SECOND DIVISION 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. DECISION 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 1967 1 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 Code.3 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 ofP239,019.01 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 x x x x "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 a 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: "xxx Plaintiff is either a contractor or other independent contractor. xxx 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, x x x 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 decision11affirming 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, 1996.13 Petitioner moved for a reconsideration which was granted by this Court in a Resolution 14 of January 20, 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. Article 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 Appeals16 we 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 x x x 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 and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services.' "(Underscoring 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 a 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 x x and everything relating to the manufacture, refining, storage, or transportation by special methods of petroleum, is hereby declared to be a public utility." (Underscoring Supplied) The Bureau of Internal Revenue likewise considers the petitioner a "common carrier." In BIR Ruling No. 069-83, it declared: "x x x 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 x x x. 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:

"Section 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 (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." x x x 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. x x x18

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. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur. EN BANC G.R. No. L-3678 February 29, 1952 vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES,

JOSE MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

MONTEMAYOR, J.: chanrobles virtual law library The present appeal by plaintiff Jose Mendoza from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, has come directly to this Tribunal for the reason that both parties, appellant and appellee, accepted the findings of fact made by the trial court and here raise only questions of law. On our part, we must also accept said findings of fact of the lower court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In the year 1948, appellant Jose Mendoza was the owner of the Cita Theater located in the City of Naga, Camarines Sur, where he used to exhibit movie pictures booked from movie producers or film owners in Manila. The fiesta or town holiday of the City of Naga, held on September 17 and 18, yearly, was usually attended by a great many people, mostly from the Bicol region, especially since the Patron Saint Virgin of Pea Francia was believed by many to be miraculous. As a good businessman, appellant, taking advantage of these circumstances, decided to exhibit a film which would fit the occasion and have a special attraction and significance to the people attending said fiesta. A month before the holiday, that is to say, August 1948, he contracted with the LVN pictures, Inc., a movie producer in Manila for him to show during the town fiesta the Tagalog film entitled "Himala ng Birhen" or Miracle of the Virgin. He made extensive preparations; he had two thousand posters printed and later distributed not only in the City of Naga but also in the neighboring towns. He also advertised in a weekly of general circulation in the province. The posters and advertisement stated that the film would be shown in the Cita theater on the 17th and 18th of September, corresponding to the eve and day of the fiesta itself.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In pursuance of the agreement between the LVN Pictures Inc. and Mendoza, the former on September 17th, 1948, delivered to the defendant Philippine Airlines (PAL) whose planes carried passengers and cargo and made regular trips from Manila to the Pili Air Port near Naga, Camarines Sur, a can containing the film "Himala ng Birhen" consigned to the Cita Theater. For this shipment the defendant issued its Air Way Bill No. 317133 marked Exhibit "1". This can of films was loaded on flight 113 of the defendant, the plane arriving at the Air Port at Pili a little after four o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, September 17th. For reasons not explained by the defendant, but which would appear to be the fault of its employees or agents, this can of film was not unloaded at Pili Air Port and it was brought ba to Manila. Mendoza who had completed all arrangements for the exhibition of the film beginning in the evening of September 17th, to exploit the presence of the big crowd that came to attend the town fiesta, went to the Air Port and inquired from the defendant's station master there about the can of film. Said station master could not explain why the film was not unloaded and sent several radiograms to his principal in Manila making inquiries and asking that the film be sent to Naga immediately. After investigation and search in the Manila office, the film was finally located the following day, September 18th, and then shipped to the Pili Air Port on September 20th. Mendoza received it and exhibited the film but he had missed his opportunity to realize a large profit as he expected for the people after the fiesta had already left for their towns. To recoup his losses, Mendoza brought this action against the PAL. After trial, the lower court found that because of his failure to exhibit the film "Himala ng Birhen" during the town fiesta, Mendoza suffered damages or rather failed to earn profits in the amount of P3,000.00, but finding the PAL not liable for said damages, dismissed the complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library To avoid liability, defendant-appellee, called the attention of the trial court to the terms and conditions of paragraph 6 of the Way Bill printed on the back thereof which paragraph reads as follows: 6. The Carrier does not obligate itself to carry the Goods by any specified aircraft or on a specified time. Said Carrier being hereby authorized to deviate from the route of the shipment without any liability therefor. It claimed that since there was no obligation on its part to carry the film in question on any specified time, it could not be held accountable for the delay of about three days. The trial court, however, found and held that although the defendant was not obligated to load the film on any specified plane or on any particular day, once said can film was loaded and shipped on one of its planes making trip to Camarines, then it assumed the obligation to unload it at its point of destination and deliver it to the consignee, and its unexplained failure to comply with this duty constituted negligence. If however found that fraud was not involved and that the defendant was a debtor in good faith.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The trial court presided over by Judge Jose N. Leuterio in a well-considered decision citing authorities, particularly the case of Daywalt vs. Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587, held that not because plaintiff failed to realize profits in the sum of P3,000.00 due to the negligence of the defendant, should the latter be made to reimburse him said sum. Applying

provisions of Art. 1107 of the Civil Code which provides that losses and those foreseen, or which might have been foreseen, at the time of constituting the obligation, and which are a necessary consequence of the failure to perform it, the trial court held that inasmuch as these damages suffered by Mendoza were not foreseen or could not have been foreseen at the time that the defendant accepted the can of film for shipment, for the reason that neither the shipper LVN Pictures Inc. nor the consignee Mendoza had called its attention to the special circumstances attending the shipment and the showing of the film during the town fiesta of Naga, plaintiff may not recover the damages sought.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Counsel for appellant insists that the articles of the Code of Commerce rather than those of the Civil Code should have been applied in deciding this case for the reason that the shipment of the can of film is an act of commerce; that the contract of transportation in this case should be considered commercial under Art. 349 of the Code of Commerce because it only involves merchandise or an object of commerce but also the transportation company, the defendant herein, was a common carrier, that is to say, customarily engaged in transportation for the public, and that although the contract of transportation was not by land or waterways as defined in said Art. 349, nevertheless, air transportation being analogous to land and water transportation, should be considered as included, especially in view of the second paragraph of Art. 2 of the same Code which says that transactions covered by the Code of Commerce and all others of analogous character shall be deemed acts of commerce. The trial court, however, disagreed to this contention and opined that air transportation not being expressly covered by the Code of Commerce, cannot be governed by its provisions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We believe that whether or not transportation by air should be regarded as a commercial contract under Art. 349, would be immaterial in the present case, as will be explained later. Without making a definite ruling on the civil or commercial nature of transportation by air, it being unnecessary, we are inclined to believe and to hold that a contract of transportation by air may be regarded as commercial. The reason is that at least in the present case the transportation company (PAL) is a common carrier; besides, air transportation is clearly similar or analogous to land and water transportation. The obvious reason for its non-inclusion in the Code of Commerce was that at the time of its promulgation, transportation by air on a commercial basis was not yet known. In the United Sates where air transportation has reached its highest development, an airline company engaged in the transportation business is regarded as a common carrier. The principles which govern carriers by other means, such as by railroad or motor bus, govern carriers by aircraft. 6 Am. Jur., Aviation, Sec. 56, p. 33.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library When Aircraft Operator is Common Carrier. - That aircraft and the industry of carriage by aircraft are new is no reason why one in fact employing aircraft as common-carrier vehicles should not be classified as a common carrier and charged with liability as such. There can be no doubt, under the general law of common carriers, that those air lines and aircraft owners engaged in the passenger service on regular schedules on definite routes, who solicit the patronage of the traveling public, advertise schedules for

