arrival of the goods in
Manila.

Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court

On June 16, 2004, the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch 48 rendered its Decision4 in favor of MOF. It
ruled that Shin Yang cannot disclaim being a party to the contract of affreightment because:

x x x it would appear that defendant has business transactions with plaintiff. This is evident from
defendant’s letters dated 09 May 2002 and 13 May 2002 (Exhibits "1" and "2", defendant’s Position
Paper) where it requested for the release of refund of container deposits x x x. [In] the mind of the
Court, by analogy, a written contract need not be necessary; a mutual understanding [would suffice].
Further, plaintiff would have not included the name of the defendant in the bill of lading, had there
been no prior agreement to that effect.

In sum, plaintiff has sufficiently proved its cause of action against the defendant and the latter is
obliged to honor its agreement with plaintiff despite the absence of a written contract.5

The dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against
the defendant, ordering the latter to pay plaintiff as follows:

1. ₱57,646.00 plus legal interest from the date of demand until fully paid,

2. ₱10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees and

3. the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.6

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108 affirmed in toto the Decision of the MeTC.
It held that:

MOF and Shin Yang entered into a contract of affreightment which Black’s Law Dictionary defined as
a contract with the ship owner to hire his ship or part of it, for the carriage of goods and generally
take the form either of a charter party or a bill of lading.

The bill of lading contain[s] the information embodied in the contract.

Article 652 of the Code of Commerce provides that the charter party must be in writing; however,
Article 653 says: "If the cargo should be received without charter party having been signed, the
contract shall be understood as executed in accordance with what appears in the bill of lading, the
sole evidence of title with regard to the cargo for determining the rights and obligations of the ship
agent, of the captain and of the charterer". Thus, the Supreme Court opined in the Market
Developers, Inc. (MADE) vs. Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and Gaudioso Uy, G.R. No.
74978, September 8, 1989, this kind of contract may be oral. In another case, Compania Maritima
vs. Insurance Company of North America, 12 SCRA 213 the contract of affreightment by telephone
was recognized where the oral agreement was later confirmed by a formal booking.
xxxx

Defendant is liable to pay the sum of ₱57,646.00, with interest until fully paid, attorney’s fees of
₱10,000.00 [and] cost of suit.

Considering all the foregoing, this Court affirms in toto the decision of the Court a quo.

SO ORDERED.7

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Seeing the matter in a different light, the CA dismissed MOF’s complaint and refused to award any
form of damages or attorney’s fees. It opined that MOF failed to substantiate its claim that Shin Yang
had a hand in the importation of the articles to the Philippines or that it gave its consent to be a
consignee of the subject goods. In its March 22, 2006 Decision,8 the CA said:

This Court is persuaded [that except] for the Bill of Lading, respondent has not presented any other
evidence to bolster its claim that petitioner has entered [into] an agreement of affreightment with
respondent, be it verbal or written. It is noted that the Bill of Lading was prepared by Hanjin
Shipping, not the petitioner. Hanjin is the principal while respondent is the former’s agent. (p. 43,
rollo)

The conclusion of the court a quo, which was upheld by the RTC Pasay City, Branch 108 xxx is
purely speculative and conjectural. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork,
but must depend upon competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable under the
circumstances. Litigation cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions or even
presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules
of admissibility and proof (Lagon vs. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc. 349 SCRA 363).

While it is true that a bill of lading serves two (2) functions: first, it is a receipt for the goods shipped;
second, it is a contract by which three parties, namely, the shipper, the carrier and the consignee
who undertake specific responsibilities and assume stipulated obligations (Belgian Overseas
Chartering and Shipping N.V. vs. Phil. First Insurance Co., Inc., 383 SCRA 23), x x x if the same is
not accepted, it is as if one party does not accept the contract. Said the Supreme Court:

"A bill of lading delivered and accepted constitutes the contract of carriage[,] even though not signed,
because the acceptance of a paper containing the terms of a proposed contract generally constitutes
an acceptance of the contract and of all its terms and conditions of which the acceptor has actual or
constructive notice" (Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. vs. CA, 286 SCRA 257).

In the present case, petitioner did not only [refuse to] accept the bill of lading, but it likewise
disown[ed] the shipment x x x. [Neither did it] authorize Halla Trading Company or anyone to ship or
export the same on its behalf.

It is settled that a contract is upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause
(Sta. Clara Homeowner’s Association vs. Gaston, 374 SCRA 396). In the case at bar, there is not
even any iota of evidence to show that petitioner had given its consent.

"He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence" (Luxuria
Homes Inc. vs. CA, 302 SCRA 315).
The 40-footer van contains goods of substantial value. It is highly improbable for petitioner not to pay
the charges, which is very minimal compared with the value of the goods, in order that it could work
on the release thereof.

For failure to substantiate its claim by preponderance of evidence, respondent has not established
its case against petitioner.9

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution10 dated May 25, 2006.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner’s Arguments

In assailing the CA’s Decision, MOF argues that the factual findings of both the MeTC and RTC are
entitled to great weight and respect and should have bound the CA. It stresses that the appellate
court has no justifiable reason to disturb the lower courts’ judgments because their conclusions are
well-supported by the evidence on record.

MOF further argues that the CA erred in labeling the findings of the lower courts as purely
‘speculative and conjectural’. According to MOF, the bill of lading, which expressly stated Shin Yang
as the consignee, is the best evidence of the latter’s actual participation in the transportation of the
goods. Such document, validly entered, stands as the law among the shipper, carrier and the
consignee, who are all bound by the terms stated therein. Besides, a carrier’s valid claim after it
fulfilled its obligation cannot just be rejected by the named consignee upon a simple denial that it
ever consented to be a party in a contract of affreightment, or that it ever participated in the
preparation of the bill of lading. As against Shin Yang’s bare denials, the bill of lading is the sufficient
preponderance of evidence required to prove MOF’s claim. MOF maintains that Shin Yang was the
one that supplied all the details in the bill of lading and acquiesced to be named consignee of the
shipment on a ‘Freight Collect’ basis.

Lastly, MOF claims that even if Shin Yang never gave its consent, it cannot avoid its obligation to
pay, because it never objected to being named as the consignee in the bill of lading and that it only
protested when the shipment arrived in the Philippines, presumably due to a botched transaction
between it and Halla Trading Co. Furthermore, Shin Yang’s letters asking for the refund of container
deposits highlight the fact that it was aware of the shipment and that it undertook preparations for the
intended release of the shipment.

Respondent’s Arguments

Echoing the CA decision, Shin Yang insists that MOF has no evidence to prove that it consented to
take part in the contract of affreightment. Shin Yang argues that MOF miserably failed to present any
evidence to prove that it was the one that made preparations for the subject shipment, or that it is an
‘actual shipping practice’ that forwarders/consolidators as consignees are the ones that provide
carriers details and information on the bills of lading.

Shin Yang contends that a bill of lading is essentially a contract between the shipper and the carrier
and ordinarily, the shipper is the one liable for the freight charges. A consignee, on the other hand, is
initially a stranger to the bill of lading and can be liable only when the bill of lading specifies that the
charges are to be paid by the consignee. This liability arises from either a) the contract of agency
between the shipper/consignor and the consignee; or b) the consignee’s availment of the stipulation
pour autrui drawn up by and between the shipper/ consignor and carrier upon the consignee’s
demand that the goods be delivered to it. Shin Yang contends that the fact that its name was
mentioned as the consignee of the cargoes did not make it automatically liable for the freightage
because it never benefited from the shipment. It never claimed or accepted the goods, it was not the
shipper’s agent, it was not aware of its designation as consignee and the original bill of lading was
never endorsed to it.

Issue

The issue for resolution is whether a consignee, who is not a signatory to the bill of lading, is bound
by the stipulations thereof. Corollarily, whether respondent who was not an agent of the shipper and
who did not make any demand for the fulfillment of the stipulations of the bill of lading drawn in its
favor is liable to pay the corresponding freight and handling charges.

Our Ruling

Since the CA and the trial courts arrived at different conclusions, we are constrained to depart from
the general rule that only errors of law may be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and will review the evidence presented.11

The bill of lading is oftentimes drawn up by the shipper/consignor and the carrier without the
intervention of the consignee. However, the latter can be bound by the stipulations of the bill of
lading when a) there is a relation of agency between the shipper or consignor and the consignee or
b) when the consignee demands fulfillment of the stipulation of the bill of lading which was drawn up
in its favor.12

In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,13 we held that once the bill of lading is
received by the consignee who does not object to any terms or stipulations contained therein, it
constitutes as an acceptance of the contract and of all of its terms and conditions, of which the
acceptor has actual or constructive notice.1avv phi 1

In Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.,14 the consignee sued the carrier for damages but
nevertheless claimed that he was never a party to the contract of transportation and was a complete
stranger thereto. In debunking Mendoza’scontention, we held that:

x x x First, he insists that the articles of the Code of Commerce should be applied; that he invokes
the provisions of said Code governing the obligations of a common carrier to make prompt delivery
of goods given to it under a contract of transportation. Later, as already said, he says that he was
never a party to the contract of transportation and was a complete stranger to it, and that he is now
suing on a tort or a violation of his rights as a stranger (culpa aquiliana). If he does not invoke the
contract of carriage entered into with the defendant company, then he would hardly have any leg to
stand on. His right to prompt delivery of the can of film at the Pili Air Port stems and is derived from
the contract of carriage under which contract, the PAL undertook to carry the can of film safely and
to deliver it to him promptly. Take away or ignore that contract and the obligation to carry and to
deliver and right to prompt delivery disappear. Common carriers are not obligated by law to carry
and to deliver merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless
such common carriers previously assume the obligation. Said rights and obligations are created by a
specific contract entered into by the parties. In the present case, the findings of the trial court
which as already stated, are accepted by the parties and which we must accept are to the
effect that the LVN Pictures Inc. and Jose Mendoza on one side, and the defendant company
on the other, entered into a contract of transportation (p. 29, Rec. on Appeal). One
interpretation of said finding is that the LVN Pictures Inc. through previous agreement with
Mendoza acted as the latter's agent. When he negotiated with the LVN Pictures Inc. to rent
the film 'Himala ng Birhen' and show it during the Naga town fiesta, he most probably
authorized and enjoined the Picture Company to ship the film for him on the PAL on
September 17th. Another interpretation is that even if the LVN Pictures Inc. as consignor of
its own initiative, and acting independently of Mendoza for the time being, made Mendoza a
consignee. [Mendoza made himself a party to the contract of transportaion when he appeared
at the Pili Air Port armed with the copy of the Air Way Bill (Exh. 1) demanding the delivery of
the shipment to him.] The very citation made by appellant in his memorandum supports this view.
Speaking of the possibility of a conflict between the order of the shipper on the one hand and the
order of the consignee on the other, as when the shipper orders the shipping company to return or
retain the goods shipped while the consignee demands their delivery, Malagarriga in his book
Codigo de Comercio Comentado, Vol. 1, p. 400, citing a decision of the Argentina Court of Appeals
on commercial matters, cited by Tolentino in Vol. II of his book entitled 'Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines' p. 209, says that the right of the shipper
to countermand the shipment terminates when the consignee or legitimate holder of the bill
of lading appears with such bill of lading before the carrier and makes himself a party to the
contract. Prior to that time he is a stranger to the contract.

