Transportation Law

Submitted to: Atty. Felipe Fragante

Submitted by: Annabelle Derla
Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. v. CA, Elino Fortades, Marisol
Fortades and Fatima Minerva Fortades
G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997

Facts:
On August 31, 1984, Fatima boarded petitioner’s bus from Manila to
Legazpi. Her belongings consisting of 3 bags were kept at the baggage
compartment of the bus, but during the stopover in Daet, it was
discovered that only one remained. The others might have dropped along
the way. Other passengers suggested having the route traced, but the
driver ignored it. Fatima immediately told the incident to her mother,
who went to petitioner’s office in Legazpi and later in Manila.
Petitioner offered P1,000 for each bag, but she turned it down.
Disappointed, she sought help from Philtranco bus drivers and radio
stations. One of the bags was recovered. She was told by petitioner
that a team is looking for the lost luggage. After nine months of
fruitless waiting, respondents filed a case to recover the lost items,
as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses
of litigation. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, which
decision was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals
awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the
transportation expenses, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of
P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:
1) Fatima did not bring any piece of luggage with her, and even if
she did, none was declared at the start of the trip.
2) petitioner questions the award of actual damages to respondent
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Extraordinary diligence on the part of
petitioner;

Issues:
(1) Whether petitioner is liable for the loss of the luggage
(2) Whether the damages sought should be recovered

RULING:
(1)Yes, the documentary and testimonial evidence reveal that there was
indeed luggage which were deposited in the bus. The respondents also
went great lengths to find and even recovered one with the help of
another bus. The records also reveal that petitioner tacitly admitted
its liability by apologizing to the respondents and efforts were being
made to recover the same.
Receipt of the luggage being established; the extent of liability
will now be determined. It is settled that the liability extends from
the time the goods are placed unconditionally in the possession of the
carrier until they are delivered to the person who has a right to
receive them. The only exception to this is if the case falls under
Art. 1734
The cause of the loss was petitioner’s negligence in not ensuring
the compartment is properly secured and hence, almost all the luggage
of the paying passengers was lost. Doctrine: Where the common carrier
accepted its passenger’s baggage for transportation and even had it
placed in the vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect the
freight charge is the common carriers’ own lookout. It is responsible
for the consequent loss of the baggage.

(2) There is no dispute that of the three pieces of luggage of Fatima,

only one was recovered. Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and
Manila in their efforts to be compensated for the loss. During the
trial, Fatima and Marisol had to travel from the United States just to
be able to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting
their lost documents. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees with
the Court of Appeals in awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and
P30,000.00 for the transportation expenses, but disagrees with the
deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages which, in view of
the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith on the fault
of petitioner having been duly established, should be granted to
respondents in the amount of P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.