routes, time of leaving, and rates of fare, and make the usual stipulation as to baggage, are common carriers by air. A flying service company which, according to its printed advertising, will take anyone anywhere at any time, though not operating on regular routes or schedules, and basing its charges not on the number of passengers, but on the operating cost of the plane per mile, has been held to be a common carrier. It is not necessary, in order to make one carrying passengers by aircraft a common carrier of passengers that the passengers can be carried from one point to another; the status and the liability as a common carrier may exist notwithstanding the passenger's ticket issued by an airplane carrier of passengers for hire contains a statement that it is not a common carrier, etc., or a stipulation that it is to be held only for its proven negligence. But an airplane owner cannot be classed as a common carrier of passengers unless he undertakes, for hire, to carry all persons who apply for passage indiscriminately as long as there is room and no legal excuse for refusing. . . . 6 Am. Jur., Aviation, Sec. 58, pp. 34-35.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The rules governing the business of a common carrier by airship or flying machine may be readily assimilated to those applied to other common carriers. 2 C.J.S., 1951, Cumulative Pocket Part, Aerial Navigation, Sec. 38, p. 99.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The test of whether one is a common carrier by air is whether he holds out that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, goods for everyone bringing goods to him for carriage, not whether he is carrying as a public employment or whether he carries to a fixed place. (Ibid., Sec. 39, p. 99.) Appellant contends that Art. 358 of the Code of Commerce should govern the award of the damages in his favor. Said article provides that if there is no period fixed for the delivery of the goods, the carrier shall be bound to forward them in the first shipment of the same or similar merchandise which he may make to the point of delivery, and that upon failure to do so, the damages caused by the delay should be suffered by the carrier. This is a general provision for ordinary damages and is no different from the provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Art. 1101 thereof, providing for the payment of damages caused by the negligence or delay in the fulfillment of one's obligation. Even applying the provisions of the Code of Commerce, as already stated, the pertinent provisions regarding damages only treats of ordinary damages or damages in general, not special damages like those suffered by the plaintiff herein. Article 2 of the Code of Commerce provides that commercial transactions are to be governed by the provisions of the Code of Commerce, but in the absence of applicable provisions, they will be governed by the usages of commerce generally observed in each place; and in default of both, by those of the Civil Law. So that assuming that the present case involved a commercial transaction, still inasmuch as the special damages herein claimed finds no applicable provision in the Code of Commerce, neither has it been shown that there are any commercial usages applicable thereto, then in the last analysis, the rules of the civil law would have to come into play. Under Art. 1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith like the defendant herein, may be held liable only for damages that were foreseen or might have been foreseen at the time the contract of the transportation was entered into. The trial court correctly found that the defendant company could not have foreseen the damages that would be suffered by Mendoza upon failure to deliver the can of film on the 17th of September, 1948 for the reason that the plans of

Mendoza to exhibit that film during the town fiesta and his preparations, specially the announcement of said exhibition by posters and advertisement in the newspaper, were not called to the defendant's attention.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In our research for authorities we have found a case very similar to the one under consideration. In the case of Chapman vs. Fargo, L.R.A. (1918 F) p. 1049, the plaintiff in Troy, New York, delivered picture films to the defendant Fargo, an express company, consigned and to be delivered to him in Utica. At the time of the shipment the attention of the express company was called to the fact that the shipment involved motion picture films to be exhibited in Utica, and that they should be sent to their destination, rush. There was delay in their delivery and it was found that the plaintiff because of his failure to exhibit the film in Utica due to the delay suffered damages or loss of profits. But the highest court in the State of New York refused to award him special damages. Said appellate court observed: But before defendant could be held to special damages, such as the present alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of delivery, it must have appeared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular circumstances attending the shipment, and which probably would lead to such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the rule has been stated in another form, in order to impose on the defaulting party further liability than for damages naturally and directly, i.e., in the ordinary course of things, arising from a breach of contract, such unusual or extraordinary damages must have been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting. Generally, notice then of any special circumstances which will show that the damages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced has been held sufficient for this effect. As may be seen, that New York case is a stronger one than the present case for the reason that the attention of the common carrier in said case was called to the nature of the articles shipped, the purpose of shipment, and the desire to rush the shipment, circumstances and facts absent in the present case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library But appellants now contends that he is not suing on a breach of contract but on a tort as provided for in Art. 1902 of the Civil Code. We are a little perplexed as to this new theory of the appellant. 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 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 the 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 of 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 as consignee, a stranger to the contract if that is possible, nevertheless when he, Mendoza, 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, he thereby made himself a party to the contract of the transportation. 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. I, p. 400, citing a decision of 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 stranger to the contract.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Still another view of this phase of the case is that contemplated in Art. 1257, paragraph 2, of the old Civil Code 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 the 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, such demand being one of the fulfillment of 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library One can readily sympathize with the appellant herein for his loss of profits which he expected to realize. But he overlooked the legal angle. In situations like the present where failure to exhibit films on a certain day would spell substantial damages or considerable loss of profits, including waste of efforts on preparations and expenses incurred in advertisements,

exhibitors, for their security, may either get hold of the films well ahead of the time of exhibition in order to make allowance for any hitch in the delivery, or else enter into a special contract or make a suitable arrangement with the common carrier for the prompt delivery of the films, calling the attention of the carrier to the circumstances surrounding the case and the approximate amount of damages to be suffered in case of delay.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur. Paras, C.J., I certify that Mr. Justice Tuason voted for the affirmance. FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 131621. September 28, 1999] LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE MANILA INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents. DECISION DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: Petitioner Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. (hereafter LOADSTAR), in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to reverse and set aside the following: (a) the 30 January 1997 decision[1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401, which affirmed the decision of 4 October 1991[2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 85-29110, ordering LOADSTAR to pay private respondent Manila Insurance Co. (hereafter MIC) the amount of P6,067,178, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, P8,000 as attorneys fees, and the costs of the suit; and (b) its resolution of 19 November 1997,[3 denying LOADSTARs motion for reconsideration of said decision. The facts are undisputed. On 19 November 1984, LOADSTAR received on board its M/V Cherokee (hereafter, the vessel) the following goods for shipment: a) 705 bales of lawanit hardwood; b) 27 boxes and crates of tilewood assemblies and others; and c) 49 bundles of mouldings R & W (3) Apitong Bolidenized.

The goods, amounting to P6,067,178, were insured for the same amount with MIC against various risks including TOTAL LOSS BY TOTAL LOSS OF THE VESSEL. The vessel, in turn, was insured by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. (hereafter PGAI) for P4 million. On 20 November 1984, on its way to Manila from the port of Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, the vessel, along with its cargo, sank off Limasawa Island. As a result of the total loss of its shipment, the consignee made a claim with LOADSTAR which, however, ignored the same. As the insurer, MIC paid P6,075,000 to the insured in full settlement of its claim, and the latter executed a subrogation receipt therefor. On 4 February 1985, MIC filed a complaint against LOADSTAR and PGAI, alleging that the sinking of the vessel was due to the fault and negligence of LOADSTAR and its employees. It also prayed that PGAI be ordered to pay the insurance proceeds from the loss of the vessel directly to MIC, said amount to be deducted from MICs claim from LOADSTAR. In its answer, LOADSTAR denied any liability for the loss of the shippers goods and claimed that the sinking of its vessel was due to force majeure. PGAI, on the other hand, averred that MIC had no cause of action against it, LOADSTAR being the party insured. In any event, PGAI was later dropped as a party defendant after it paid the insurance proceeds to LOADSTAR. As stated at the outset, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of MIC, prompting LOADSTAR to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals, which, however, agreed with the trial court and affirmed its decision in toto. In dismissing LOADSTARs appeal, the appellate court made the following observations: 1) LOADSTAR cannot be considered a private carrier on the sole ground that there was a single shipper on that fateful voyage. The court noted that the charter of the vessel was limited to the ship, but LOADSTAR retained control over its crew.[4 2) As a common carrier, it is the Code of Commerce, not the Civil Code, which should be applied in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties. 3) The vessel was not seaworthy because it was undermanned on the day of the voyage. If it had been seaworthy, it could have withstood the natural and inevitable action of the sea on 20 November 1984, when the condition of the sea was moderate. The vessel sank, not because of force majeure, but because it was not seaworthy. LOADSTARS allegation that the sinking was probably due to the convergence of the winds, as stated by a PAGASA expert, was not duly proven at the trial. The limited liability rule, therefore, is not applicable considering that, in this case, there was an actual finding of negligence on the part of the carrier.[5 4) Between MIC and LOADSTAR, the provisions of the Bill of Lading do not apply because said provisions bind only the shipper/consignee and the carrier. When MIC paid the shipper for the goods insured, it was subrogated to the latters rights as against the carrier, LOADSTAR.[6