Still another view of this phase of the case is that contemplated in Art. 1257, paragraph 2, of
the old Civil Code (now Art. 1311, second paragraph) which reads thus:

‘Should the contract contain any stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its
fulfillment provided he has given notice of his acceptance to the person bound before the
stipulation has been revoked.'

Here, the contract of carriage between the LVN Pictures Inc. and the defendant carrier
contains the stipulations of delivery to Mendoza as consignee. His demand for the delivery of
the can of film to him at the Pili Air Port may be regarded as a notice of his acceptance of the
stipulation of the delivery in his favor contained in the contract of carriage and delivery. In
this case he also made himself a party to the contract, or at least has come to court to
enforce it. His cause of action must necessarily be founded on its breach.15(Emphasis Ours)

In sum, a consignee, although not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper and
the carrier, becomes a party to the contract by reason of either a) the relationship of agency between
the consignee and the shipper/ consignor; b) the unequivocal acceptance of the bill of lading
delivered to the consignee, with full knowledge of its contents or c) availment of the stipulation pour
autrui, i.e., when the consignee, a third person, demands before the carrier the fulfillment of the
stipulation made by the consignor/shipper in the consignee’s favor, specifically the delivery of the
goods/cargoes shipped.16

In the instant case, Shin Yang consistently denied in all of its pleadings that it authorized Halla
Trading, Co. to ship the goods on its behalf; or that it got hold of the bill of lading covering the
shipment or that it demanded the release of the cargo. Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden
of proof lies upon him who asserts it, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature of things, he
who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.17 Thus, MOF has the burden to controvert all these
denials, it being insistent that Shin Yang asserted itself as the consignee and the one that caused
the shipment of the goods to the Philippines.

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of
evidence,18 which means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is
offered in opposition to it.19 Here, MOF failed to meet the required quantum of proof. Other than
presenting the bill of lading, which, at most, proves that the carrier acknowledged receipt of the
subject cargo from the shipper and that the consignee named is to shoulder the freightage, MOF has
not adduced any other credible evidence to strengthen its cause of action. It did not even present
any witness in support of its allegation that it was Shin Yang which furnished all the details indicated
in the bill of lading and that Shin Yang consented to shoulder the shipment costs. There is also
nothing in the records which would indicate that Shin Yang was an agent of Halla Trading Co. or that
it exercised any act that would bind it as a named consignee. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the
suit for failure of petitioner to establish its cause against respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March
22, 2006 dismissing petitioner’s complaint and the Resolution dated May 25, 2006 denying the
motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 92288 February 9, 1993

BRITISH AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Twelfth Division, and FIRST INTERNATIONAL TRADING
AND GENERAL SERVICES, respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Peña & Nolasco for petitioner.

Monina P. Lee for private respondent.

NOCON, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision dated November 15,
1989 of the Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the trial court2 in ordering petitioner British
Airways, Inc. to pay private respondent First International Trading and General Services actual
damages, moral damages, corrective or exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs as well
as the Resolution dated February 15, 19903 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in the
appealed decision.

It appears on record that on February 15, 1981, private respondent First International Trading and
General Services Co., a duly licensed domestic recruitment and placement agency, received a telex
message from its principal ROLACO Engineering and Contracting Services in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
to recruit Filipino contract workers in behalf of said principal.4

During the early part of March 1981, said principal paid to the Jeddah branch of petitioner British
Airways, Inc. airfare tickets for 93 contract workers with specific instruction to transport said workers
to Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981.

As soon as petitioner received a prepaid ticket advice from its Jeddah branch to transport the 93
workers, private respondent was immediately informed by petitioner that its principal had forwarded
93 prepaid tickets. Thereafter, private respondent instructed its travel agent, ADB Travel and Tours.
Inc., to book the 93 workers with petitioner but the latter failed to fly said workers, thereby compelling
private respondent to borrow money in the amount of P304,416.00 in order to purchase airline
tickets from the other airlines as evidenced by the cash vouchers (Exhibits "B", "C" and "C-1 to C-7")
for the 93 workers it had recruited who must leave immediately since the visas of said workers are
valid only for 45 days and the Bureau of Employment Services mandates that contract workers must
be sent to the job site within a period of 30 days.

Sometime in the first week of June, 1981, private respondent was again informed by the petitioner
that it had received a prepaid ticket advice from its Jeddah branch for the transportation of 27
contract workers. Immediatety, private respondent instructed its travel agent to book the 27 contract
workers with the petitioner but the latter was only able to book and confirm 16 seats on its June 9,
1981 flight. However, on the date of the scheduled flight only 9 workers were able to board said flight
while the remaining 7 workers were rebooked to June 30, 1981 which bookings were again
cancelled by the petitioner without any prior notice to either private respondent or the workers.
Thereafter, the 7 workers were rebooked to the July 4,1981 flight of petitioner with 6 more workers
booked for said flight. Unfortunately, the confirmed bookings of the 13 workers were again cancelled
and rebooked to July 7, 1981.
On July 6, 1981, private respondent paid the travel tax of the said workers as required by the
petitioner but when the receipt of the tax payments was submitted, the latter informed private
respondent that it can only confirm the seats of the 12 workers on its July 7, 1981 flight. However,
the confirmed seats of said workers were again cancelled without any prior notice either to the
private respondent or said workers. The 12 workers were finally able to leave for Jeddah after
private respondent had bought tickets from the other airlines.

As a result of these incidents, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner demanding compensation
for the damages it had incurred by the latter's repeated failure to transport its contract workers
despite confirmed bookings and payment of the corresponding travel taxes.

On July 23, 1981, the counsel of private respondent sent another letter to the petitioner demanding
the latter to pay the amount of P350,000.00 representing damages and unrealized profit or income
which was denied by the petitioner.

On August 8, 1981, private respondent received a telex message from its principal cancelling the
hiring of the remaining recruited workers due to the delay in transporting the workers to Jeddah.5

On January 27, 1982, private respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1 in Civil Case No. 82-4653.

On the other hand, petitioner, alleged in its Answer with counterclaims that it received a telex
message from Jeddah on March 20, 1981 advising that the principal of private respondent had
prepaid the airfares of 100 persons to transport private respondent's contract workers from Manila to
Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981. However, due to the unavailability of space and limited time,
petitioner had to return to its sponsor in Jeddah the prepaid ticket advice consequently not even one
of the alleged 93 contract workers were booked in any of its flights.

On June 5, 1981, petitioner received another prepaid ticket advice to transport 16 contract workers
of private respondent to Jeddah but the travel agent of the private respondent booked only 10
contract workers for petitioner's June 9, 1981 flight. However, only 9 contract workers boarded the
scheduled flight with 1 passenger not showing up as evidenced by the Philippine Airlines' passenger
manifest for Flight BA-020 (Exhibit "7", "7-A", "7-B" and "7-C").6

Thereafter, private respondent's travel agent booked seats for 5 contract workers on petitioner's July
4, 1981 flight but said travel agent cancelled the booking of 2 passengers while the other 3
passengers did not show up on said flight.

Sometime in July 1981, the travel agent of the private respondent booked 7 more contract workers in
addition to the previous 5 contract workers who were not able to board the July 4, 1981 flight with
the petitioner's July 7, 1981 flight which was accepted by petitioner subject to reconfirmation.

However on July 6, 1981, petitioner's computer system broke down which resulted to petitioner's
failure to get a reconfirmation from Saudi Arabia Airlines causing the automatic cancellation of the
bookings of private respondent's 12 contract workers. In the morning of July 7, 1981, the computer
system of the petitioner was reinstalled and immediately petitioner tried to reinstate the bookings of
the 12 workers with either Gulf Air or Saudi Arabia Airlines but both airlines replied that no seat was
available on that date and had to place the 12 workers on the wait list. Said information was duly
relayed to the private respondent and the 12 workers before the scheduled flight.

After due trial on or on August 27, 1985, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court renders judgment:

1. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff actual damages in the sum of
P308,016.00;

2. Ordering defendant to pay moral damages to the plaintiff in the amount of

P20,000.00;

3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff P10,000.00 by way of corrective or

exemplary damages;

4. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff 30% of its total claim for and as
attorney's fees; and

5. To pay the costs.7

On March 13, 1986, petitioner appealed said decision to respondent appellate court after the trial
court denied its Motion for Reconsideration on February 28, 1986.

On November 15, 1989, respondent appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with costs against
the appellant.8

On December 9, 1989, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied.

Hence, this petition.

It is the contention of petitioner that private respondent has no cause of action against it there being
no perfected contract of carriage existing between them as no ticket was ever issued to private
respondent's contract workers and, therefore, the obligation of the petitioner to transport said
contract workers did not arise. Furthermore, private respondent's failure to attach any ticket in the
complaint further proved that it was never a party to the alleged transaction.

Petitioner's contention is untenable.

Private respondent had a valid cause of action for damages against petitioner. A cause of action is
an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other.9 Petitioner's
repeated failures to transport private respondent's workers in its flight despite confirmed booking of
said workers clearly constitutes breach of contract and bad faith on its part. In resolving petitioner's
theory that private respondent has no cause of action in the instant case, the appellate court
correctly held that:

In dealing with the contract of common carriage of passengers for purpose of

accuracy, there are two (2) aspects of the same, namely: (a) the contract "to carry (at
some future time)," which contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected by
mere consent (See Article 1356, Civil Code of the Philippines), and (b) the contract
"of carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as a real
contract for not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be said to have
already assumed the obligation of a carrier. (Paras, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. V, p.
429, Eleventh Ed.)

In the instant case, the contract "to carry" is the one involved which is consensual
and is perfected by the mere consent of the parties.

There is no dispute as to the appellee's consent to the said contract "to carry" its
contract workers from Manila to Jeddah. The appellant's consent thereto, on the
other hand, was manifested by its acceptance of the PTA or prepaid ticket advice
that ROLACO Engineering has prepaid the airfares of the appellee's contract workers
advising the appellant that it must transport the contract workers on or before the end
of March, 1981 and the other batch in June, 1981.

Even if a PTA is merely an advice from the sponsors that an airline is authorized to
issue a ticket and thus no ticket was yet issued, the fact remains that the passage
had already been paid for by the principal of the appellee, and the appellant had
accepted such payment. The existence of this payment was never objected to nor
questioned by the appellant in the lower court. Thus, the cause or consideration
which is the fare paid for the passengers exists in this case.

The third essential requisite of a contract is an object certain. In this contract "to
carry", such an object is the transport of the passengers from the place of departure
to the place of destination as stated in the telex.

