EN BANC G.R. No.

L-15122 March 10, 1920

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN PIACO, VENTURA ESTUYA, PEDRO HOMERES, MAXIMINO GALSA and EMILIO LEOPANDO, defendants. TAN PIACO, appellant. Recaredo Ma. Calvo for appellant. Attorney-General Paredes for appellee. JOHNSON, J.: Said defendants were charged with a violation of the Public Utility Law (Act No. 2307 as amended by Acts Nos. 2362 and 2694), in that they were operating a public utility without permission from the Public Utility Commissioner. Upon the complain presented each of said defendants were arrested and brought to trial. After hearing the evidence the Honorable Cayetano Lukban, judge, found that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges against Ventura Estuya, Pedro Homeres, Maximino Galsa and Emilio Leopando, and absolved them from all liability under the complaint and discharged them from all liability under the complaint and discharged them from the custody of the law. The lower court found the defendant Tan Piaco guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentence him to pay a fine of P100, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay one-fifth part of the costs. From that sentence Tan Piaco appealed to this court. The facts proved during the trial of the cause may be stated as follows: The appellant rented two automobile trucks and was using them upon the highways of the Province of Leyte for the purpose of carrying some passengers and freight; that he carried passengers and freight under a special contract in each case; that he had not held himself out to carry all passengers and all freight for all persons who might offer passengers and freight. The Attorney-General, in a carefully prepared brief, says: "The question is whether the appellant, under the above facts, was a public utility under the foregoing definitions," and was therefore subject to the control and regulation of the Public Utility Commission. "We have not found anything in the evidence showing that the appellant operated the trucks in question for public use. These trucks, so far as indicated by the evidence and as far as the appellant is concerned, furnished service under special agreements to carry particular persons and property. . . . For all that we can deduce from the evidence, these passengers, or the owners of the freight, may have controlled the whole vehicles 'both as to content, direction, and time of use,' which facts, under all the circumstances of the case, would, in our opinion, take away the defendant's business from the provisions of the Public Utility Act." In support of the conclusion of the Attorney-General, he cites the case of Terminal Taxicab Co. vs. Kutz (241 U. S.. 252). In that case the Terminal Taxicab Co. furnished automobiles from its central garage on special orders and did not hold itself out to accommodate any and all persons. The plaintiff reserve to itself the right to refuse service. The Supreme Court of the

United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, said: "The bargains made by the plaintiff are individual, and however much they may tend towards uniformity in price, probably have not the mechanical fixity of charges that attend the use of taxicabs from the stations to the hotels. The court is of the opinion that that part of the business is not to be regarded as a public utility. It is true that all business, and for the matter of that, every life in all its details, has a public aspect, some bearing upon the welfare of the country in which it is passed." The court held that by virtue of the fact that said company did not hold itself out to serve any and all persons, it was not a public utility and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. Upon the facts adduced during the trial of the cause, and for the foregoing reasons, the Attorney-General recommends that the sentence of the lower court be revoked and that the appellant be absolved from all liability under the complaint. Section 14 of Act No. 2307, as amended by section 9 of Act No. 2694, provides that: "The Public Utility Commission or Commissioners shall have general supervision and regulation of, jurisdiction and control over, all public utilities. . . . The term 'public utility' is hereby defined to include every individual, copartnership, association, corporation or joint stock company, etc., etc., that now or hereafter may own, operate, managed, or control any common carrier, railroad, street railway, etc., etc., engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo, etc., etc., for public use." Under the provisions of said section, two things are necessary: (a) The individual, copartnership, etc., etc., must be a public utility; and (b) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc. etc., is engaged must be for public use. So long as the individual or copartnership, etc., etc., is engaged in a purely private enterprise, without attempting to render service to all who may apply, he can in no sense be considered a public utility, for public use. "Public use" means the same as "use by the public." The essential feature of the public use is that it is not confined to privilege individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must look not only the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed mode of doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit is merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be, in general, a right which the law compels the power to give to the general public. It is not enough that the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not synonymous with public interest. The true criterion by which to judge of the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by permission. For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Attorney-General that the appellant was not operating a public utility, for public use, and was not, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission. Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the complaint be dismissed and that the defendant be absolved from all liability under the same, and that he be discharged from the custody of the law, without any finding as to costs. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Araullo, Street, Malcolm and Avancea, JJ., concur.