5) There was a clear breach of the contract of carriage when the shippers goods never reached their destination. LOADSTARs defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the training and selection of its crew is unavailing because this is not a proper or complete defense in culpa contractual. 6) Art. 361 (of the Code of Commerce) has been judicially construed to mean that when goods are delivered on board a ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability. Transportation of the merchandise at the risk and venture of the shipper means that the latter bears the risk of loss or deterioration of his goods arising from fortuitous events, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defects of the goods, but not those caused by the presumed negligence or fault of the carrier, unless otherwise proved.[7 The errors assigned by LOADSTAR boil down to a determination of the following issues: (1) Is the M/V Cherokee a private or a common carrier? (2) Did LOADSTAR observe due and/or ordinary diligence in these premises? Regarding the first issue, LOADSTAR submits that the vessel was a private carrier because it was not issued a certificate of public convenience, it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor a fixed route, and there was only one shipper, one consignee for a special cargo. In refutation, MIC argues that the issue as to the classification of the M/V Cherokee was not timely raised below; hence, it is barred by estoppel. While it is true that the vessel had on board only the cargo of wood products for delivery to one consignee, it was also carrying passengers as part of its regular business. Moreover, the bills of lading in this case made no mention of any charter party but only a statement that the vessel was a general cargo carrier. Neither was there any special arrangement between LOADSTAR and the shipper regarding the shipment of the cargo. The singular fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper is not sufficient to convert the vessel into a private carrier. As regards the second error, LOADSTAR argues that as a private carrier, it cannot be presumed to have been negligent, and the burden of proving otherwise devolved upon MIC.[8 LOADSTAR also maintains that the vessel was seaworthy. Before the fateful voyage on 19 November 1984, the vessel was allegedly dry docked at Keppel Philippines Shipyard and was duly inspected by the maritime safety engineers of the Philippine Coast Guard, who certified that the ship was fit to undertake a voyage. Its crew at the time was experienced, licensed and unquestionably competent. With all these precautions, there could be no other conclusion except that LOADSTAR exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the vessels seaworthiness.

LOADSTAR further claims that it was not responsible for the loss of the cargo, such loss being due to force majeure. It points out that when the vessel left Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, on 19 November 1984, the weather was fine until the next day when the vessel sank due to strong waves. MICs witness, Gracelia Tapel, fully established the existence of two typhoons, WELFRING and YOLING, inside the Philippine area of responsibility. In fact, on 20 November 1984, signal no. 1 was declared over Eastern Visayas, which includes Limasawa Island. Tapel also testified that the convergence of winds brought about by these two typhoons strengthened wind velocity in the area, naturally producing strong waves and winds, in turn, causing the vessel to list and eventually sink. LOADSTAR goes on to argue that, being a private carrier, any agreement limiting its liability, such as what transpired in this case, is valid. Since the cargo was being shipped at owners risk, LOADSTAR was not liable for any loss or damage to the same. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the provisions of the bills of lading apply only to the shipper and the carrier, and not to the insurer of the goods, which conclusion runs counter to the Supreme Courts ruling in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc.,[9 and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc.[10 Finally, LOADSTAR avers that MICs claim had already prescribed, the case having been instituted beyond the period stated in the bills of lading for instituting the same suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or non-delivery of shipment shall be instituted within sixty days from the accrual of the right of action. The vessel sank on 20 November 1984; yet, the case for recovery was filed only on 4 February 1985. MIC, on the other hand, claims that LOADSTAR was liable, notwithstanding that the loss of the cargo was due to force majeure, because the same concurred with LOADSTARs fault or negligence. Secondly, LOADSTAR did not raise the issue of prescription in the court below; hence, the same must be deemed waived. Thirdly, the limited liability theory is not applicable in the case at bar because LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent, and because it failed to maintain a seaworthy vessel. Authorizing the voyage notwithstanding its knowledge of a typhoon is tantamount to negligence. We find no merit in this petition. Anent the first assigned error, we hold that LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public convenience, and this public character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of the goods in question was periodic, occasional, episodic or unscheduled. In support of its position, LOADSTAR relied on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.,[11 where this Court held that a common carrier transporting special cargo or chartering the vessel to a special person becomes a private carrier that is not subject to the

provisions of the Civil Code. Any stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent is void only if the strict policy governing common carriers is upheld. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party. LOADSTAR also cited Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[12 and National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[13 both of which upheld the Home Insurancedoctrine. These cases invoked by LOADSTAR are not applicable in the case at bar for simple reason that the factual settings are different. The records do not disclose that the M/V Cherokee, on the date in question, undertook to carry a special cargo or was chartered to a special person only. There was no charter party. The bills of lading failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general provision to the effect that the M/V Cherokee was a general cargo carrier.[14 Further, the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper, which appears to be purely coincidental, is not reason enough to convert the vessel from a common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers. Under the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, LOADSTAR fits the definition of a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code. In the case of De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,[15 the Court juxtaposed the statutory definition of common carriers with the peculiar circumstances of that case, viz.: 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 anoccasional, 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 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. xxx 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 backhauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondents 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 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. Moving on to the second assigned error, we find that the M/V Cherokee was not seaworthy when it embarked on its voyage on 19 November 1984. The vessel was not even sufficiently manned at the time. For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.[16 Neither do we agree with LOADSTARs argument that the limited liability theory should be applied in this case. The doctrine of limited liability does not apply where there was negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent.[17 LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent in not maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in having allowed its vessel to sail despite knowledge of an approaching typhoon. In any event, it did not sink because of any storm that may be deemed as force majeure, inasmuch as the wind condition in the area where it sank was determined to be moderate. Since it was remiss in the performance of its duties, LOADSTAR cannot hide behind the limited liability doctrine to escape responsibility for the loss of the vessel and its cargo. LOADSTAR also claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it liable for the loss of the goods, in utter disregard of this Courts pronouncements in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc.,[18 and National Union Fire Insurance v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc.[19 It was ruled in these two cases that after paying the claim of the insured for damages under the insurance policy, the insurer is subrogated merely to the rights of the assured, that is, it can recover only the amount that may, in turn, be recovered by the latter. Since the right of the assured in case of loss or damage to the goods is limited or restricted by the provisions in the bills of

lading, a suit by the insurer as subrogee is necessarily subject to the same limitations and restrictions. We do not agree. In the first place, the cases relied on by LOADSTAR involved a limitation on the carriers liability to an amount fixed in the bill of lading which the parties may enter into, provided that the same was freely and fairly agreed upon (Articles 17491750). On the other hand, the stipulation in the case at bar effectively reduces the common carriers liability for the loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary (Articles 1744 and 1745), that is, the carrier is not liable for any loss or damage to shipments made at owners risk. Such stipulation is obviously null and void for being contrary to public policy.[20 It has been said: Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable.[21 Since the stipulation in question is null and void, it follows that when MIC paid the shipper, it was subrogated to all the rights which the latter has against the common carrier, LOADSTAR. Neither is there merit to the contention that the claim in this case was barred by prescription. MICs cause of action had not yet prescribed at the time it was concerned. Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar. This one-year prescriptive period also applies to the insurer of the good.[22 In this case, the period for filing the action for recovery has not yet elapsed. Moreover, a stipulation reducing the one-year period is null and void;[23 it must, accordingly, be struck down. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of 30 January 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