Accordingly, there could be no more pretensions as to the existence of an oral

contract of carriage imposing reciprocal obligations on both parties.

In the case of appellee, it has fully complied with the obligation, namely, the payment
of the fare and its willingness for its contract workers to leave for their place of
destination.

On the other hand, the facts clearly show that appellant was remiss in its obligation
to transport the contract workers on their flight despite confirmation and bookings
made by appellee's travelling agent.

xxx xxx xxx

Besides, appellant knew very well that time was of the essence as the prepaid ticket
advice had specified the period of compliance therewith, and with emphasis that it
could only be used if the passengers fly on BA. Under the circumstances, the
appellant should have refused acceptance of the PTA from appellee's principal or to
at least inform appellee that it could not accommodate the contract workers.

xxx xxx xxx

While there is no dispute that ROLACO Engineering advanced the payment for the
airfares of the appellee's contract workers who were recruited for ROLACO
Engineering and the said contract workers were the intended passengers in the
aircraft of the appellant, the said contract "to carry" also involved the appellee for as
recruiter he had to see to it that the contract workers should be transported to
ROLACO Engineering in Jeddah thru the appellant's transportation. For that matter,
the involvement of the appellee in the said contract "to carry" was well demonstrated
when
the appellant upon receiving the PTA immediately advised the appellee thereof. 10

Petitioner also contends that the appellate court erred in awarding actual damages in the amount of
P308,016.00 to private respondent since all expenses had already been subsequently reimbursed
by the latter's principal.

In awarding actual damages to private respondent, the appellate court held that the amount of
P308,016.00 representing actual damages refers to private respondent's second cause of action
involving the expenses incurred by the latter which were not reimbursed by ROLACO Engineering.
However, in the Complaint 11 filed by private respondent, it was alleged that private respondent
suffered actual damages in the amount of P308,016.00 representing the money it borrowed from
friends and financiers which is P304,416.00 for the 93 airline tickets and P3,600.00 for the travel tax
of the 12 workers. It is clear therefore that the actual damages private respondent seeks to recover
are the airline tickets and travel taxes it spent for its workers which were already reimbursed by its
principal and not for any other expenses it had incurred in the process of recruiting said contract
workers. Inasmuch as all expenses including the processing fees incurred by private respondent had
already been paid for by the latter's principal on a staggered basis as admitted in open court by its
managing director, Mrs. Bienvenida Brusellas. 12 We do not find anymore justification in the appellate
court's decision in granting actual damages to private respondent.

Thus, while it may be true that private respondent was compelled to borrow money for the airfare
tickets of its contract workers when petitioner failed to transport said workers, the reimbursements
made by its principal to private respondent failed to support the latter's claim that it suffered actual
damages as a result of petitioner's failure to transport said workers. It is undisputed that private
respondent had consistently admitted that its principal had reimbursed all its expenses.

Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that:

Except as provided by law or by stipulations, one is entitled to an adequate

compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

Furthermore, actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and
proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or
guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they
have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. 13

However, private respondent is entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages for the injury
suffered as a result of petitioner's failure to transport the former's workers because of the latter's
patent bad faith in the performance of its obligation. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court:

As evidence had proved, there was complete failure on the part of the appellant to
transport the 93 contract workers of the appellee on or before March 30, 1981
despite receipt of the payment for their airfares, and acceptance of the same by the
appellant, with specific instructions from the appellee's principal to transport the
contract workers on or before March 30, 1981. No previous notice was ever
registered by the appellant that it could not comply with the same. And then followed
the detestable act of appellant in unilaterally cancelling, booking and rebooking
unreasonably the flight of appellee's contract workers in June to July, 1981 without
prior notice. And all of these actuations of the appellant indeed constitute malice and
evident bad faith which had caused damage and besmirched the reputation and
business image of the appellee. 14

As to the alleged damages suffered by the petitioner as stated in its counterclaims, the record shows
that no claim for said damages was ever made by the petitioner immediately after their alleged
occurrence therefore said counterclaims were mere afterthoughts when private respondent filed the
present case.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award
of actual damages be deleted from said decision.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964

COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, petitioner,

vs.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respondent.

Rafael Dinglasan for petitioner.

Ozaeta Gibbs & Ozaeta for respondent.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Sometime in October, 1952, Macleod and Company of the Philippines contracted by telephone the
services of the Compañia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for the shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp
from the former's Sasa private pier at Davao City to Manila and for their subsequent transhipment to
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the S.S. Steel Navigator. This oral contract was later on
confirmed by a formal and written booking issued by Macleod's branch office in Sasa and
handcarried to Compañia Maritima's branch office in Davao in compliance with which the latter sent
to Macleod's private wharf LCT Nos. 1023 and 1025 on which the loading of the hemp was
completed on October 29, 1952. These two lighters were manned each by a patron and an assistant
patron. The patrons of both barges issued the corresponding carrier's receipts and that issued by the
patron of Barge No. 1025 reads in part:

Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition from MACLEOD AND
COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transhipment at Manila onto S.S. Steel
Navigator.

FINAL DESTINATION: Boston.

Thereafter, the two loaded barges left Macleod's wharf and proceeded to and moored at the
government's marginal wharf in the same place to await the arrival of the S.S. Bowline Knot
belonging to Compañia Maritima on which the hemp was to be loaded. During the night of October
29, 1952, or at the early hours of October 30, LCT No. 1025 sank, resulting in the damage or loss of
1,162 bales of hemp loaded therein. On October 30, 1952, Macleod promptly notified the carrier's
main office in Manila and its branch in Davao advising it of its liability. The damaged hemp was
brought to Odell Plantation in Madaum, Davao, for cleaning, washing, reconditioning, and redrying.
During the period from November 1-15, 1952, the carrier's trucks and lighters hauled from Odell to
Macleod at Sasa a total of 2,197.75 piculs of the reconditioned hemp out of the original cargo of
1,162 bales weighing 2,324 piculs which had a total value of 116,835.00. After reclassification, the
value of the reconditioned hemp was reduced to P84,887.28, or a loss in value of P31,947.72.
Adding to this last amount the sum of P8,863.30 representing Macleod's expenses in checking,
grading, rebating, and other fees for washing, cleaning and redrying in the amount of P19.610.00,
the total loss adds up to P60,421.02.

All abaca shipments of Macleod, including the 1,162 bales loaded on the carrier's LCT No. 1025,
were insured with the Insurance Company of North America against all losses and damages. In due
time, Macleod filed a claim for the loss it suffered as above stated with said insurance company, and
after the same had been processed, the sum of P64,018.55 was paid, which was noted down in a
document which aside from being a receipt of the amount paid, was a subrogation agreement
between Macleod and the insurance company wherein the former assigned to the latter its rights
over the insured and damaged cargo. Having failed to recover from the carrier the sum of
P60,421.02, which is the only amount supported by receipts, the insurance company instituted the
present action on October 28, 1953. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering the
carrier to pay the insurance company the sum of P60,421.02, with legal interest thereon from the
date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, and the costs. This judgment was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals on December 14, 1960. Hence, this petition for review.

The issues posed before us are: (1) Was there a contract of carriage between the carrier and the
shipper even if the loss occurred when the hemp was loaded on a barge owned by the carrier which
was loaded free of charge and was not actually loaded on the S.S. Bowline Knot which would carry
the hemp to Manila and no bill of lading was issued therefore?; (2) Was the damage caused to the
cargo or the sinking of the barge where it was loaded due to a fortuitous event, storm or natural
disaster that would exempt the carrier from liability?; (3) Can respondent insurance company sue the
carrier under its insurance contract as assignee of Macleod in spite of the fact that the liability of the
carrier as insurer is not recognized in this jurisdiction?; (4) Has the Court of Appeals erred in
regarding Exhibit NNN-1 as an implied admission by the carrier of the correctness and sufficiency of
the shipper's statement of accounts contrary to the burden of proof rule?; and (5) Can the insurance
company maintain this suit without proof of its personality to do so?

1. This issue should be answered in the affirmative. As found by the Court of Appeals, Macleod and
Company contracted by telephone the services of petitioner to ship the hemp in question from the
former's private pier at Sasa, Davao City, to Manila, to be subsequently transhipped to Boston,
Massachusetts, U.S.A., which oral contract was later confirmed by a formal and written booking
issued by the shipper's branch office, Davao City, in virtue of which the carrier sent two of its lighters
to undertake the service. It also appears that the patrons of said lighters were employees of the
carrier with due authority to undertake the transportation and to sign the documents that may be
necessary therefor so much so that the patron of LCT No. 1025 signed the receipt covering the
cargo of hemp loaded therein as follows: .

Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition from MACLEOD AND
COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transhipment at Manila onto S.S. Steel
Navigator.

FINAL DESTINATION: Boston.

The fact that the carrier sent its lighters free of charge to take the hemp from Macleod's wharf at
Sasa preparatory to its loading onto the ship Bowline Knot does not in any way impair the contract of
carriage already entered into between the carrier and the shipper, for that preparatory step is but
part and parcel of said contract of carriage. The lighters were merely employed as the first step of
the voyage, but once that step was taken and the hemp delivered to the carrier's employees, the
rights and obligations of the parties attached thereby subjecting them to the principles and usages of
the maritime law. In other words, here we have a complete contract of carriage the consummation of
which has already begun: the shipper delivering the cargo to the carrier, and the latter taking
possession thereof by placing it on a lighter manned by its authorized employees, under which
Macleod became entitled to the privilege secured to him by law for its safe transportation and
delivery, and the carrier to the full payment of its freight upon completion of the voyage.

The receipt of goods by the carrier has been said to lie at the foundation of the contract to
carry and deliver, and if actually no goods are received there can be no such contract. The
liability and responsibility of the carrier under a contract for the carriage of goods commence
on their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier or an authorized agent. ... and delivery to
a lighter in charge of a vessel for shipment on the vessel, where it is the custom to deliver in
that way, is a good delivery and binds the vessel receiving the freight, the liability
commencing at the time of delivery to the lighter. ... and, similarly, where there is a contract
to carry goods from one port to another, and they cannot be loaded directly on the vessel
and lighters are sent by the vessel to bring the goods to it, the lighters are for the time its
substitutes, so that the bill of landing is applicable to the goods as soon as they are placed
on the lighters. (80 C.J.S., p. 901, emphasis supplied)

... The test as to whether the relation of shipper and carrier had been established is, Had the
control and possession of the cotton been completely surrendered by the shipper to the
railroad company? Whenever the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier and
nothing remains to be done by the shipper, then it can be said with certainty that the relation
of shipper and carrier has been established. Railroad Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S.W.
419, 46 A. St. Rep. 202; Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Ry. v. MaKenzie, 74 Ark. 100, 86 S.W.
834; Matthews & Hood v. St. L., I.M. & S.R. Co., 123 Ark. 365, 185 S.W. 461, L.R.A. 1916E,
1194. (W.F. Bogart & Co., et al. v. Wade, et al., 200 S.W. 148).

