Transportation Law Case Digests | Atty.
Norianne Tan | 2016
SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC., v. CA, DR. ELINO G. FORTADES, baggage compartment, without asking that they be weighed,
MARISOL A. FORTADES and FATIMA MINERVA A. FORTADES declared, receipted or paid for.
G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997
CASE: FACTS:
Fatima boarded petitioner's bus bringing 3 pieces of luggage with Fatima boarded petitioner's De Luxe Bus in Manila on her
her. Her brother helped her load them on the bus compartment. way to Legazpi City. Her brother Raul helped her load 3
During a stopover at Daet, it was discovered that only one bag pieces of luggage containing all of her optometry review
remained in the open compartment. Private respondents asked books, materials and equipment, trial lenses, trial contact
assistance from the radio stations and from Philtranco bus drivers lenses, passport and visa, her mother’s U.S. green card,
who plied the same route. They were able to recover one of Fatima's among other important documents and personal belongings.
bags. After a few weeks, private respondents formally demanded Her belongings were kept in the baggage compartment of
from petitioner. In its letter, petitioner tacitly admitted its liability by the bus, but during a stopover at Daet, it was discovered that
apologizing and assuring respondents that efforts were being made only one bag remained in the open compartment. The
to recover the lost items. Months later, respondents filed a case to others, including Fatima's things, were missing and might
recover the value of the remaining lost items claiming that the loss have dropped along the way. Some of the passengers
was due to petitioner's failure to observe extraordinary diligence in suggested retracing the route of the bus to try to recover the
the care of Fatima's luggage and that petitioner dealt with them in lost items, but the driver ignored them and proceeded to
bad faith from the start. Petitioner denied liability on the ground that Legazpi City.
Fatima allegedly did not declare any excess baggage upon boarding Fatima immediately reported the loss to petitioner through
its bus. her mother. Petitioner, however, merely offered her P1k for
W/N petitioner, as a common carrier, is responsible for the loss. each piece of luggage lost, which she turned down.
YES. Under the Civil Code, "(c)ommon carriers, from the nature of After returning to Bicol, private respondents asked
their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe assistance from the radio stations and from Philtranco bus
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods… transported drivers who plied the same route. They were able to recover
by them," and this liability "lasts from the time the goods are one of Fatima's bags.
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by After a few weeks, private respondents formally demanded
the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, satisfaction of their complaint from petitioner.
actually or constructively, by the carrier to…the person who has In a letter, petitioner apologized for the delay and said that
a right to receive them," unless the loss is due to any of the "(a) team has been sent out to Bicol for the purpose of
excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof. The cause of the loss in recovering or at least getting the full detail" of the incident.
the case at bar was petitioner's negligence in not ensuring that the After more than 9 months of fruitless waiting, respondents
doors of the baggage compartment of its bus were securely decided to file a case to recover the value of the remaining
fastened. Further, where the common carrier accepted its lost items, as well as moral and exemplary damages,
passenger's baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. They claimed that
vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the loss was due to petitioner's failure to observe
the common carrier's own lookout; it is responsible for the extraordinary diligence in the care of Fatima's luggage and
consequent loss of the baggage. In this case, petitioner’s employee that petitioner dealt with them in bad faith from the start.
even helped Fatima and her brother load the luggages in the bus' Petitioner, on the other hand, disowned any liability for the
Rivera, Justine Camille
Transportation Law Case Digests | Atty. Norianne Tan | 2016
loss on the ground that Fatima allegedly did not declare any
excess baggage upon boarding its bus.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner, as a common carrier, is responsible for the
loss.
HELD & RATIO:
YES.
Under the Civil Code, "(c)ommon carriers, from the nature
of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound
to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods . . . transported by them," and this liability "lasts
from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by the carrier for
transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to . . . the person who has a
right to receive them," unless the loss is due to any of the
excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof.
The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioner's
negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the
baggage compartment of its bus were securely
fastened. As a result of this lack of care, almost all of the
luggages were lost, to the prejudice of the paying
passengers.
Where the common carrier accepted its passenger's
baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the
vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect the freight
charge is the common carrier's own lookout. It is responsible
for the consequent loss of the baggage.
o In the instant case, petitioner’s employee even
helped Fatima and her brother load the luggages in
the bus' baggage compartment, without asking that
they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid for.
Rivera, Justine Camille