PRINCE ALEXANDER, all surnamed CAORONG, and represented by their mother PAULIE U. CAORONG, Respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated July 29, 1994, of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Iligan City. The aforesaid decision of the trial court dismissed the complaint of private respondents against petitioner for damages for breach of contract of carriage filed on the ground that petitioner had not exercised the required degree of diligence in the operation of one of its buses. Atty. Talib Caorong, whose heirs are private respondents herein, was a passenger of the bus and was killed in the ambush involving said bus. The facts of the instant case are as follows: Petitioner is a bus company in northern Mindanao. Private respondent Paulie Caorong is the widow of Atty. Caorong, while private respondents Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander are their minor children. On November 18, 1989, a bus of petitioner figured in an accident with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, resulting in the death of several passengers of the jeepney, including two Maranaos. Crisanto Generalao, a volunteer field agent of the Constabulary Regional Security Unit No. X, conducted an investigation of the accident. He found that the owner of the jeepney was a Maranao residing in Delabayan, Lanao del Norte and that certain Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses. Generalao rendered a report on his findings to Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa of the Philippine Constabulary Regional Hearquarters at Cagayan de Oro. Upon the instruction of Sgt. Bastasa, he went to see Diosdado Bravo, operations manager of petitioner, at its main office in Cagayan de Oro City. Bravo assured him that the necessary precautions to insure the safety of lives and property would be taken.[1 At about 6:45 P.M. on November 22, 1989, three armed Maranaos who pretended to be passengers, seized a bus of petitioner at Linamon, Lanao del Norte while on its way to Iligan City. Among the passengers of the bus was Atty. Caorong. The leader of the Maranaos, identified as one Bashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver, Godofredo Cabatuan, to stop the bus on the side of the highway. Mananggolo then shot Cabatuan on the arm, which caused him to slump on the steering wheel. Then one of the companions of Mananggolo started pouring gasoline inside the bus, as the other held the passengers at bay with a handgun. Mananggolo then ordered the passengers to get off the bus. The passengers, including Atty. Caorong, stepped out of the bus and went behind the bushes in a field some distance from the highway.[2 However, Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve something from the overhead rack. At that time, one of the armed men was pouring gasoline on the head of the driver. Cabatuan, who had meantime regained

consciousness, heard Atty. Caorong pleading with the armed men to spare the driver as he was innocent of any wrong doing and was only trying to make a living. The armed men were, however, adamant as they repeated their warning that they were going to burn the bus along with its driver. During this exchange between Atty. Caorong and the assailants, Cabatuan climbed out of the left window of the bus and crawled to the canal on the opposite side of the highway. He heard shots from inside the bus. Larry de la Cruz, one of the passengers, saw that Atty. Caorong was hit. Then the bus was set on fire. Some of the passengers were able to pull Atty. Caorong out of the burning bus and rush him to the Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City, but he died while undergoing operation.[3 The private respondents brought this suit for breach of contract of carriage in the Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Iligan City. In his decision, dated December 28, 1990, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding as follows: The fact that defendant, through Operations Manager Diosdado Bravo, was informed of the rumors that the Moslems intended to take revenge by burning five buses of defendant is established since the latter also utilized Crisanto Generalaos as a witness. Yet despite this information, the plaintiffs charge, defendant did not take proper precautions. . . . Consequently, plaintiffs now fault the defendant for ignoring the report. Their position is that the defendant should have provided its buses with security guards. Does the law require common carriers to install security guards in its buses for the protection and safety of its passengers? Is the failure to post guards an omission of the duty to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family which could have prevented the killing of Atty. Caorong? To our mind, the diligence demanded by law does not include the posting of security guards in buses. It is an obligation that properly belongs to the State. Besides, will the presence of one or two security guards suffice to deter a determined assault of the lawless and thus prevent the injury complained of? Maybe so, but again, perhaps not. In other words, the presence of a security guard is not a guarantee that the killing of Atty. Caorong would have been definitely avoided. . Accordingly, the failure of defendant to accord faith and credit to the report of Mr. Generalao and the fact that it did not provide security to its buses cannot, in the light of the circumstances, be characterized as negligence. Finally, the evidence clearly shows that the assailants did not have the least intention of harming any of the passengers. They ordered all the passengers to alight and set fire on the bus only after all the passengers were out of danger. The death of Atty. Caorong was an unexpected and unforseen occurrence over which defendant had no control. Atty. Caorong performed an act of charity and heroism in coming to the succor of the driver even in the face of danger. He deserves the undying gratitude of the driver whose life he saved. No one should blame him for an act of extraordinary charity and altruism which cost his life. But neither should any blame be laid on the doorstep of defendant. His death was solely due to the willful acts of the lawless which defendant could neither prevent nor stop.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 119756. March 18, 1999] FORTUNE EXPRESS, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAULIE U. CAORONG, and minor children YASSER KING CAORONG, ROSE HEINNI and

. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the complaint is hereby dismissed. For lack of merit, the counter-claim is likewise dismissed. No cost.[4 On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held: In the case at bench, how did defendant-appellee react to the tip or information that certain Maranao hotheads were planning to burn five of its buses out of revenge for the deaths of two Maranaos in an earlier collision involving appellees bus? Except for the remarks of appellees operations manager that we will have our action . . . . and Ill be the one to settle it personally, nothing concrete whatsoever was taken by appellee or its employees to prevent the execution of the threat. Defendant-appellee never adopted even a single safety measure for the protection of its paying passengers. Were there available safeguards? Of course, there were: one was frisking passengers particularly those en route to the area where the threats were likely to be carried out such as where the earlier accident occurred or the place of influence of the victims or their locality. If frisking was resorted to, even temporarily, . . . . appellee might be legally excused from liability. Frisking of passengers picked up along the route could have been implemented by the bus conductor; for those boarding at the bus terminal, frisking could have been conducted by him and perhaps by additional personnel of defendant-appellee. On hindsight, the handguns and especially the gallon of gasoline used by the felons all of which were brought inside the bus would have been discovered, thus preventing the burning of the bus and the fatal shooting of the victim. Appellees argument that there is no law requiring it to provide guards on its buses and that the safety of citizens is the duty of the government, is not well taken. To be sure, appellee is not expected to assign security guards on all of its buses; if at all, it has the duty to post guards only on its buses plying predominantly Maranao areas. As discussed in the next preceding paragraph, the least appellee could have done in response to the report was to adopt a system of verification such as frisking of passengers boarding its buses. Nothing, and to repeat, nothing at all, was done by defendant-appellee to protect its innocent passengers from the danger arising from the Maranao threats. It must be observed that frisking is not a novelty as a safety measure in our society. Sensitive places in fact, nearly all important places have applied this method of security enhancement. Gadgets and devices are available in the market for this purpose. It would not have weighed much against the budget of the bus company if such items were made available to its personnel to cope up with situations such as the Maranao threats. In view of the constitutional right to personal privacy, our pronouncement in this decision should not be construed as an advocacy of mandatory frisking in all public conveyances. What we are saying is that given the circumstances obtaining in the case at bench that: (a) two Maranaos died because of a vehicular collision involving one of appellees vehicles; (b) appellee received a written report from a member of the Regional Security Unit, Constabulary Security Group, that the tribal/ethnic group of the two deceased were planning to burn five buses of appellee out of revenge; and (c) appellee did nothing absolutely nothing for the safety of its passengers travelling in the area of influence of the victims, appellee has failed to