The claim that there can be no contract of affreightment because the hemp was not actually loaded
on the ship that was to take it from Davao City to Manila is of no moment, for, as already stated, the
delivery of the hemp to the carrier's lighter is in line with the contract. In fact, the receipt signed by
the patron of the lighter that carried the hemp stated that he was receiving the cargo "in behalf of
S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition." On the other hand, the authorities are to the effect
that a bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation of a contract of carriage.

Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage. — As to the issuance of a bill of

lading, although article 350 of the Code of Commerce provides that "the shipper as well as
the carrier of merchandise or goods may mutua-lly demand that a bill of lading is not
indispensable. As regards the form of the contract of carriage it can be said that provided
that there is a meeting of the minds and from such meeting arise rights and obligations, there
should be no limitations as to form." The bill of lading is not essential to the contract,
although it may become obligatory by reason of the regulations of railroad companies, or as
a condition imposed in the contract by the agreement of the parties themselves. The bill of
lading is juridically a documentary proof of the stipulations and conditions agreed upon by
both parties. (Del Viso, pp. 314-315; Robles vs. Santos, 44 O.G. 2268). In other words, the
Code does not demand, as necessary requisite in the contract of transportation, the delivery
of the bill of lading to the shipper, but gives right to both the carrier and the shipper to
mutually demand of each other the delivery of said bill. (Sp. Sup. Ct. Decision, May 6, 1895).
(Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Vol. II, Revised Edition, pp. 12-13)

The liability of the carrier as common carrier begins with the actual delivery of the goods for
transportation, and not merely with the formal execution of a receipt or bill of lading; the
issuance of a bill of lading is not necessary to complete delivery and acceptance. Even
where it is provided by statute that liability commences with the issuance of the bill of lading,
actual delivery and acceptance are sufficient to bind the carrier. (13 C.J.S., p. 288)

2. Petitioner disclaims responsibility for the damage of the cargo in question shielding itself behind
the claim of force majeure or storm which occurred on the night of October 29, 1952. But the
evidence fails to bear this out.

Rather, it shows that the mishap that caused the damage or loss was due, not to force majeure, but
to lack of adequate precautions or measures taken by the carrier to prevent the loss as may be
inferred from the following findings of the Court of Appeals:

Aside from the fact that, as admitted by appellant's own witness, the ill-fated barge had
cracks on its bottom (pp. 18-19, t.s.n., Sept. 13, 1959) which admitted sea water in the same
manner as rain entered "thru tank man-holes", according to the patron of LCT No. 1023 (exh.
JJJ-4) — conclusively showing that the barge was not seaworthy — it should be noted that
on the night of the nautical accident there was no storm, flood, or other natural disaster or
calamity. Certainly, winds of 11 miles per hour, although stronger than the average 4.6 miles
per hour then prevailing in Davao on October 29, 1952 (exh. 5), cannot be classified as
storm. For according to Beaufort's wind scale, a storm has wind velocities of from 64 to 75
miles per hour; and by Philippine Weather Bureau standards winds should have a velocity of
from 55 to 74 miles per hour in order to be classified as storm (Northern Assurance Co., Ltd.
vs. Visayan Stevedore Transportation Co., CA-G.R. No. 23167-R, March 12, 1959).

The Court of Appeals further added: "the report of R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc., marine surveyors,
attributes the sinking of LCT No. 1025 to the 'non-water-tight conditions of various buoyancy
compartments' (exh. JJJ); and this report finds confirmation on the above-mentioned admission of
two witnesses for appellant concerning the cracks of the lighter's bottom and the entrance of the rain
water 'thru manholes'." We are not prepared to dispute this finding of the Court of Appeals.

3. There can also be no doubt that the insurance company can recover from the carrier as assignee
of the owner of the cargo for the insurance amount it paid to the latter under the insurance contract.
And this is so because since the cargo that was damaged was insured with respondent company
and the latter paid the amount represented by the loss, it is but fair that it be given the right to
recover from the party responsible for the loss. The instant case, therefore, is not one between the
insured and the insurer, but one between the shipper and the carrier, because the insurance
company merely stepped into the shoes of the shipper. And since the shipper has a direct cause of
action against the carrier on account of the damage of the cargo, no valid reason is seen why such
action cannot be asserted or availed of by the insurance company as a subrogee of the shipper. Nor
can the carrier set up as a defense any defect in the insurance policy not only because it is not a
privy to it but also because it cannot avoid its liability to the shipper under the contract of carriage
which binds it to pay any loss that may be caused to the cargo involved therein. Thus, we find fitting
the following comments of the Court of Appeals:

It was not imperative and necessary for the trial court to pass upon the question of whether
or not the disputed abaca cargo was covered by Marine Open Cargo Policy No. MK-134
isued by appellee. Appellant was neither a party nor privy to this insurance contract, and
therefore cannot avail itself of any defect in the policy which may constitute a valid reason for
appellee, as the insurer, to reject the claim of Macleod, as the insured. Anyway, whatever
defect the policy contained, if any, is deemed to have been waived by the subsequent
payment of Macleod's claim by appellee. Besides, appellant is herein sued in its capacity as
a common carrier, and appellee is suing as the assignee of the shipper pursuant to exhibit
MM. Since, as above demonstrated, appellant is liable to Macleod and Company of the
Philippines for the los or damage to the 1,162 bales of hemp after these were received in
good order and condition by the patron of appellant's LCT No. 1025, it necessarily follows
that appellant is likewise liable to appellee who, as assignee of Macleod, merely stepped into
the shoes of and substi-tuted the latter in demanding from appellant the payment for the loss
and damage aforecited.

4. It should be recalled in connection with this issue that during the trial of this case the carrier asked
the lower court to order the production of the books of accounts of the Odell Plantation containing
the charges it made for the loss of the damaged hemp for verification of its accountants, but later it
desisted therefrom on the claim that it finds their production no longer necessary. This desistance
notwithstanding, the shipper however pre-sented other documents to prove the damage it suffered in
connection with the cargo and on the strength thereof the court a quo ordered the carrier to pay the
sum of P60,421.02. And after the Court of Appeals affirmed this award upon the theory that the
desistance of the carrier from producing the books of accounts of Odell Plantation implies an
admission of the correctness of the statements of accounts contained therein, petitioner now
contends that the Court of Appeals erred in basing the affirmance of the award on such erroneous
interpretation.

There is reason to believe that the act of petitioner in waiving its right to have the books of accounts
of Odell Plantation presented in court is tantamount to an admission that the statements contained
therein are correct and their verification not necessary because its main defense here, as well as
below, was that it is not liable for the loss because there was no contract of carriage between it and
the shipper and the loss caused, if any, was due to a fortuitous event. Hence, under the carrier's
theory, the correctness of the account representing the loss was not so material as would
necessitate the presentation of the books in question. At any rate, even if the books of accounts
were not produced, the correctness of the accounts cannot now be disputed for the same is
supported by the original documents on which the entries in said books were based which were
presented by the shipper as part of its evidence. And according to the Court of Appeals, these
documents alone sufficiently establish the award of P60,412.02 made in favor of respondent.

5. Finally, with regard to the question concerning the personality of the insurance company to
maintain this action, we find the same of no importance, for the attorney himself of the carrier
admitted in open court that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines with a
personality to file the present action.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar JJ., concur.
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.:

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 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). The <äre||anº• 1àw>

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 petitioner-carrier'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) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3) 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.

Yap, C.J., Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent.

It is my view that petitioner can not be held liable in damages for the loss and destruction of the
scrap iron. The loss of said cargo was due to an excepted cause an 'order or act of competent public
authority" (Article 1734[5], Civil Code).

The loading of the scrap iron on the lighter had to be suspended because of Municipal Mayor Jose
Advincula's intervention, who was a "competent public authority." Petitioner had no control over the
situation as, in fact, Tumambing himself, the owner of the cargo, was impotent to stop the "act' of
said official and even suffered a gunshot wound on the occasion.

When loading was resumed, this time it was Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three
policemen, who ordered the dumping of the scrap iron into the sea right where the lighter was
docked in three feet of water. Again, could the captain of the lighter and his crew have defied said
order?

Through the "order" or "act" of "competent public authority," therefore, the performance of a
contractual obligation was rendered impossible. The scrap iron that was dumped into the sea was
"destroyed" while the rest of the cargo was "seized." The seizure is evidenced by the receipt issues
by Acting Mayor Rub stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron.
Apparently, therefore, the seizure and destruction of the goods was done under legal process or
authority so that petitioner should be freed from responsibility.

Art. 1743. If through order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the
common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue
the order.
Separate Opinions

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent.

It is my view that petitioner can not be held liable in damages for the loss and destruction of the
scrap iron. The loss of said cargo was due to an excepted cause an 'order or act of competent public
authority" (Article 1734[5], Civil Code).

The loading of the scrap iron on the lighter had to be suspended because of Municipal Mayor Jose
Advincula's intervention, who was a "competent public authority." Petitioner had no control over the
situation as, in fact, Tumambing himself, the owner of the cargo, was impotent to stop the "act' of
said official and even suffered a gunshot wound on the occasion.

When loading was resumed, this time it was Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three
policemen, who ordered the dumping of the scrap iron into the sea right where the lighter was
docked in three feet of water. Again, could the captain of the lighter and his crew have defied said
order?

Through the "order" or "act" of "competent public authority," therefore, the performance of a
contractual obligation was rendered impossible. The scrap iron that was dumped into the sea was
"destroyed" while the rest of the cargo was "seized." The seizure is evidenced by the receipt issues
by Acting Mayor Rub stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron.
Apparently, therefore, the seizure and destruction of the goods was done under legal process or
authority so that petitioner should be freed from responsibility.

Art. 1743. If through order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the
common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue
the order.
G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners,

vs.
MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY
AGENCY, respondents.

DECISION

VITUG, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals,
promulgated on 27 April 2000 and 10 October 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60720, entitled
"Marjorie Navidad and Heirs of the Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al.," which has
modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City,
exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit Authority
(LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor Navidad.

On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then
drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a "token" (representing payment of the fare).
While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security
guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the
two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how
the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the
LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo
Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.

On 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her
children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the
Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. LRTA
and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent.
Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection
and supervision of its security guards.

The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of presenting
evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in
his assigned task. On 11 August 1998, the trial court rendered its decision; it adjudged:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants
Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the
following:

"a) 1) Actual damages of P44,830.00;

2) Compensatory damages of P443,520.00;

3) Indemnity for the death of Nicanor Navidad in the sum of P50,000.00;

"b) Moral damages of P50,000.00;

"c) Attorney’s fees of P20,000;

"d) Costs of suit.

"The complaint against defendants LRTA and Rodolfo Roman are dismissed for lack of merit.

