03 Sarkies Tours v.

CA
G.R. No. 108897 (2 October 1997)
Romero, J. / tita K

Subject Matter: Common Carriers; Common Carriage of Goods; Liability and Presumption of Negligence
Summary:
Respondent Fatima lost her 3 luggages while onboard Petitioner’s bus as the baggage compartment of the bus was open.
Respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner to recover the amount of the lost luggages. Petitioner argued that the
luggages were not declared and should not be held liable. However, it was found that the said luggages were loaded into the bus
with the help of petitioner’s employee without asking for the luggages to be weighed, declared or paid for. The SC held the
petitioner liable for the loss of the respondents.

Doctrines:
 Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them, and this liability “lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered,
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the person who has the right to receive them, unless the loss is due to any of the
excepted causes under Art. 1734.
 Where a common carrier accepted it’s passenger’s baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its
own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier’s lookout.

Parties:
Petitioner Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. (petitioner)
Court of Appeals, Dr. Elino G. Fortades, Marisol A. Fortades, Fatima Minerva A. Fortades
Respondent
(respondents)
Facts:
Elino, Marisol, and Fatima Fortades filed a case for damages against Sarkies for breach of contract of carriage.

Fatima boarded petitioner’s De Luxe Bus No. 5 in Manila going to Legazpi City.

Her brother, Raul, helped her load 3 pieces of luggages containing important documents and personal belonging (e.g. optometry
review books, materials and equipment, trial lenses, trial contact lenses, passport and visa, and her mom’s (Marisol) Green Card.
The luggages were kept in the bus compartment.

During a stopover in Daet, it was discovered that the compartment was open and Fatima’s things were missing and might have
dropped along the way. The passengers suggested retracing the bus route to try to recover the lost items, but the bus driver
ignored them and proceeded to Legazpi City.

Fatima immediately reported the loss to her mother, Marisol. Marisol then headed to petitioner’s office in Legazpi, then in
Manila. However, she was merely offered by Sarkies P1,000 for each piece of luggage, which she turned down.

Nonetheless, one luggage was recovered after the respondents sought the assistance of radio stations and Pantranco bus
drivers.

In a letter dated Oct. 1, 1984, the petitioner apologized for the delay and said that a team has been sent out to Bicol to find and
recover the lost luggages.

Nine months after fruitless waiting, the resondents filed a case to recover the value of the remaining lost items.

Respondents alleged that the loss was due to petitioner’s failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of Fatima’s
luggage and that petitioner dealt with them in bad faith from the start.

Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that it is not liable because Fatima did not declare any excess baggage upon boarding.

Trial Court – ruled in favor of respondents; ordering petitioner to pay for value of Fatima’s belongings and transportation
expenses (in going to head offices in Legazpi and Manila).

CA – affirmed trial court.

Issue/s:
 1. WON the petitioner is responsible for the respondents’ loss. (YES)
2. WON CA is correct in awarding actual damages. (YES)

Ratio:

Yes – The petitioner is responsible for the respondents’ loss.

 Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them, and
 this liability “lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for
transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the person who has the right to
receive them,
 unless the loss is due to any of the excepted causes under Art. 1734.
o In this case, the cause of the loss was petitioner’s negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the baggage
compartment of its bus were securely fastened. As a result, almost all of the luggage was lost, to the prejudice of
the paying passengers.
o CA correctly observed that petitioner’s employee actually helped Fatima and her brother load the luggages
without asking that they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid.
 Hence, where a common carrier accepted it’s passenger’s baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle
by its own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier’s lookout.

YES – SC agrees with the CA in awarding P30k for the lost items and P30k for the transportation expenses.

o Only one of the three luggages was recovered, which contained vital documents and personal belongings.
o Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and Manila in their efforts to be compensated for the loss.
o Marisol and Fatima had to travel from the US just to be able to testify.
o There were also expenses for the reconstitution of the lost documents.

Wherefore, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution are hereby AFFRIMED with modification that petitioner ir
ordered to pay respondents and additional P20,000 as moral damages and P5,000 as exemplary damages.