exercise the degree of diligence required of common carriers. Hence, appellee must be adjudged liable. . WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and another rendered ordering defendant-appellee to pay plaintiffs-appellants the following: 1) P3,399,649.20 as death indemnity; 2) P50,000.00 and P500.00 per appearance as attorneys fees; and Costs against defendant-appellee.[5 Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends: (A) THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 28, 1990 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE COUNTERCLAIM, AND FINDING FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS BY ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY THE GARGANTUAN SUM OF P3,449,649.20 PLUS P500.00 PER APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEYS FEES, AS WELL AS DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE SUPPLEMENT TO SAID MOTION, WHILE HOLDING, AMONG OTHERS, THAT PETITIONER BREACHED THE CONTRACT OF CARIAGE BY ITS FAILURE TO EXERCISE THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF DILIGENCE; (B) THAT THE ACTS OF THE MARANAO OUTLAWS WERE SO GRAVE, IRRESISTIBLE, VIOLENT, AND FORCEFUL, AS TO BE REGARDED AS CASO FORTUITO; AND (C) THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER COULD HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE SECURITY IN PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM AREAS AS PART OF ITS DUTY TO OBSERVE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE AS A COMMON CARRIER. The instant petition has no merit.
First. Petitioners Breach of the Contract of Carriage

Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioners operation manager, Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary precautions would be taken, petitioner did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers. Had petitioner and its employees been vigilant they would not have failed to see that the malefactors had a large quantity of gasoline with them. Under the circumstances, simple precautionary measures to protect the safety of passengers, such as frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets such as metal detectors, before allowing them on board could have been employed without violating the passengers constitutional rights. As this Court intimated in Gacal v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.,[6 a common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages. From the foregoing, it is evident that petitioners employees failed to prevent the attack on one of petitioners buses because they did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family. Hence, petitioner should be held liable for the death of Atty. Caorong.
Second. Seizure of Petitioners Bus not a Case of Force Majeure

The petitioner contends that the seizure of its bus by the armed assailants was a fortuitous event for which it could not be held liable. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous even as an occurrence which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, is inevitable. In Yobido v. Court of Appeals,[7 we held that to be considered as force majeure, it is necessary that: (1) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will; (2) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. The absence of any of the requisites mentioned above would prevent the obligor from being excused from liability. Thus, in Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,[8 it was held that the common carrier was liable for its failure to take the necessary precautions against an approaching typhoon, of which it was warned, resulting in the loss of the lives of several passengers. The event was foreseeable, and, thus, the second requisite mentioned above was not fulfilled. This ruling applies by analogy to the present case. Despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were going to attack its buses, petitioner took no steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers. The seizure of the bus of the petitioner was foreseeable and, therefore, was not a fortuitous event which would exempt petitioner from liability. Petitioner invokes the ruling in Pilapil v. Court of Appeals[9 and De Guzman v. Court of Appeals[10 in support of its contention that the seizure of its bus by the assailants constitutes force majeure. In Pilapil v. Court of Appeals,[11 it was held that a common carrier is not liable for failing to install window grills on its buses to protect passengers from injuries

Art. 1763 of the Civil Code provides that a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts of other passengers, if the employees of the common carrier could have prevented the act the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. In the present case, it is clear that because of the negligence of petitioners employees, the seizure of the bus by Mananggolo and his men was made possible.

caused by rocks hurled at the bus by lawless elements. On the other hand, in De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,[12 it was ruled that a common carrier is not responsible for goods lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. It is clear that the cases of Pilapil and De Guzman do not apply to the present case. Art. 1755 of the Civil Code provides that a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. Thus, we held in Pilapil and De Guzman that the respondents therein were not negligent in failing to take special precautions against threats to the safety of passengers which could not be foreseen, such as tortious or criminal acts of third persons. In the present case, this factor of unforeseeablility (the second requisite for an event to be considered force majeure) is lacking. As already stated, despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were planning to burn some of petitioners buses and the assurance of petitioners operations manager (Diosdado Bravo) that the necessary precautions would be taken, nothing was really done by petitioner to protect the safety of passengers.
Third. Deceased not Guilty of Contributory Negligence

court, it is liable to private respondents in the said amount as actual damages. Moral Damages. Under Art. 2206, the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. The trial court found that private respondent Paulie Caorong suffered pain from the death of her husband and worry on how to provide support for their minor children, private respondents Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander.[15 The petitioner likewise does not question this finding of the trial court. Thus, in accordance with recent decisions of this Court,[16 we hold that the petitioner is liable to the private respondents in the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages for the death of Atty. Caorong. Exemplary Damages. Art. 2232 provides that in contracts and quasicontracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. In the present case, the petitioner acted in a wanton and reckless manner. Despite warning that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge against the petitioner by burning some of its buses, and contrary to the assurance made by its operations manager that the necessary precautions would be taken, the petitioner and its employees did nothing to protect the safety of passengers. Under the circumstances, we deem it reasonable to award private respondents exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00.[17 Attorneys Fees. Pursuant to Art. 2208, attorneys fees may be recovered when, as in the instant case, exemplary damages are awarded. In the recent case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[18 we held an award of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees to be reasonable. Hence, the private respondents are entitled to attorneys fees in that amount. Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity. Art. 1764 of the Civil Code, in relation to Art. 2206 thereof, provides that in addition to the indemnity for death arising from the breach of contract of carriage by a common carrier, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. The formula established in decided cases for computing net earning capacity is as follows:[19 Gross Necessary

respondents in the said amount as compensation for loss of earning capacity. WHEREFORE, the decision, dated July 29, 1994, of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Fortune Express, Inc. is ordered to pay the following amounts to private respondents Paulie, Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander Caorong: 1. death indemnity in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); 2. actual damages in the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00); 3. moral damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos(P100,000.00); 4. exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00); 5. attorneys fees in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); 6. compensation for loss of earning capacity in the amount of two million one hundred twenty-one thousand four hundred four pesos and ninety centavos (P2,121,404.90); and 7) costs of suits. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Puno, and Buena, JJ., concur. Quisumbing, J., on official business abroad. SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 116110 : May 15,1996

The petitioner contends that Atty. Caorong was guilty of contributory negligence in returning to the bus to retrieve something. But Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly. It should be pointed out that the intended targets of the violence were petitioner and its employees, not its passengers. The assailants motive was to retaliate for the loss of life of two Maranaos as a result of the collision between petitioners bus and the jeepney in which the two Maranaos were riding. Mananggolo, the leader of the group which had hijacked the bus, ordered the passengers to get off the bus as they intended to burn it and its driver. The armed men actually allowed Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from the bus. What apparently angered them was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He was playing the role of the good Samaritan. Certainly, this act cannot be considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness.
Fourth. Petitioner Liable to Private Respondents for Damages