"The compulsory counterclaim of LRTA and Roman are likewise dismissed."1

Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its
now assailed decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and,
instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable thusly:

"WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED, by exonerating the appellants from any
liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad, Jr. Instead, appellees Rodolfo Roman and the Light Rail
Transit Authority (LRTA) are held liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and
severally to the plaintiffs-appellees, the following amounts:

a) P44,830.00 as actual damages;

b) P50,000.00 as nominal damages;

c) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

d) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the deceased; and

e) P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees."2

The appellate court ratiocinated that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the
train, a contract of carriage theretofore had already existed when the victim entered the place where
passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor.
In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the security
agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin inflicted fist blows
upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his
having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and operated at the time by Roman.
The appellate court faulted petitioners for their failure to present expert evidence to establish the fact
that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train.

The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its resolution of 10 October
2000.

In their present recourse, petitioners recite alleged errors on the part of the appellate court; viz:

"I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE

FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT

"II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS

ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF NICANOR NAVIDAD, JR.
"III.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RODOLFO

ROMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LRTA."3

Petitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of
the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of
negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome. Petitioners would insist that
Escartin’s assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a
stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented. The LRTA would add that the appellate
court’s conclusion on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and
LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and
not of the LRTA.

Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage
was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the
premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation,
and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in
failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for
reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the
safety of passengers.4 The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of or
injury to its passengers, provides:

"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 a due regard for all
the circumstances.

"Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755."

"Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the
negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted
beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

"This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees."

"Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the
willful 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."

The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.5 Such duty of a common carrier to provide
safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the
passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of
carriage.6 The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers
(a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence
of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due
diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.7 In case of such death or injury, a
carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and8 by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen
event or to force majeure.9 In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the
accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the
presumption would be that it has been at fault,10 an exception from the general rule that negligence
must be proved.11

The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim
arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required
of the common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a
carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an
independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the
provisions of Article 217612 and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180,13 of the Civil Code.
The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee.
Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by
showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not
been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the
common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described?
It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or
omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article
219414 of the Civil Code can well apply.15 In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract,
where tort is that which breaches the contract.16 Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a
breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no
contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.17

Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad,
this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that "there is nothing to link
(Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee,
Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x." This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial
justification in our own review of the records of the case.

There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act
or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the
LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be
made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant,
may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him.18 It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages.19
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but
only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is
absolved from liability. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988

PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents.

Vicente D. Millora for petitioner.

Jacinto Callanta for private respondent.

FELICIANO, J.:

Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering
sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks
which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which
various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were
commonly lower than regular commercial rates.

Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer of
General Milk Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent for
the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to
petitioner's establishment in Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1 December
1970, respondent loaded in Makati the merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on a
truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons were placed on board the other truck which
was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and employee.

Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached
petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur
Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and
the cargo.

On 6 January 1971, petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan, demanding payment of P 22,150.00, the claimed value of the lost
merchandise, plus damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being a
common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law,
should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods.

In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could
not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.

On 10 December 1975, the trial court rendered a Decision 1 finding private respondent to be a
common carrier and holding him liable for the value of the undelivered goods (P 22,150.00) as well
as for P 4,000.00 as damages and P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, respondent urged that the trial court had erred in considering
him a common carrier; in finding that he had habitually offered trucking services to the public; in not
exempting him from liability on the ground of force majeure; and in ordering him to pay damages and
attorney's fees.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that respondent had been
engaged in transporting return loads of freight "as a casual
occupation — a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier. Petitioner came to
this Court by way of a Petition for Review assigning as errors the following conclusions of the Court
of Appeals:

1. that private respondent was not a common carrier;

2. that the hijacking of respondent's truck was force majeure; and

3. that respondent was not liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. (Rollo, p.
111)

We consider first the issue of whether or not private respondent Ernesto Cendana may, under the
facts earlier set forth, be properly characterized as a common carrier.

The Civil Code defines "common carriers" in the following terms:

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations

engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.

The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying
of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local
Idiom as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population. We think that Article 1733 deliberaom making such distinctions.

So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly
with the notion of "public service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as
amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil
Code. Under Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, "public service" includes:

... every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the
Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether
permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any
common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle,
either for freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and whatever may
be its classification, freight or carrier service of any class, express service,
steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the
transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or
dock, ice plant,
ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power,
water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar
public services. ... (Emphasis supplied)

It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even
though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although
such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner,
and even though private respondent's principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others.
There is no dispute that private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that
fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.

The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public
convenience, and concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of
public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions
governing common carriers. That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common
carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the
applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate of
public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the liabilities of a common
carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, would be
offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to
comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly
and intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of the general
community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilities upon
common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot
allow a common carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to
obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.

We turn then to the liability of private respondent as a common carrier.

Common carriers, "by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy" 2 are held to a
very high degree of care and diligence ("extraordinary diligence") in the carriage of goods as well as
of passengers. The specific import of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a
common carrier is, according to Article 1733, "further expressed in Articles 1734,1735 and 1745,
numbers 5, 6 and 7" of the Civil Code.

Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or

calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) 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; and
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which
exempt the common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list. Causes falling outside the
foregoing list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure fall within the scope of
Article 1735, which provides as follows:

In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding
article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. (Emphasis
supplied)

Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we note firstly that the specific cause alleged in
the instant case — the hijacking of the carrier's truck — does not fall within any of the five (5)
categories of exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow, therefore, that the hijacking of
the carrier's vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735, in other words, that the
private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on
the part of private respondent.

Petitioner insists that private respondent had not observed extraordinary diligence in the care of
petitioner's goods. Petitioner argues that in the circumstances of this case, private respondent
should have hired a security guard presumably to ride with the truck carrying the 600 cartons of
Liberty filled milk. We do not believe, however, that in the instant case, the standard of extraordinary
diligence required private respondent to retain a security guard to ride with the truck and to engage
brigands in a firelight at the risk of his own life and the lives of the driver and his helper.

The precise issue that we address here relates to the specific requirements of the duty of
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or
armed robbery.

As noted earlier, the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods is, under Article
1733, given additional specification not only by Articles 1734 and 1735 but also by Article 1745,
numbers 4, 5 and 6, Article 1745 provides in relevant part:

Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust

and contrary to public policy:

xxx xxx xxx

(5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or
omissions of his or its employees;

(6) that the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or
of robbers who donot act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or
force, is dispensed with or diminished; and

(7) that the common carrier shall not responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of goods on account of the defective
condition of the car vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in
the contract of carriage. (Emphasis supplied)

Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible — and will not be allowed to
divest or to diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers like thieves or
robbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat, violence
or force." We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is
attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force."

In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent which carried
petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an information for robbery in band was filed in the Court of
First Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 198 entitled "People of the Philippines v.
Felipe Boncorno, Napoleon Presno, Armando Mesina, Oscar Oria and one John Doe." There, the
accused were charged with willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with them the second
truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk destined for
delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The decision of the trial court shows that the
accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or force.3 Three (3) of the five (5) hold-
uppers were armed with firearms. The robbers not only took away the truck and its cargo but also
kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several days and later releasing them in
another province (in Zambales). The hijacked truck was subsequently found by the police in Quezon
City. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery, though not of robbery in
band. 4

In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as
quite beyond the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is
necessary to recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of
travel and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen
or are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary
diligence.

We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that private respondent
Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of an
event entirely beyond private respondent's control.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998

FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE PATERNO V. TAC-AN, BATANGAS CITY and
ADORACION C. ARELLANO, in her official capacity as City Treasurer of Batangas,
respondents.

MARTINEZ, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
November 29, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 36801, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, in Civil Case No. 4293, which dismissed petitioners'
complaint for a business tax refund imposed by the City of Batangas.

Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act No. 387, as amended, to
contract, install and operate oil pipelines. The original pipeline concession was granted in
19671 and renewed by the Energy Regulatory Board in 1992. 2

Sometime in January 1995, petitioner applied for a mayor's permit with the Office of the
Mayor of Batangas City. However, before the mayor's permit could be issued, the respondent
City Treasurer required petitioner to pay a local tax based on its gross receipts for the fiscal
year 1993 pursuant to the Local Government Code3. The respondent City Treasurer assessed
a business tax on the petitioner amounting to P956,076.04 payable in four installments based
on the gross receipts for products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993 which amounted
to P181,681,151.00. In order not to hamper its operations, petitioner paid the tax under protest
in the amount of P239,019.01 for the first quarter of 1993.

On January 20, 1994, petitioner filed a letter-protest addressed to the respondent City
Treasurer, the pertinent portion of which reads:

Please note that our Company (FPIC) is a pipeline operator with a government
concession granted under the Petroleum Act. It is engaged in the business of
transporting petroleum products from the Batangas refineries, via pipeline, to
Sucat and JTF Pandacan Terminals. As such, our Company is exempt from
paying tax on gross receipts under Section 133 of the Local Government Code
of 1991 . . . .

Moreover, Transportation contractors are not included in the enumeration of

contractors under Section 131, Paragraph (h) of the Local Government Code.
Therefore, the authority to impose tax "on contractors and other independent
contractors" under Section 143, Paragraph (e) of the Local Government Code
does not include the power to levy on transportation contractors.

The imposition and assessment cannot be categorized as a mere fee

authorized under Section 147 of the Local Government Code. The said section
limits the imposition of fees and charges on business to such amounts as may
be commensurate to the cost of regulation, inspection, and licensing. Hence,
assuming arguendo that FPIC is liable for the license fee, the imposition
thereof based on gross receipts is violative of the aforecited provision. The
amount of P956,076.04 (P239,019.01 per quarter) is not commensurate to the
cost of regulation, inspection and licensing. The fee is already a revenue
raising measure, and not a mere regulatory imposition.4

On March 8, 1994, the respondent City Treasurer denied the protest contending that
petitioner cannot be considered engaged in transportation business, thus it cannot claim
exemption under Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code.5

On June 15, 1994, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City a
complaint6 for tax refund with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against respondents
City of Batangas and Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as City Treasurer. In its complaint,
petitioner alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the imposition and collection of the business tax on its
gross receipts violates Section 133 of the Local Government Code; (2) the authority of cities
to impose and collect a tax on the gross receipts of "contractors and independent
contractors" under Sec. 141 (e) and 151 does not include the authority to collect such taxes
on transportation contractors for, as defined under Sec. 131 (h), the term "contractors"
excludes transportation contractors; and, (3) the City Treasurer illegally and erroneously
imposed and collected the said tax, thus meriting the immediate refund of the tax paid.7

Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner cannot be exempt from
taxes under Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code as said exemption applies only to
"transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and common
carriers by air, land and water." Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in the
term "common carrier" which refers solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships
and the like. Respondents further posit that the term "common carrier" under the said code
pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is delivered to its destination.8

On October 3, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, ruling in
this wise:

. . . Plaintiff is either a contractor or other independent contractor.