EN BANC G.R. No. L-25599 April 4, 1968

ship agent also civilly liable for damages in favor of third persons due to the conduct of the captain of the carrier; (b) The stipulation in the charter party contract exempting the owner from liability is against public policy under Article 1744 of the Civil Code; (c) In case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, common carriers are presumed at fault or negligent under Article 1735 of the Civil Code unless they prove extraordinary diligence, and they cannot by contract exempt themselves from liability resulting from their negligence or that of their servants; and (d) When goods are delivered to the carrier in good order and the same are in bad order at the place of destination, the carrier is prima facie liable. Disagreeing with such judgment, American Steamship Agencies appealed directly to Us. The appeal brings forth for determination this legal issue: Is the stipulation in the charter party of the owner's non-liability valid so as to absolve the American Steamship Agencies from liability for loss? The bills of lading,1 covering the shipment of Peruvian fish meal provide at the back thereof that the bills of lading shall be governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the charter party, if any, otherwise, the bills of lading prevail over all the agreements. 2 On the of the bills are stamped "Freight prepaid as per charter party. Subject to all terms, conditions and exceptions of charter party dated London, Dec. 13, 1962." A perusal of the charter party3 referred to shows that while the possession and control of the ship were not entirely transferred to the charterer,4 the vessel was chartered to its full and complete capacity (Exh. 3). Furthermore, the, charter had the option to go north or south or vice-versa,5 loading, stowing and discharging at its risk and expense.6 Accordingly, the charter party contract is one of affreightment over the whole vessel rather than a demise. As such, the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew, would remain in the absence of stipulation. Section 2, paragraph 2 of the charter party, provides that the owner is liable for loss or damage to the goods caused by personal want of due diligence on its part or its manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she be properly manned, equipped and supplied or by the personal act or default of the owner or its manager. Said paragraph, however, exempts the owner of the vessel from any loss or damage or delay arising from any other source, even from the neglect or fault of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owner on board, for whose acts the owner would ordinarily be liable except for said paragraph.. Regarding the stipulation, the Court of First Instance declared the contract as contrary to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce making the ship agent civilly liable for indemnities suffered by third persons arising from acts or omissions of the captain in the care of the goods and Article 1744 of the Civil Code under which a stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence is valid provided it be reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. The release from liability in this case was held unreasonable and contrary to the public policy on common carriers. The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law.7 Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. and LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, defendants, AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellant. William H. Quasha and Associates for plaintiff-appellee. Ross, Selph, Salcedo and Associates for defendant-appellant. BENGZON, J.P., J.: "Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South America" shipped freight pre-paid at Chimbate, Peru, 21,740 jute bags of Peruvian fish meal through SS Crowborough, covered by clean bills of lading Numbers 1 and 2, both dated January 17, 1963. The cargo, consigned to San Miguel Brewery, Inc., now San Miguel Corporation, and insured by Home Insurance Company for $202,505, arrived in Manila on March 7, 1963 and was discharged into the lighters of Luzon Stevedoring Company. When the cargo was delivered to consignee San Miguel Brewery Inc., there were shortages amounting to P12,033.85, causing the latter to lay claims against Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Home Insurance Company and the American Steamship Agencies, owner and operator of SS Crowborough. Because the others denied liability, Home Insurance Company paid the consignee P14,870.71 the insurance value of the loss, as full settlement of the claim. Having been refused reimbursement by both the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and American Steamship Agencies, Home Insurance Company, as subrogee to the consignee, filed against them on March 6, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for recovery of P14,870.71 with legal interest, plus attorney's fees. In answer, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation alleged that it delivered with due diligence the goods in the same quantity and quality that it had received the same from the carrier. It also claimed that plaintiff's claim had prescribed under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce stating that the claim must be made within 24 hours from receipt of the cargo. American Steamship Agencies denied liability by alleging that under the provisions of the Charter party referred to in the bills of lading, the charterer, not the shipowner, was responsible for any loss or damage of the cargo. Furthermore, it claimed to have exercised due diligence in stowing the goods and that as a mere forwarding agent, it was not responsible for losses or damages to the cargo. On November 17, 1965, the Court of First Instance, after trial, absolved Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, having found the latter to have merely delivered what it received from the carrier in the same condition and quality, and ordered American Steamship Agencies to pay plaintiff P14,870.71 with legal interest plus P1,000 attorney's fees. Said court cited the following grounds: (a) The non-liability claim of American Steamship Agencies under the charter party contract is not tenable because Article 587 of the Code of Commerce makes the

chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier.8 As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy,9 and is deemed valid. Such doctrine We find reasonable. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. 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. And furthermore, in a charter of the entire vessel, the bill of lading issued by the master to the charterer, as shipper, is in fact and legal contemplation merely a receipt and a document of title not a contract, for the contract is the charter party.10 The consignee may not claim ignorance of said charter party because the bills of lading expressly referred to the same. Accordingly, the consignees under the bills of lading must likewise abide by the terms of the charter party. And as stated, recovery cannot be had thereunder, for loss or damage to the cargo, against the shipowners, unless the same is due to personal acts or negligence of said owner or its manager, as distinguished from its other agents or employees. In this case, no such personal act or negligence has been proved. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant is absolved from liability to plaintiff. No costs. So ordered.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988 PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents. Vicente D. Millora for petitioner. Jacinto Callanta for private respondent.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, respondent urged that the trial court had erred in considering him a common carrier; in finding that he had habitually offered trucking services to the public; in not exempting him from liability on the ground of force majeure; and in ordering him to pay damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that respondent had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight "as a casual occupation a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier. Petitioner came to this Court by way of a Petition for Review assigning as errors the following conclusions of the Court of Appeals: 1. that private respondent was not a common carrier; 2. that the hijacking of respondent's truck was force majeure; and

FELICIANO, J.: Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates. Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to petitioner's establishment in Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1 December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons were placed on board the other truck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and employee. Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo. On 6 January 1971, petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, demanding payment of P 22,150.00, the claimed value of the lost merchandise, plus damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being a common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods. In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure. On 10 December 1975, the trial court rendered a Decision 1 finding private respondent to be a common carrier and holding him liable for the value of the undelivered goods (P 22,150.00) as well as for P 4,000.00 as damages and P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees.

3. that respondent was not liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. (Rollo, p. 111) We consider first the issue of whether or not private respondent Ernesto Cendana may, under the facts earlier set forth, be properly characterized as a common carrier. 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 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 1733 deliberaom 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. ... (Emphasis supplied) 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 back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondent's 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 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. We turn then to the liability of private respondent as a common carrier. Common carriers, "by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy" 2 are held to a very high degree of care and diligence ("extraordinary diligence") in the carriage of goods as well as of passengers. The specific import of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a common carrier is, according to Article 1733, "further expressed in Articles 1734,1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7" of the Civil Code. Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (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 shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character-of the goods or defects in the packing or-in the containers; and (5) Order or act of competent public authority.

It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which exempt the common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list. Causes falling outside the foregoing list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure fall within the scope of Article 1735, which provides as follows: In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. (Emphasis supplied) Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant case the hijacking of the carrier's truck does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow, therefore, that the hijacking of the carrier's vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735, in other words, that the private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private respondent. Petitioner insists that private respondent had not observed extraordinary diligence in the care of petitioner's goods. Petitioner argues that in the circumstances of this case, private respondent should have hired a security guard presumably to ride with the truck carrying the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk. We do not believe, however, that in the instant case, the standard of extraordinary diligence required private respondent to retain a security guard to ride with the truck and to engage brigands in a firelight at the risk of his own life and the lives of the driver and his helper. The precise issue that we address here relates to the specific requirements of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or armed robbery. As noted earlier, the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods is, under Article 1733, given additional specification not only by Articles 1734 and 1735 but also by Article 1745, numbers 4, 5 and 6, Article 1745 provides in relevant part: Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy: xxx xxx xxx (5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of his or its employees; (6) that the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished; and (7) that the common carrier shall not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car vehicle,

ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. (Emphasis supplied) Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent which carried petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an information for robbery in band was filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 198 entitled " People of the Philippines v. Felipe Boncorno, Napoleon Presno, Armando Mesina, Oscar Oria and one John Doe." There, the accused were charged with willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with them the second truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk destined for delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The decision of the trial court shows that the accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or force. 3 Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms. The robbers not only took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several days and later releasing them in another province (in Zambales). The hijacked truck was subsequently found by the police in Quezon City. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery, though not of robbery in band. 4 In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence. We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that private respondent Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of an event entirely beyond private respondent's control. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