We now consider the question of damages that the heirs of Atty. Caorong, private respondents herein, are entitled to recover from the petitioner. Indemnity for Death. Art. 1764 of the Civil Code, in relation to Art. 2206 thereof, provides for the payment of indemnity for the death of passengers caused by the breached of contract of carriage by a common carrier. Initially fixed in Art. 2206 at P3,000.00, the amount of the said indemnity for death has through the years been gradually increased in view of the declining value of the peso. It is presently fixed at P50,000.00.[13 Private respondents are entitled to this amount. Actual damages. Art. 2199 provides that Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. The trial court found that the private respondents spent P30,000.00 for the wake and burial of Atty. Caorong.[14 Since petitioner does not question this finding of the trial

Net earning = Life x Annual - Living Capacity Expectancy Income Expenses Life expectancy is equivalent to two thirds (2/3) multiplied by the difference of eighty (80) and the age of the deceased.[20 Since Atty. Caorong was 37 years old at the time of his death,[21 he had a life expectancy of 28 2/3 more years.[22 His projected gross annual income, computed based on his monthly salary of P11,385.00[23 as a lawyer in the Department of Agrarian Reform at the time of his death, was P148,005.00.[24 allowing for necessary living expenses of fifty percent (50%)[25of his projected gross annual income, his total earning capacity amounts to P2,121,404.90.[26 Hence, the petitioner is liable to the private

BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ANTONIO GARCIA & LETICIA GARCIA, A & J TRADING, AND JULIO RECONTIQUE, Respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV-31246 awarding damages in favor of the spouses Antonio and Leticia Garcia for breach of contract of

carriage. 2 filed by the spouses Garcia questioning the same Court of Appeals' Decision which reduced their award of damages. On November 13, 1995, we denied their petition for review. The records show that on July 31, 1980, Leticia Garcia, and her fiveyear old son, Allan Garcia, boarded Baliwag Transit Bus No. 2036 bound for Cabanatuan City driven by Jaime Santiago. They took the seat behind the driver. At about 7:30 in the evening, in Malimba, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, the bus passengers saw a cargo truck parked at the shoulder of the national highway. Its left rear portion jutted to the outer lane, the shoulder of the road was too narrow to accommodate the whole truck. A kerosene lamp appeared at the edge of the road obviously to serve as a warning device. The truck driver, Julio Recontique, and his helper, Arturo Escala, were then replacing a flat tire. The truck is owned by respondent A & J Trading. Bus driver Santiago was driving at an inordinately fast speed and failed to notice the truck and the kerosene lamp at the edge of the road. Santiago's passengers urged him to slow down but he paid them no heed. Santiago even carried animated conversations with his coemployees while driving. When the danger of collision became imminent, the bus passengers shouted "Babangga tayo!". Santiago stepped on the brake, but it was too late. His bus rammed into the stalled cargo truck. It caused the instant death of Santiago and Escala, and injury to several others. Leticia and Allan Garcia were among the injured passengers. Leticia suffered a fracture in her pelvis and right leg. They rushed her to the provincial hospital in Cabanatuan City where she was given emergency treatment. After three days, she was transferred to the National Orthopedic Hospital where she was confined for more than a month. 3 She underwent an operation for partial hip prosthesis. 4 Allan, on the other hand, broke a leg. He was also given emergency treatment at the provincial hospital. Spouses Antonio and Leticia Garcia sued Baliwag Transit, Inc., A & J Trading and Julio Recontique for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. 5 Leticia sued as an injured passenger of Baliwag and as mother of Allan. At the time of the complaint, Allan was a minor, hence, the suit initiated by his parents in his favor. Baliwag, A & J Trading and Recontique disclaimed responsibility for the mishap. Baliwag alleged that the accident was caused solely by the fault and negligence of A & J Trading and its driver, Recontique. Baliwag charged that Recontigue failed to place an early warning device at the corner of the disabled cargo truck to warn oncoming vehicles. 6 On the other hand, A & J Trading and Recontique alleged that the accident was the result of the negligence and reckless driving of Santiago, bus driver of Baliwag. 7

After hearing, the trial court found all the defendants liable, thus: xxx "In view thereof, the Court holds that both defendants should be held liable; the defendant Baliwag Transit, Inc. for having failed to deliver the plaintiff and her son to their point of destination safely in violation of plaintiff's and defendant Baliwag Transit's contractual relation. The defendant A & J and Julio Recontique for failure to provide its cargo truck with an early warning device in violation of the Motor Vehicle Law." 8 The trial court ordered Baliwag, A & J Trading and Recontique to pay jointly and severally the Garcia spouses the following: (1) P25,000.00 hospitalization and medication fee, (2) P450,000.00 loss of earnings in eight (8) years, (3) P2,000.00 for the hospitalization of their son Allan Garcia, (4) P50,000.00 moral damages, and (5) P30,000.00 attorney's fee. 9 On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's Decision by absolving A & J Trading from liability and by reducing the award of attorney's fees to P10,000.00 and loss of earnings to P300,000.00, respectively. 10 Baliwag filed the present petition for review raising the following issues: "1. Did the Court of Appeals err in absolving A & J Trading from liability and holding Baliwag solely liable for the injuries suffered by Leticia and Allan Garcia in the accident? 2. Is the amount of damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to the Garcia spouses correct?" We affirm the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. I As a common carrier, Baliwag breached its contract of carriage when it failed to deliver its passengers, Leticia and Allan Garcia to their destination safe and sound. A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. 11 In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. 12

The records are bereft of any proof to show that Baliwag exercised extraordinary diligence. On the contrary, the evidencedemonstrates its driver's recklessness. Leticia Garcia testified that the bus was running at a very high speed despite the drizzle and the darkness of the highway. The passengers pleaded for its driver to slow down, but their plea was ignored. 13 Leticia also revealed that the driver was smelling of liquor. 14 She could smell him as she was seated right behind the driver. Another passenger, Felix Cruz testified that immediately before the collision, the bus driver was conversing with a co-employee. 15 All these prove the bus driver's wanton disregard for the physical safety of his passengers, which makes Baliwag as a common carrier liable for damages under Article 1759 of the Civil Code: "Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willfull 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 do not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection or supervision of their employees." Baliwag cannot evade its liability by insisting that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of A & J Trading and Julio Recontique. It harps on their alleged non use of an early warning device as testified to by Col. Demetrio dela Cruz, the station commander of Gapan, Nueva Ecija who investigated the incident, and Francisco Romano, the bus conductor. The records do not bear out Baliwag's contention. Col. dela Cruz and Romano testified that they did not see any early warning device at the scene of the accident. 16 They were referring to the triangular reflectorized plates in red and yellow issued by the Land Transportation Office. However, the evidence shows that Recontique and Ecala placed a kerosene lamp or torch at the edge of the road, near the rear portion of the truck to serve as an early warning device. 17 This substantially complies with Section 34 (g) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, to wit: "(g) Lights and reflector when parked or disabled. Appropriate parking lights or flares visible one hundred meters away shall be displayed at the corner of the vehicle whenever such vehicle is parked on highways or in places that are not well-lighted or, is placed in such manner as to endanger passing traffic. Furthermore, every motor vehicle shall be provided at all times with built-in reflectors or other similar warning devices either pasted, painted or attached at its front and back which shall likewise be visible at night at least one hundred meters away. No vehicle not provided with any of the requirements mentioned in this subsection shall be registered. (Italics supplied)" Baliwag's argument that the kerosene lamp or torch does not substantially comply with the law is untenable. The aforequoted law