. . . the exemption to tax claimed by the plaintiff has become unclear. It is a rule
that tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer, taxes
being the lifeblood of the government. Exemption may therefore be granted
only by clear and unequivocal provisions of law.

Plaintiff claims that it is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act

387. (Exhibit A) whose concession was lately renewed by the Energy
Regulatory Board (Exhibit B). Yet neither said law nor the deed of concession
grant any tax exemption upon the plaintiff.

Even the Local Government Code imposes a tax on franchise holders under
Sec. 137 of the Local Tax Code. Such being the situation obtained in this case
(exemption being unclear and equivocal) resort to distinctions or other
considerations may be of help:

1. That the exemption granted under Sec. 133 (j)

encompasses only common carriers so as not to
overburden the riding public or commuters with
taxes. Plaintiff is not a common carrier, but a
special carrier extending its services and facilities
to a single specific or "special customer" under a
"special contract."

2. The Local Tax Code of 1992 was basically

enacted to give more and effective local
autonomy to local governments than the previous
enactments, to make them economically and
financially viable to serve the people and
discharge their functions with a concomitant
obligation to accept certain devolution of powers,
. . . So, consistent with this policy even franchise
grantees are taxed (Sec. 137) and contractors are
also taxed under Sec. 143 (e) and 151 of the
Code.9

Petitioner assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court via a petition for review. On
February 27, 1995, we referred the case to the respondent Court of Appeals for consideration
and adjudication. 10 On November 29, 1995, the respondent court rendered a
decision 11 affirming the trial court's dismissal of petitioner's complaint. Petitioner's motion
for reconsideration was denied on July 18, 1996. 12

Hence, this petition. At first, the petition was denied due course in a Resolution dated
November 11, 1996. 13Petitioner moved for a reconsideration which was granted by this Court
in a Resolution 14 of January 22, 1997. Thus, the petition was reinstated.

Petitioner claims that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that (1) the petitioner
is not a common carrier or a transportation contractor, and (2) the exemption sought for by
petitioner is not clear under the law.

There is merit in the petition.

A "common carrier" may be defined, broadly, as one who holds himself out to the public as
engaged in the business of transporting persons or property from place to place, for
compensation, offering his services to the public generally.

Art. 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common carrier" as "any person, corporation, firm or
association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public."

The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:

1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying

goods for others as a public employment, and
must hold himself out as ready to engage in the
transportation of goods for person generally as a
business and not as a casual occupation;

2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to

which his business is confined;
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by
which his business is conducted and over his
established roads; and

4. The transportation must be for hire. 15

Based on the above definitions and requirements, there is no doubt that petitioner is a
common carrier. It is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e.
petroleum products, for hire as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons
indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its services, and transports the
goods by land and for compensation. The fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not
exclude it from the definition of a common carrier. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals 16we
ruled that:

The above article (Art. 1732, Civil Code) makes no distinction

between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only
as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a "sideline"). Article
1732 . . . avoids making any distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation service on
a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on
an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does
Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to
the "general public," i.e., the general community or population,
and one who offers services or solicits business only from a
narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article
1877 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article

1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of "public
service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No.
1416, as amended) which at least partially supplements the law
on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section
13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, "public service"
includes:

every person that now or hereafter may own,

operate. manage, or control in the Philippines, for
hire or compensation, with general or limited
clientele, whether permanent, occasional or
accidental, and done for general business
purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street
railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle,
either for freight or passenger, or both, with or
without fixed route and whatever may be its
classification, freight or carrier service of any
class, express service, steamboat, or steamship
line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in
the transportation of passengers or freight or
both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock,
ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation
system gas, electric light heat and power, water
supply andpower petroleum, sewerage system,
wire or wireless communications systems, wire or
wireless broadcasting stations and other similar
public services. (Emphasis Supplied)

Also, respondent's argument that the term "common carrier" as used in Section 133 (j) of the
Local Government Code refers only to common carriers transporting goods and passengers
through moving vehicles or vessels either by land, sea or water, is erroneous.

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the definition of "common carriers" in the Civil Code
makes no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It
does not provide that the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor
vehicle. In fact, in the United States, oil pipe line operators are considered common carriers. 17

Under the Petroleum Act of the Philippines (Republic Act 387), petitioner is considered a
"common carrier." Thus, Article 86 thereof provides that:

Art. 86. Pipe line concessionaire as common carrier. — A pipe

line shall have the preferential right to utilize installations for the
transportation of petroleum owned by him, but is obligated to
utilize the remaining transportation capacity pro rata for the
transportation of such other petroleum as may be offered by
others for transport, and to charge without discrimination such
rates as may have been approved by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Republic Act 387 also regards petroleum operation as a public utility. Pertinent portion of
Article 7 thereof provides:

that everything relating to the exploration for and exploitation of

petroleum . . . and everything relating to the manufacture,
refining, storage, or transportation by special methods of
petroleum, is hereby declared to be a public utility. (Emphasis
Supplied)

The Bureau of Internal Revenue likewise considers the petitioner a "common carrier." In BIR
Ruling No. 069-83, it declared:

. . . since [petitioner] is a pipeline concessionaire that is

engaged only in transporting petroleum products, it is
considered a common carrier under Republic Act No. 387 . . . .
Such being the case, it is not subject to withholding tax
prescribed by Revenue Regulations No. 13-78, as amended.

From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that petitioner is a "common carrier" and,
therefore, exempt from the business tax as provided for in Section 133 (j), of the Local
Government Code, to wit:

Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local

Government Units. — Unless otherwise provided herein, the
exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:
xxx xxx xxx

(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of

transportation contractors and
persons engaged in the
transportation of passengers or
freight by hire and common carriers
by air, land or water, except as
provided in this Code.

The deliberations conducted in the House of Representatives on the Local Government Code
of 1991 are illuminating:

MR. AQUINO (A). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to proceed to page 95, line

1. It states: "SEC. 121 [now Sec. 131]. Common Limitations on

the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." . . .

MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Still on page 95, subparagraph 5, on taxes on the business of

transportation. This appears to be one of those being deemed to
be exempted from the taxing powers of the local government
units. May we know the reason why the transportation business
is being excluded from the taxing powers of the local
government units?

MR. JAVIER (E.). Mr. Speaker, there is an exception contained in

Section 121 (now Sec. 131), line 16, paragraph 5. It states that
local government units may not impose taxes on the business of
transportation, except as otherwise provided in this code.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman would care to go to page 98

of Book II, one can see there that provinces have the power to
impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise at the rate of not
more than one-half of 1 percent of the gross annual receipts. So,
transportation contractors who are enjoying a franchise would
be subject to tax by the province. That is the exception, Mr.
Speaker.

What we want to guard against here, Mr. Speaker, is the

imposition of taxes by local government units on the carrier
business. Local government units may impose taxes on top of
what is already being imposed by the National Internal Revenue
Code which is the so-called "common carriers tax." We do not
want a duplication of this tax, so we just provided for an
exception under Section 125 [now Sec. 137] that a province may
impose this tax at a specific rate.
MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Speaker. . .
. 18

It is clear that the legislative intent in excluding from the taxing power of the local
government unit the imposition of business tax against common carriers is to prevent a
duplication of the so-called "common carrier's tax."

Petitioner is already paying three (3%) percent common carrier's tax on its gross
sales/earnings under the National Internal Revenue Code. 19 To tax petitioner again on its
gross receipts in its transportation of petroleum business would defeat the purpose of the
Local Government Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Court of
Appeals dated November 29, 1995 in CA-G.R. SP No. 36801 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 157917 August 29, 2012

SPOUSES TEODORO1 and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners,

vs.
SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE NICOLAS and L. ZARATE, NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the
COURT OF APPEALS Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The operator of a. school bus service is a common carrier in the eyes of the law. He is bound to
observe extraordinary diligence in the conduct of his business. He is presumed to be negligent when
death occurs to a passenger. His liability may include indemnity for loss of earning capacity even if
the deceased passenger may only be an unemployed high school student at the time of the
accident.

The Case

By petition for review on certiorari, Spouses Teodoro and Nanette Perefia (Perefias) appeal the
adverse decision promulgated on November 13, 2002, by which the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
with modification the decision rendered on December 3, 1999 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 260, in Parañaque City that had decreed them jointly and severally liable with Philippine
National Railways (PNR), their co-defendant, to Spouses Nicolas and Teresita Zarate (Zarates) for
the death of their 15-year old son, Aaron John L. Zarate (Aaron), then a high school student of Don
Bosco Technical Institute (Don Bosco).

Antecedents

The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their respective residences
in Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, and back. In their business, the
Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van (van) with Plate No. PYA 896, which had the capacity to transport 14
students at a time, two of whom would be seated in the front beside the driver, and the others in the
rear, with six students on either side. They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van.

In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport Aaron to and from Don Bosco. On
August 22, 1996, as on previous school days, the van picked Aaron up around 6:00 a.m. from the
Zarates’ residence. Aaron took his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. The van, with
its air-conditioning unit turned on and the stereo playing loudly, ultimately carried all the 14 student
riders on their way to Don Bosco. Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15
a.m., and that they were already running late because of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South
Superhighway, Alfaro took the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the narrow
path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used by Makati-bound
vehicles as a short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction
materials and parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path had no
railroad warning signs, or watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the crossing. In fact, the
bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the railroad crossing open to traversing motorists.

At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train),
operated by Jhonny Alano (Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling
northbound. As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward across the
railroad tracks, closely tailing a large passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked
because he overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The train blew its horn to warn motorists of
its approach. When the train was about 50 meters away from the passenger bus and the van, Alano
applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He applied the emergency brakes only when he saw that a
collision was imminent. The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van
driven by Alfaro did not. The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12
students in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of the train, which
dragged his body and severed his head, instantaneously killing him. Alano fled the scene on board
the train, and did not wait for the police investigator to arrive.

Devastated by the early and unexpected death of Aaron, the Zarates commenced this action for
damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and Alano. The Pereñas and PNR filed their respective
answers, with cross-claims against each other, but Alfaro could not be served with summons.

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the facts and issues, viz:

A. FACTS:

(1) That spouses Zarate were the legitimate parents of Aaron John L. Zarate;

(2) Spouses Zarate engaged the services of spouses Pereña for the adequate and safe
transportation carriage of the former spouses' son from their residence in Parañaque to his
school at the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Makati City;

(3) During the effectivity of the contract of carriage and in the implementation thereof, Aaron,
the minor son of spouses Zarate died in connection with a vehicular/train collision which
occurred while Aaron was riding the contracted carrier Kia Ceres van of spouses Pereña,
then driven and operated by the latter's employee/authorized driver Clemente Alfaro, which
van collided with the train of PNR, at around 6:45 A.M. of August 22, 1996, within the vicinity
of the Magallanes Interchange in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines;

(4) At the time of the vehicular/train collision, the subject site of the vehicular/train collision
was a railroad crossing used by motorists for crossing the railroad tracks;

(5) During the said time of the vehicular/train collision, there were no appropriate and safety
warning signs and railings at the site commonly used for railroad crossing;

(6) At the material time, countless number of Makati bound public utility and private vehicles
used on a daily basis the site of the collision as an alternative route and short-cut to Makati;

(7) The train driver or operator left the scene of the incident on board the commuter train
involved without waiting for the police investigator;

(8) The site commonly used for railroad crossing by motorists was not in fact intended by
the railroad operator for railroad crossing at the time of the vehicular collision;

(9) PNR received the demand letter of the spouses Zarate;

(10) PNR refused to acknowledge any liability for the vehicular/train collision;
(11) The eventual closure of the railroad crossing alleged by PNR was an internal
arrangement between the former and its project contractor; and

(12) The site of the vehicular/train collision was within the vicinity or less than 100 meters
from the Magallanes station of PNR.

