8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals
Title
Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 108897 Oct 2, 1997
A passenger’s luggage was lost due to a bus company’s negligence; the Supreme Court
held the carrier liable for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence, awarding damages.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 108897, October 02, 1997 ]
SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC. PETITIONER VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
(TENTH DIVISION), DR. ELINO G. FORTADES, MARISOL A. FORTADES AND FATIMA A.
FORTADES., RESPONDENT.
DECISION
ROMERO, J.:
This petition for review is seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 18979 promulgated on January 13, 1993, as well as its resolution of February
19, 1993, denying petitioneras motion for reconsideration for being a mere rehash of the
arguments raised in the appellantas brief.
The case arose from a damage suit filed by private respondents Elino, Marisol, and Fatima
Minerva, all surnamed Fortades, against petitioner for breach of contract of carriage
allegedly attended by bad faith.
On August 31, 1984, Fatima boarded petitioneras De Luxe Bus No. 5 in Manila on her way to
Legazpi City. Her brother Raul helped her load three pieces of luggage containing all of her
optometry review books, materials and equipment, trial lenses, trial contact lenses,
passport and visa, as well as her mother Marisolas U.S. immigration (green) card, among
other important documents and personal belongings. Her belongings was kept in the
baggage compartment of the bus, but during a stopover at Daet, it was discovered that all
but one bag remained in the open compartment. The others, including Fatimaas things,
were missing and could have dropped along the way. Some of the passengers suggested
retracing the route to try to recover the lost items, but the driver ignored them and
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 1/6
8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
proceeded to Legazpi City.
Fatima immediately reported the loss to her mother who, in turn, went to petitioneras office
in Legazpi City and later at its head office in Manila. The latter, however, merely offered her
P1,000.00 for each piece of luggage lost, which she turned down. After returning to Bicol
disappointed but not defeated, they asked assistance from the radio stations and even from
Philtranco bus drivers who plied the same route on August 31st. The effort paid off when
one of Fatimaas bags was recovered. Marisol also reported the incident to the National
Bureau of Investigationas field office in Legazpi City, and to the local police.
On September 20, 1984, respondents, through counsel, formally demanded satisfaction of
their complaint from petitioner. In a letter dated October 1, 1984, the latter apologized for
the delay and said that a(a) team has been sent out to Bicol for the purpose of recovering or
at least getting the full detaila1 of the incident.
After more than nine months of fruitless waiting, respondents decided to file the case
below to recover the value of the remaining lost items, as well as moral and exemplary
damages, attorneyas fees and expenses of litigation. They claimed that the loss was due to
petitioneras failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of Fatimaas luggage and
that petitioner dealt with them in bad faith from the start. Petitioner, on the other hand,
disowned any liability for the loss on the ground that Fatima allegedly did not declare any
excess baggage upon boarding its bus.
On June 15, 1988, after trial on the merits, the court a quo adjudged the case in favor of
herein respondents, viz:
aPREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs (herein
respondents) and against the herein defendant Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc., ordering the
latter to pay to the former the following sums of money, to wit:
1. The sum of P30,000.00 equivalent to the value of the personal belongings of plaintiff
Fatima Minerva Fortades, etc. less the value of one luggage recovered;
2. The sum of P90,000.00 for the transportation expenses, as well as moral damages;
3. The sum of P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;
4. The sum of P5,000.00 as attorneyas fees; and
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 2/6
8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
5. The sum of P5,000.00 as litigation expenses or a total of One Hundred Forty Thousand
(P140,000.00) Pesos.
to be paid by herein defendant Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. to the herein plaintiffs within
30 days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.a
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial courtas judgment, but deleted the award of
moral and exemplary damages. Thus,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, except as above modified, fixing the award for
transportation expenses at P30,000.00 and the deletion of the award for moral and
exemplary damages, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against
defendant-appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Its motion for reconsideration having was likewise rejected by the Court of Appeals, so
petitioner elevated its case to this Court for a review.
After a careful scrutiny of the records of this case, we are convinced that the trial and
appellate courts resolved the issues judiciously based on the evidence at hand.
Petitioner claims that Fatima did not bring any piece of luggage with her, and even if she
did, none was declared at the start of the trip. The documentary and testimonial evidence
presented at the trial, however, established that Fatima indeed boarded petitioneras De
Luxe Bus No. 5 in the evening of August 31, 1984, and she brought three pieces of luggage
with her, as testified by her brother Raul,2 who helped her pack her things and load them
on said bus. One of the bags was even recovered with the help of a Philtranco bus driver. In
its letter dated October 1, 1984, petitioner tacitly admitted its liability by apologizing to
respondents and assuring them that efforts were being made to recover the lost items.
The records also reveal that respondents went to great lengths just to salvage their loss. The
incident was reported to the police, the NBI, and the regional and head offices of petitioner.
Marisol even sought the assistance of Philtranco bus drivers and the radio stations. To
expedite the replacement of her motheras lost U.S. immigration documents, Fatima also
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 3/6
8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
had to execute an affidavit of loss.3 Clearly, they would not have gone through all that
trouble in pursuit of a fancied loss.
Fatima was not the only one who lost her luggage. Other passengers suffered a similar fate:
Dr. Lita Samarista testified that petitioner offered her P1,000.00 for her lost baggage and
she accepted it;4 Carleen Carullo-Magno also lost her chemical engineering review
materials, while her brother lost abaca products he was transporting to Bicol.5
Petitioneras receipt of Fatimaas personal luggage having been thus established, it must
now be determined if, as a common carrier, it is responsible for their loss. Under the Civil
Code, a(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 x x x
transported by them,a6 and this liability alasts 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 for transportation until the same are
delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to x x x the person who has a right to
receive them,a7 unless the loss is due to any of the excepted causes under Article 1734
thereof.8
The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioneras 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 luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying passengers. As the
Court of Appeals correctly observed:
x x x. Where the common carrier accepted its passengeras 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 carrieras own lookout. It is responsible for the consequent loss of
the baggage. In the instant case, defendant appellantas employee even helped Fatima
Minerva Fortades and her brother load the luggages/baggages in the busa baggage
compartment, without asking that they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid for (TSN,
August 4, 1986, pp. 29, 34, 54, 57, 70; December 23, 1987, p. 35). Neither was this required of
the other passengers (TSN, August 4, 1986, p. 104; February 5, 1988, p. 13).a
Finally, petitioner questions the award of actual damages to respondents. On this point, we
likewise agree with the trial and appellate courtsa conclusions. There is no dispute that of
the three pieces of luggage of Fatima, only one was recovered. The other two contained
optometry books, materials, equipment, as well as vital documents and personal
belongings. Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and Manila in their efforts to be
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 4/6
8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
compensated for the loss. During the trial, Fatima and Marisol had to travel from the United
States just to be able to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting their lost
documents. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in
awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the transportation expenses,
but disagrees with the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages which, in
view of the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith on the fault of petitioner
having been duly established, should be granted to respondents in the amount of
P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 13, 1993, and its
resolution dated February 19, 1993, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
petitioner is ordered to pay respondent an additional P20,000.00 as moral damages and
P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo, p. 63.
2 TSN, August 4, 1986, pp. 29, 34, 40-41, 54, 57, 70.
3 Exhibit aE.a
4 TSN, August 4, 1986, p. 83.
5 TSN, February 5, 1988, pp. 8, 14-16.
6 Article 1733.
7 Article 1736.
8Such as a(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2)
Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 5/6
8/9/25, 8:57 AM Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in
the containers; (5) Order or act of competent public authority.a
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/sarkies-tours-philippines-inc-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+108897 6/6