clearly allows the use not only of an early warning device of the triangular reflectorized plates variety but also parking lights or flares visible one hundred meters away. Indeed, Col. dela Cruz himself admitted that a kerosene lamp is an acceptable substitute for the reflectorized plates. 18 No negligence, therefore, may be imputed to A & J Trading and its driver, Recontique. Anent this factual issue, the analysis of evidence made by the Court of Appeals deserves our concurrence, viz: xxx xxx xxx "In the case at bar, both the injured passengers of the Baliwag involved in the accident testified that they saw some sort of kerosene or a torch on the rear portion of the truck before the accident. Baliwag Transit's conductor attempted to defeat such testimony by declaring that he noticed no early warning device in front of the truck. Among the testimonies offered by the witnesses who were present at the scene of the accident, we rule to uphold the affirmative testimonies given by the two injured passengers and give less credence to the testimony of the bus conductor who solely testified that no such early warning device exists. The testimonies of injured passengers who may well be considered as disinterested witness appear to be natural and more probable than the testimony given by Francisco Romano who is undoubtedly interested in the outcome of the case, being the conductor of the defendant-appellant Baliwag Transit Inc. It must be borne in mind that the situation then prevailing at the time of the accident was admittedly drizzly and all dark. This being so, it would be improbable and perhaps impossible on the part of the truck helper without the torch nor the kerosene to remove the flat tires of the truck. Moreover, witness including the bits conductor himself admitted that the passengers shouted, that they are going to bump before the collision which consequently caused the bus driver to apply the brake 3 to 4 meters away from the truck. Again, without the kerosene nor the torch in front of the truck, it would be improbable for the driver, more so the passengers to notice the truck to be bumped by the bus considering the darkness of the place at the time of the accident. xxx While it is true that the investigating officer testified that he found no early warning device at the time of his investigation, We rule to give less credence to such testimony insofar as he himself admitted on cross examination that he did not notice the presence of any kerosene lamp at the back of the truck because when he arrived at the scene of the accident, there were already many people surrounding the place (TSN, Aug, 22, 1989, p. 13). He further admitted that there exists a probability that the lights of the truck may have been smashed by the bus at the time of the accident considering the location of the truck where its rear

portion was connected with the front portion of the bus (TSN, March 29, 1985, pp. 11-13). Investigator's testimony therefore did not confirm nor deny the existence of such warning device, making his testimony of little probative value." 19 II We now review the amount of damages awarded to the Garcia spouses. First, the propriety of the amount awarded as hospitalization and medical fees. The award of P25,000.00 is not supported by the evidence on record. The Garcias presented receipts marked as Exhibits "B-1" to "B 42" but their total amounted only to P5,017.74. To be sure, Leticia testified as to the extra amount spent for her medical needs but without more reliable evidence, her lone testimony cannot justify the award of P25,000.00. To prove actual damages, the best evidence available to the injured party must be presented. The court cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect, but must depend upon competent proof that damages have been actually suffered 20 Thus, we reduce the actual damages for medical and hospitalization expenses to P5,017.74. Second, we find as reasonable the award of P300,000.00 representing Leticia's lost earnings. Before the accident, Leticia was engaged in embroidery, earning P5,000.00 per month. 21 Her injuries forced her to stop working. Considering the nature and extent of her injuries and the length of time it would take her to recover, 22 we find it proper that Baliwag should compensate her lost income for five (5) years. 23 Third, the award of moral damages is in accord with law. In a breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are recoverable if the carrier, through its agent, acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 24 The evidence shows the gross negligence of the driver of Baliwag bus which amounted to bad faith. Without doubt, Leticia and Allan experienced physical suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety by reason of the accident. Leticia underwent an operation to replace her broken hip bone with a metal plate. She was confined at the National Orthopedic Hospital for 45 days. The young Allan was also confined in the hospital for his foot injury. Contrary to the contention of Baliwag, the decision of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals awarded moral damages to Antonio and Leticia Garcia not in their capacity as parents of Allan. Leticia was given moral damages as an injured party. Allan was also granted moral damages as an injured party but because of his minority, the award in his favor has to be given to his father who represented him in the suit. Finally, we find the award of attorney's fees justified. The complaint for damages was instituted by the Garcia spouses on December 15, 1982, following the unjustified refusal of Baliwag to settle their claim. The Decision was promulgated by the trial court only on January 29, 1991 or about nine years later. Numerous pleadings were filed before the trial court, the appellate court and to this Court. Given the

complexity of the case and the amount of damages involved, 25 the award of attorney's fee for P10,000.00 is just and reasonable. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV-31246 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION reducing the actual damages for hospitalization and medical fees to P5,017.74. No costs. SO ORDERED. Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Republic SUPREME Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-56487 October 21, 1991 REYNALDA GATCHALIAN, Petitioner, vs. ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. of the Philippines COURT

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

Bauang, La Union while passing through the National Highway No. 3; chanrobles virtual law library That after a thorough investigation the said Thames met the accident due to mechanical defect and went off the road and turned turtle to the east canal of the road into a creek causing physical injuries to us; xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library That we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries. xxx xxx xxx 2 (Emphasis supplied) Notwithstanding this document, petitioner Gathalian filed with the then Court of First Instance of La Union an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. She alleged in the complaint that her injuries sustained from the vehicular mishap had left her with a conspicuous white scar measuring 1 by 1/2 inches on the forehead, generating mental suffering and an inferiority complex on her part; and that as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friends. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. She prayed for an award of: P10,000.00 for loss of employment and other opportunities; P10,000.00 for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her forehead; P30,000.00 for moral damages; and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In defense, respondent averred that the vehicular mishap was due to force majeure, and that petitioner had already been paid and moreover had waived any right to institute any action against him (private respondent) and his driver, when petitioner Gatchalian signed the Joint Affidavit on 14 July 1973.chanrobles virtual law library After trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that when petitioner Gatchalian signed the Joint Affidavit, she relinquished any right of action (whether criminal or civil) that she may have had against respondent and the driver of the minibus.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library On appeal by petitioner, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conclusion that there had been a valid waiver, but affirmed the dismissal of the case by denying petitioner's claim for damages: We are not in accord, therefore, of (sic) the ground of the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, although we conform to the trial court's disposition of the case its dismissal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING considerations, there being no error committed by the lower court in dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's complaint, the judgment of dismissal is hereby affirmed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Without special pronouncement as costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED. 3 chanrobles virtual law library In the present Petition for Review filed in forma pauperis, petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask this Court to award her actual or compensatory damages as well as moral damages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeals who held that no valid waiver of her cause of action had been made by petitioner. The relevant language of the Joint Affidavit may be quoted again: That we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries. (Emphasis supplied) A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. 4 A waiver may not casually be attributed to a person when the terms thereof do not explicitly and clearly evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such person. The degree of explicitness which this Court has required in purported waivers is illustrated in Yepes and Susaya v. Samar Express Transit (supra), where the Court in reading and rejecting a purported waiver said: . . . It appears that before their transfer to the Leyte Provincial Hospital, appellees were asked to sign as, in fact, they signed the document Exhibit I wherein they stated that "in consideration of the expenses which said operator has incurred in properly giving us the proper medical treatment, we hereby manifest our desire to waiveany and all claims against the operator of the Samar Express Transit." xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library Even a cursory examination of the document mentioned above will readily show that appellees did not actually waive their right to claim damages from appellant for the latter's failure to comply with their contract of carriage. All that said document proves is that they expressed a "desire" to make the waiver - which obviously is not the same as making an actual waiver of their right. A waiver of the kind invoked by appellant must be clear and unequivocal (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of July 8, 1887) which is not the case of the one relied upon in this appeal. (Emphasis supplied) to