B. ISSUES

(1) Whether or not defendant-driver of the van is, in the performance of his functions, liable
for negligence constituting the proximate cause of the vehicular collision, which resulted in
the death of plaintiff spouses' son;

(2) Whether or not the defendant spouses Pereña being the employer of defendant Alfaro
are liable for any negligence which may be attributed to defendant Alfaro;

(3) Whether or not defendant Philippine National Railways being the operator of the railroad
system is liable for negligence in failing to provide adequate safety warning signs and railings
in the area commonly used by motorists for railroad crossings, constituting the proximate
cause of the vehicular collision which resulted in the death of the plaintiff spouses' son;

(4) Whether or not defendant spouses Pereña are liable for breach of the contract of carriage
with plaintiff-spouses in failing to provide adequate and safe transportation for the latter's
son;

(5) Whether or not defendants spouses are liable for actual, moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees;

(6) Whether or not defendants spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pereña observed the
diligence of employers and school bus operators;

(7) Whether or not defendant-spouses are civilly liable for the accidental death of Aaron John
Zarate;

(8) Whether or not defendant PNR was grossly negligent in operating the commuter train
involved in the accident, in allowing or tolerating the motoring public to cross, and its failure
to install safety devices or equipment at the site of the accident for the protection of the
public;

(9) Whether or not defendant PNR should be made to reimburse defendant spouses for any
and whatever amount the latter may be held answerable or which they may be ordered to
pay in favor of plaintiffs by reason of the action;

(10) Whether or not defendant PNR should pay plaintiffs directly and fully on the amounts
claimed by the latter in their Complaint by reason of its gross negligence;

(11) Whether or not defendant PNR is liable to defendants spouses for actual, moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees.2

The Zarates’ claim against the Pereñas was upon breach of the contract of carriage for the safe
transport of Aaron; but that against PNR was based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code.
In their defense, the Pereñas adduced evidence to show that they had exercised the diligence of a
good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, by making sure that Alfaro had
been issued a driver’s license and had not been involved in any vehicular accident prior to the
collision; that their own son had taken the van daily; and that Teodoro Pereña had sometimes
accompanied Alfaro in the van’s trips transporting the students to school.

For its part, PNR tended to show that the proximate cause of the collision had been the reckless
crossing of the van whose driver had not first stopped, looked and listened; and that the narrow path
traversed by the van had not been intended to be a railroad crossing for motorists.

Ruling of the RTC

On December 3, 1999, the RTC rendered its decision,3 disposing:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants ordering them to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs as follows:

(1) (for) the death of Aaron- Php50,000.00;

(2) Actual damages in the amount of Php100,000.00;

(3) For the loss of earning capacity- Php2,109,071.00;

(4) Moral damages in the amount of Php4,000,000.00;

(5) Exemplary damages in the amount of Php1,000,000.00;

(6) Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php200,000.00; and

(7) Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

On June 29, 2000, the RTC denied the Pereñas’ motion for reconsideration,4 reiterating that the
cooperative gross negligence of the Pereñas and PNR had caused the collision that led to the death
of Aaron; and that the damages awarded to the Zarates were not excessive, but based on the
established circumstances.

The CA’s Ruling

Both the Pereñas and PNR appealed (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68916).

PNR assigned the following errors, to wit:5

The Court a quo erred in:

1. In finding the defendant-appellant Philippine National Railways jointly and severally liable
together with defendant-appellants spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pereña and defendant-
appellant Clemente Alfaro to pay plaintiffs-appellees for the death of Aaron Zarate and
damages.
2. In giving full faith and merit to the oral testimonies of plaintiffs-appellees witnesses despite
overwhelming documentary evidence on record, supporting the case of defendants-
appellants Philippine National Railways.

The Pereñas ascribed the following errors to the RTC, namely:

The trial court erred in finding defendants-appellants jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees with the other defendants.

The trial court erred in dismissing the cross-claim of the appellants Pereñas against the Philippine
National Railways and in not holding the latter and its train driver primarily responsible for the
incident.

The trial court erred in awarding excessive damages and attorney’s fees.

The trial court erred in awarding damages in the form of deceased’s loss of earning capacity in the
absence of sufficient basis for such an award.

On November 13, 2002, the CA promulgated its decision, affirming the findings of the RTC, but
limited the moral damages to ₱ 2,500,000.00; and deleted the attorney’s fees because the RTC did
not state the factual and legal bases, to wit:6

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260
of Parañaque City is AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of Actual Damages is reduced
to ₱ 59,502.76; Moral Damages is reduced to ₱ 2,500,000.00; and the award for Attorney’s Fees is
Deleted.

SO ORDERED.

The CA upheld the award for the loss of Aaron’s earning capacity, taking cognizance of the ruling in
Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Manila Railroad Company,7 wherein the Court gave
the heirs of Cariaga a sum representing the loss of the deceased’s earning capacity despite Cariaga
being only a medical student at the time of the fatal incident. Applying the formula adopted in the
American Expectancy Table of Mortality:–

2/3 x (80 - age at the time of death) = life expectancy

the CA determined the life expectancy of Aaron to be 39.3 years upon reckoning his life expectancy
from age of 21 (the age when he would have graduated from college and started working for his own
livelihood) instead of 15 years (his age when he died). Considering that the nature of his work and
his salary at the time of Aaron’s death were unknown, it used the prevailing minimum wage of ₱
280.00/day to compute Aaron’s gross annual salary to be ₱ 110,716.65, inclusive of the thirteenth
month pay. Multiplying this annual salary by Aaron’s life expectancy of 39.3 years, his gross income
would aggregate to ₱ 4,351,164.30, from which his estimated expenses in the sum of ₱
2,189,664.30 was deducted to finally arrive at P 2,161,500.00 as net income. Due to Aaron’s
computed net income turning out to be higher than the amount claimed by the Zarates, only ₱
2,109,071.00, the amount expressly prayed for by them, was granted.

On April 4, 2003, the CA denied the Pereñas’ motion for reconsideration.8

Issues
In this appeal, the Pereñas list the following as the errors committed by the CA, to wit:

I. The lower court erred when it upheld the trial court’s decision holding the petitioners jointly and
severally liable to pay damages with Philippine National Railways and dismissing their cross-claim
against the latter.

II. The lower court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision awarding damages for loss of earning
capacity of a minor who was only a high school student at the time of his death in the absence of
sufficient basis for such an award.

III. The lower court erred in not reducing further the amount of damages awarded, assuming
petitioners are liable at all.

Ruling

The petition has no merit.

1.
Were the Pereñas and PNR jointly
and severally liable for damages?

The Zarates brought this action for recovery of damages against both the Pereñas and the PNR,
basing their claim against the Pereñas on breach of contract of carriage and against the PNR on
quasi-delict.

The RTC found the Pereñas and the PNR negligent. The CA affirmed the findings.

We concur with the CA.

To start with, the Pereñas’ defense was that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, the van driver, by seeing to it that Alfaro had a
driver’s license and that he had not been involved in any vehicular accident prior to the fatal collision
with the train; that they even had their own son travel to and from school on a daily basis; and that
Teodoro Pereña himself sometimes accompanied Alfaro in transporting the passengers to and from
school. The RTC gave scant consideration to such defense by regarding such defense as
inappropriate in an action for breach of contract of carriage.

We find no adequate cause to differ from the conclusions of the lower courts that the Pereñas
operated as a common carrier; and that their standard of care was extraordinary diligence, not the
ordinary diligence of a good father of a family.

Although in this jurisdiction the operator of a school bus service has been usually regarded as a
private carrier,9primarily because he only caters to some specific or privileged individuals, and his
operation is neither open to the indefinite public nor for public use, the exact nature of the operation
of a school bus service has not been finally settled. This is the occasion to lay the matter to rest.

A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport or convey goods or persons from
one place to another, gratuitously or for hire. The carrier is classified either as a private/special
carrier or as a common/public carrier.10 A private carrier is one who, without making the activity a
vocation, or without holding himself or itself out to the public as ready to act for all who may desire
his or its services, undertakes, by special agreement in a particular instance only, to transport goods
or persons from one place to another either gratuitously or for hire.11 The provisions on ordinary
contracts of the Civil Code govern the contract of private carriage.The diligence required of a private
carrier is only ordinary, that is, the diligence of a good father of the family. In contrast, a common
carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering such
services to the public.12 Contracts of common carriage are governed by the provisions on common
carriers of the Civil Code, the Public Service Act,13 and other special laws relating to transportation. A
common carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to
have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries to
passengers.14

In relation to common carriers, the Court defined public use in the following terms in United States v.
Tan Piaco,15viz:

"Public use" is the same as "use by the public". The essential feature of the public use is not
confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or
unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must
look not only to the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed mode of doing it.
If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit is merely incidental, it is not a
public use, authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be,
in general, a right which the law compels the owner to give to the general public. It is not enough that
the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not synonymous with public interest.
The true criterion by which to judge the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by
right or only by permission.

In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,16 the Court noted that Article 1732 of the Civil Code avoided any
distinction between a person or an enterprise offering transportation on a regular or an isolated
basis; and has not distinguished a carrier offering his services to the general public, that is, the
general community or population, from one offering his services only to a narrow segment of the
general population.

Nonetheless, the concept of a common carrier embodied in Article 1732 of the Civil Code coincides
neatly with the notion of public service under the Public Service Act, which supplements the law on
common carriers found in the Civil Code. Public service, according to Section 13, paragraph (b) of
the Public Service Act, includes:

x x x every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for
hire or compensation, with general or limited clientèle, whether permanent or occasional, and done
for the general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway,
subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and
whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat,
or steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or
freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas,
electric light, heat and power, water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services. x
x x.17

Given the breadth of the aforequoted characterization of a common carrier, the Court has
considered as common carriers pipeline operators,18 custom brokers and warehousemen,19 and barge
operators20 even if they had limited clientèle.
As all the foregoing indicate, the true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the
business actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the activity,
but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to
the general public as his business or occupation. If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part
of the general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general public,
the individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a common, carrier. The question
must be determined by the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, not by any
secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when charged with the duties and
obligations that the law imposes.21

Applying these considerations to the case before us, there is no question that the Pereñas as the
operators of a school bus service were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a
business, not just as a casual occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established
roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee.
Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier because they held
themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living
within or near where they operated the service and for a fee.