If we apply the standard used in Yepes and Susaya, we would have to conclude that the terms of the Joint Affidavit in the instant case cannot be regarded as a waiver cast in "clear and unequivocal" terms. Moreover, the circumstances under which the Joint Affidavit was signed by petitioner Gatchalian need to be considered. Petitioner testified that she was still reeling from the effects of the vehicular accident, having been in the hospital for only three days, when the purported waiver in the form of the Joint Affidavit was presented to her for signing; that while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but that, seeing the other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its entirety. Considering these circumstances there appears substantial doubt whether petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit (prepared by or at the instance of private respondent) she signed and whether she actually intended thereby to waive any right of action against private respondent. Finally, because what is involved here is the liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in respect of whose safety a common carrier must exercise extraordinary diligence, we must construe any such purported waiver most strictly against the common carrier. For a waiver to be valid and effective, it must not be contrary to law, morals, public policy or good customs. 5 To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like those exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render that standard unenforceable. 6 We believe such a purported waiver is offensive to public policy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner Gatchalian also argues that the Court of Appeals, having by majority vote held that there was no enforceable waiver of her right of action, should have awarded her actual or compensatory and moral damages as a matter of course.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We have already noted that a duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting the safety of its passengers is imposed upon a common carrier. 7 In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently "unless it proves that it [had] observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755." 8 In fact, because of this statutory presumption, it has been held that a court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier in order to hold it liable. 9 To overcome this presumption, the common carrier must slow to the court that it had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the injuries. 10 The standard of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is considerably more demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence, i.e., the diligence of a good paterfamilias established in respect of the ordinary relations between members of society. A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely" as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all the circumstances". 11 Thus, the question which must be addressed is whether or not private respondent has successfully proved that he had exercised extraordinary

diligence to prevent the mishap involving his mini-bus. The records before the Court are bereft of any evidence showing that respondent had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Curiously, respondent did not even attempt, during the trial before the court a quo, to prove that he had indeed exercised the requisite extraordinary diligence. Respondent did try to exculpate himself from liability by alleging that the mishap was the result of force majeure. But allegation is not proof and here again, respondent utterly failed to substantiate his defense of force majeure. To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the defense of force majeure. In Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Company, 12 the Court summed up the essential characteristics of force majeure by quoting with approval from the Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola: Thus, where fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability nonperformance. The Partidas, the antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines "caso fortuito" as 'an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robber.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In its dissertation on the phrase "caso fortuito" the Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola says: 'In legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a "caso fortuito" presents the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the "caso fortuito", or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. Upon the other hand, the record yields affirmative evidence of fault or negligence on the part of respondent common carrier. In her direct examination, petitioner Gatchalian narrated that shortly before the vehicle went off the road and into a ditch, a "snapping sound" was suddenly heard at one part of the bus. One of the passengers, an old woman, cried out, "What happened?" ("Apay addan samet nadadaelen?"). The driver replied, nonchalantly, "That is only normal" ("Ugali ti makina dayta"). The driver did not stop to check if anything had gone wrong with the bus. Moreover, the driver's reply necessarily indicated that the same "snapping sound" had been heard in the bus on previous occasions. This could only mean that the bus had not been checked physically or mechanically to determine what was causing the "snapping sound" which had occurred so frequently that the driver had gotten accustomed to it. Such a sound is obviously alien to a motor vehicle in good operating condition, and even a modicum of concern for life and limb of passengers dictated that the bus be checked and repaired. The obvious continued failure of respondent to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus, coupled with the driver's refusal or

neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the "snapping sound" and the cry of alarm from one of the passengers, constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers, and hence gross negligence on the part of respondent and his driver.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We turn to petitioner's claim for damages. The first item in that claim relates to revenue which petitioner said she failed to realize because of the effects of the vehicular mishap. Petitioner maintains that on the day that the mini-bus went off the road, she was supposed to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a substitute teacher's job, a job which she had held off and on as a "casual employee." The Court of Appeals, however, found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public school since, being a casual employee and not a Civil Service eligible, she had been laid off. Her employment as a substitute teacher was occasional and episodic, contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers. In view of her employment status as such, the Court of Appeals held that she could not be said to have in fact lost any employment after and by reason of the accident. 13 Such was the factual finding of the Court of Appeals, a finding entitled to due respect from this Court. Petitioner Gatchalian has not submitted any basis for overturning this finding of fact, and she may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation or conjecture. 14 Petitioner's claim for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her forehead, is another matter. A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. If the scar is relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may be expected to be correspondingly modest. In Araneta, et al. vs. Areglado, et al., 15 this Court awarded actual or compensatory damages for, among other things, the surgical removal of the scar on the face of a young boy who had been injured in a vehicular collision. The Court there held: We agree with the appellants that the damages awarded by the lower court for the injuries suffered by Benjamin Araneta are inadequate. In allowing not more than P1,000.00 as compensation for the "permanent deformity and - something like an inferiority complex" as well as for the "pathological condition on the left side of the jaw" caused to said plaintiff, the court below overlooked the clear evidence on record that to arrest the degenerative process taking place in the mandible and restore the injured boy to a nearly normal condition, surgical intervention was needed, for which the doctor's charges would amount to P3,000.00, exclusive of hospitalization fees, expenses and medicines. Furthermore, the operation, according to Dr. Dio, would probably have to be repeated in order to effectuate a complete cure, while removal of the scar on the face obviously demanded plastic surgery. xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library

The father's failure to submit his son to a plastic operation as soon as possible does not prove that such treatment is not called for. The damage to the jaw and the existence of the scar in Benjamin Araneta's face arephysical facts that can not be reasoned out of existence. That the injury should be treated in order to restore him as far as possible to his original condition is undeniable. The father's delay, or even his negligence, should not be allowed to prejudice the son who has no control over the parent's action nor impair his right to a full indemnity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . . . Still, taking into account the necessity and cost of corrective measures to fully repair the damage; the pain suffered by the injured party; his feelings of inferiority due to consciousness of his present deformity, as well as the voluntary character of the injury inflicted; and further considering that a repair, however, skillfully conducted, is never equivalent to the original state, we are of the opinion that the indemnity granted by the trial court should be increased to a total of P18,000.00. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner estimated that the cost of having her scar surgically removed was somewhere between P10,000.00 to P15,000.00. 16 Upon the other hand, Dr. Fe Tayao Lasam, a witness presented as an expert by petitioner, testified that the cost would probably be between P5,000.00 to P10,000.00. 17 In view of this testimony, and the fact that a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the mishap in 1973 which may be expected to increase not only the cost but also very probably the difficulty of removing the scar, we consider that the amount of P15,000.00 to cover the cost of such plastic surgery is not unreasonable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Turning to petitioner's claim for moral damages, the long-established rule is that moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. 18 Since we have earlier concluded that respondent common carrier and his driver had been grossly negligent in connection with the bus mishap which had injured petitioner and other passengers, and recalling the aggressive manuevers of respondent, through his wife, to get the victims to waive their right to recover damages even as they were still hospitalized for their injuries, petitioner must be held entitled to such moral damages. Considering the extent of pain and anxiety which petitioner must have suffered as a result of her physical injuries including the permanent scar on her forehead, we believe that the amount of P30,000.00 would be a reasonable award. Petitioner's claim for P1,000.00 as atttorney's fees is in fact even more modest. 19 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 24 October 1980, as well as the decision of the then Court of First Instance of La Union dated 4 December 1975 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Respondent is hereby ORDERED to pay petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian the following sums: 1) P15,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages to cover the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on petitioner's forehead; 2) P30,000.00 as moral damages; and 3) P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, the aggregate amount to bear interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum counting from the promulgation of this decision until full payment thereof. Costs against private respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.