The common carrier’s standard of care and vigilance as to the safety of the passengers is defined by
law. Given the nature of the business and for reasons of public policy, the common carrier is 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."22 Article 1755 of
the Civil Code specifies that the common carrier should "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." To successfully fend off liability in an action upon the death or
injury to a passenger, the common carrier must prove his or its observance of that extraordinary
diligence; otherwise, the legal presumption that he or it was at fault or acted negligently would
stand.23 No device, whether by stipulation, posting of notices, statements on tickets, or otherwise,
may dispense with or lessen the responsibility of the common carrier as defined under Article 1755
of the Civil Code. 24

And, secondly, the Pereñas have not presented any compelling defense or reason by which the
Court might now reverse the CA’s findings on their liability. On the contrary, an examination of the
records shows that the evidence fully supported the findings of the CA.

As earlier stated, the Pereñas, acting as a common carrier, were already presumed to be negligent
at the time of the accident because death had occurred to their passenger.25 The presumption of
negligence, being a presumption of law, laid the burden of evidence on their shoulders to establish
that they had not been negligent.26 It was the law no less that required them to prove their
observance of extraordinary diligence in seeing to the safe and secure carriage of the passengers to
their destination. Until they did so in a credible manner, they stood to be held legally responsible for
the death of Aaron and thus to be held liable for all the natural consequences of such death.

There is no question that the Pereñas did not overturn the presumption of their negligence by
credible evidence. Their defense of having observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of their driver was not legally sufficient. According to Article 1759 of the
Civil Code, their liability as a common carrier did not cease upon proof that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee. This was the
reason why the RTC treated this defense of the Pereñas as inappropriate in this action for breach of
contract of carriage.
The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might have acted
beyond the scope of his authority or even in violation of the orders of the common carrier.27 In this
connection, the records showed their driver’s actual negligence. There was a showing, to begin with,
that their driver traversed the railroad tracks at a point at which the PNR did not permit motorists
going into the Makati area to cross the railroad tracks. Although that point had been used by
motorists as a shortcut into the Makati area, that fact alone did not excuse their driver into taking that
route. On the other hand, with his familiarity with that shortcut, their driver was fully aware of the
risks to his passengers but he still disregarded the risks. Compounding his lack of care was that loud
music was playing inside the air-conditioned van at the time of the accident. The loudness most
probably reduced his ability to hear the warning horns of the oncoming train to allow him to correctly
appreciate the lurking dangers on the railroad tracks. Also, he sought to overtake a passenger bus
on the left side as both vehicles traversed the railroad tracks. In so doing, he lost his view of the train
that was then coming from the opposite side of the passenger bus, leading him to miscalculate his
chances of beating the bus in their race, and of getting clear of the train. As a result, the bus avoided
a collision with the train but the van got slammed at its rear, causing the fatality. Lastly, he did not
slow down or go to a full stop before traversing the railroad tracks despite knowing that his
slackening of speed and going to a full stop were in observance of the right of way at railroad tracks
as defined by the traffic laws and regulations.28He thereby violated a specific traffic regulation on right
of way, by virtue of which he was immediately presumed to be negligent.29

The omissions of care on the part of the van driver constituted negligence,30 which, according to
Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court,31 is "the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do,32 or as Judge Cooley
defines it, ‘(t)he failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.’"33

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case has been aptly stated
in the leading case of Picart v. Smith,34 thuswise:

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary
conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case
is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The
law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence
and prudence and determines liability by that.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of
course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in
the particular case. Abstract speculation cannot here be of much value but this much can be
profitably said: Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before them
or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they
can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of
danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against that
harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this
prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the
proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to
be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against
its consequences. (Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the Picart v. Smith test of negligence, the Pereñas’ driver was entirely negligent when he
traversed the railroad tracks at a point not allowed for a motorist’s crossing despite being fully aware
of the grave harm to be thereby caused to his passengers; and when he disregarded the foresight of
harm to his passengers by overtaking the bus on the left side as to leave himself blind to the
approach of the oncoming train that he knew was on the opposite side of the bus.

Unrelenting, the Pereñas cite Phil. National Railways v. Intermediate Appellate Court,35 where the
Court held the PNR solely liable for the damages caused to a passenger bus and its passengers
when its train hit the rear end of the bus that was then traversing the railroad crossing. But the
circumstances of that case and this one share no similarities. In Philippine National Railways v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, no evidence of contributory negligence was adduced against the
owner of the bus. Instead, it was the owner of the bus who proved the exercise of extraordinary
diligence by preponderant evidence. Also, the records are replete with the showing of negligence on
the part of both the Pereñas and the PNR. Another distinction is that the passenger bus in Philippine
National Railways v. Intermediate Appellate Court was traversing the dedicated railroad crossing
when it was hit by the train, but the Pereñas’ school van traversed the railroad tracks at a point not
intended for that purpose.

At any rate, the lower courts correctly held both the Pereñas and the PNR "jointly and severally"
liable for damages arising from the death of Aaron. They had been impleaded in the same complaint
as defendants against whom the Zarates had the right to relief, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, in respect to or arising out of the accident, and questions of fact and of law were
common as to the Zarates.36 Although the basis of the right to relief of the Zarates (i.e., breach of
contract of carriage) against the Pereñas was distinct from the basis of the Zarates’ right to relief
against the PNR (i.e., quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code), they nonetheless could be held
jointly and severally liable by virtue of their respective negligence combining to cause the death of
Aaron. As to the PNR, the RTC rightly found the PNR also guilty of negligence despite the school
van of the Pereñas traversing the railroad tracks at a point not dedicated by the PNR as a railroad
crossing for pedestrians and motorists, because the PNR did not ensure the safety of others through
the placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other permanent safety barriers to prevent
vehicles or pedestrians from crossing there. The RTC observed that the fact that a crossing guard
had been assigned to man that point from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. was a good indicium that the PNR was
aware of the risks to others as well as the need to control the vehicular and other traffic there. Verily,
the Pereñas and the PNR were joint tortfeasors.

2.
Was the indemnity for loss of
Aaron’s earning capacity proper?

The RTC awarded indemnity for loss of Aaron’s earning capacity. Although agreeing with the RTC
on the liability, the CA modified the amount. Both lower courts took into consideration that Aaron,
while only a high school student, had been enrolled in one of the reputable schools in the Philippines
and that he had been a normal and able-bodied child prior to his death. The basis for the
computation of Aaron’s earning capacity was not what he would have become or what he would
have wanted to be if not for his untimely death, but the minimum wage in effect at the time of his
death. Moreover, the RTC’s computation of Aaron’s life expectancy rate was not reckoned from his
age of 15 years at the time of his death, but on 21 years, his age when he would have graduated
from college.
We find the considerations taken into account by the lower courts to be reasonable and fully
warranted.

Yet, the Pereñas submit that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity was speculative and
unfounded. They cited People v. Teehankee, Jr.,37 where the Court deleted the indemnity for victim
1âwphi1

Jussi Leino’s loss of earning capacity as a pilot for being speculative due to his having graduated
from high school at the International School in Manila only two years before the shooting, and was at
the time of the shooting only enrolled in the first semester at the Manila Aero Club to pursue his
ambition to become a professional pilot. That meant, according to the Court, that he was for all
intents and purposes only a high school graduate.

We reject the Pereñas’ submission.

First of all, a careful perusal of the Teehankee, Jr. case shows that the situation there of Jussi Leino
was not akin to that of Aaron here. The CA and the RTC were not speculating that Aaron would be
some highly-paid professional, like a pilot (or, for that matter, an engineer, a physician, or a lawyer).
Instead, the computation of Aaron’s earning capacity was premised on him being a lowly minimum
wage earner despite his being then enrolled at a prestigious high school like Don Bosco in Makati, a
fact that would have likely ensured his success in his later years in life and at work.

And, secondly, the fact that Aaron was then without a history of earnings should not be taken against
his parents and in favor of the defendants whose negligence not only cost Aaron his life and his right
to work and earn money, but also deprived his parents of their right to his presence and his services
as well. Our law itself states that the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased shall be the liability
of the guilty party in favor of the heirs of the deceased, and shall in every case be assessed and
awarded by the court "unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused
by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death."38 Accordingly, we emphatically
hold in favor of the indemnification for Aaron’s loss of earning capacity despite him having been
unemployed, because compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of time or earnings but for
loss of the deceased’s power or ability to earn money.39

This favorable treatment of the Zarates’ claim is not unprecedented. In Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas
Bus Company and Manila Railroad Company,40 fourth-year medical student Edgardo Carriaga’s
earning capacity, although he survived the accident but his injuries rendered him permanently
incapacitated, was computed to be that of the physician that he dreamed to become. The Court
considered his scholastic record sufficient to justify the assumption that he could have finished the
medical course and would have passed the medical board examinations in due time, and that he
could have possibly earned a modest income as a medical practitioner. Also, in People v.
Sanchez,41 the Court opined that murder and rape victim Eileen Sarmienta and murder victim Allan
Gomez could have easily landed good-paying jobs had they graduated in due time, and that their
jobs would probably pay them high monthly salaries from ₱ 10,000.00 to ₱ 15,000.00 upon their
graduation. Their earning capacities were computed at rates higher than the minimum wage at the
time of their deaths due to their being already senior agriculture students of the University of the
Philippines in Los Baños, the country’s leading educational institution in agriculture.

3.
Were the amounts of damages excessive?

The Pereñas plead for the reduction of the moral and exemplary damages awarded to the Zarates in
the respective amounts of ₱ 2,500,000.00 and ₱ 1,000,000.00 on the ground that such amounts
were excessive.
The plea is unwarranted.

The moral damages of ₱ 2,500,000.00 were really just and reasonable under the established
circumstances of this case because they were intended by the law to assuage the Zarates’ deep
mental anguish over their son’s unexpected and violent death, and their moral shock over the
senseless accident. That amount would not be too much, considering that it would help the Zarates
obtain the means, diversions or amusements that would alleviate their suffering for the loss of their
child. At any rate, reducing the amount as excessive might prove to be an injustice, given the
passage of a long time from when their mental anguish was inflicted on them on August 22, 1996.

Anent the ₱ 1,000,000.00 allowed as exemplary damages, we should not reduce the amount if only
to render effective the desired example for the public good. As a common carrier, the Pereñas
needed to be vigorously reminded to observe their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence to
prevent a similarly senseless accident from happening again. Only by an award of exemplary
damages in that amount would suffice to instill in them and others similarly situated like them the
ever-present need for greater and constant vigilance in the conduct of a business imbued with public
interest.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRM the decision promulgated on
November 13, 2002; and ORDER the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.