layers of tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire voyage. 5 Upon arrival of the vessel at her port of call on 3 July 1974, the steel pontoon hatches were opened with the use of the vessel's boom. Petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds into its steelbodied dump trucks which were parked alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to the ship, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the charter-partly (which provided for an F.I.O.S. clause). 6 The hatches remained open throughout the duration of the discharge. 7 Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of Urea was covered with tarpaulin before it was transported to the consignee's warehouse located some fifty (50) meters from the wharf. Midway to the warehouse, the trucks were made to pass through a weighing scale where they were individually weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the net weight of the cargo. The port area was windy, certain portions of the route to the warehouse were sandy and the weather was variable, raining occasionally while the discharge was in progress. 8 The petitioner's warehouse was made of corrugated galvanized iron (GI) sheets, with an opening at the front where the dump trucks entered and unloaded the fertilizer on the warehouse floor. Tarpaulins and GI sheets were placed in-between and alongside the trucks to contain spillages of the ferilizer. 9 It took eleven (11) days for PPI to unload the cargo, from 5 July to 18 July 1974 (except July 12th, 14th and 18th). 10 A private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), was hired by PPI to determine the "outturn" of the cargo shipped, by taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after discharge. 11 The survey report submitted by CSCI to the consignee (PPI) dated 19 July 1974 revealed a shortage in the cargo of 106.726 M/T and that a portion of the Urea fertilizer approximating 18 M/T was contaminated with dirt. The same results were contained in a Certificate of Shortage/Damaged Cargo dated 18 July 1974 prepared by PPI which showed that the cargo delivered was indeed short of 94.839 M/T and about 23 M/T were rendered unfit for commerce, having been polluted with sand, rust and dirt. 12 Consequently, PPI sent a claim letter dated 18 December 1974 to Soriamont Steamship Agencies (SSA), the resident agent of the carrier, KKKK, for P245,969.31 representing the cost of the alleged shortage in the goods shipped and the diminution in value of that portion said to have been contaminated with dirt. 13 Respondent SSA explained that they were not able to respond to the consignee's claim for payment because, according to them, what they received was just a request for shortlanded certificate and not a formal claim, and that this "request" was denied by them because they "had nothing to do with the discharge of the shipment." 14 Hence, on 18 July 1975, PPI filed an action for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The defendant carrier argued that the strict public policy governing common carriers does not apply to them because they have become private carriers by reason of the provisions of the charter-party. The court a quo however sustained the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant carrier for the value of the goods lost or damaged when it ruled thus: 15 . . . Prescinding from the provision of the law that a common carrier is presumed negligent in case of loss or damage of the goods it contracts to transport, all that a shipper has to do in a suit to recover for loss or damage is to show receipt by the carrier of the goods and to delivery by it of less than what it received. After that, the burden of proving that the loss or damage was due to any of the causes which exempt him from

G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993 PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. Gonzales, Sinense, Jimenez & Associates for petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for private respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.: Does a charter-party 1 between a shipowner and a charterer transform a common carrier into a private one as to negate the civil law presumption of negligence in case of loss or damage to its cargo? Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation (MITSUBISHI) of New York, U.S.A., 9,329.7069 metric tons (M/T) of Urea 46% fertilizer which the latter shipped in bulk on 16 June 1974 aboard the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) from Kenai, Alaska, U.S.A., to Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. KP-1 signed by the master of the vessel and issued on the date of departure. On 17 May 1974, or prior to its voyage, a time charter-party on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the Uniform General Charter 2 was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo, Japan. 3 Riders to the aforesaid charterparty starting from par. 16 to 40 were attached to the pre-printed agreement. Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the charter-party were also subsequently entered into on the 18th, 20th, 21st and 27th of May 1974, respectively. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four (4) of her holds 4 were all presumably inspected by the charterer's representative and found fit to take a load of urea in bulk pursuant to par. 16 of the charter-party which reads: 16. . . . At loading port, notice of readiness to be accomplished by certificate from National Cargo Bureau inspector or substitute appointed by charterers for his account certifying the vessel's readiness to receive cargo spaces. The vessel's hold to be properly swept, cleaned and dried at the vessel's expense and the vessel to be presented clean for use in bulk to the satisfaction of the inspector before daytime commences. (emphasis supplied) After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with three (3)

liability is shipted to the carrier, common or private he may be. Even if the provisions of the charter-party aforequoted are deemed valid, and the defendants considered private carriers, it was still incumbent upon them to prove that the shortage or contamination sustained by the cargo is attributable to the fault or negligence on the part of the shipper or consignee in the loading, stowing, trimming and discharge of the cargo. This they failed to do. By this omission, coupled with their failure to destroy the presumption of negligence against them, the defendants are liable (emphasis supplied). On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and absolved the carrier from liability for the value of the cargo that was lost or damaged. 16 Relying on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 17 the appellate court ruled that the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent KKKK was a private carrier and not a common carrier by reason of the time charterer-party. Accordingly, the Civil Code provisions on common carriers which set forth a presumption of negligence do not find application in the case at bar. Thus . . . In the absence of such presumption, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellee to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the negligence of the defendant carrier as alleged in its complaint. It is an old and well settled rule that if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense (Moran, Commentaries on the Rules of Court, Volume 6, p. 2, citing Belen v. Belen, 13 Phil. 202). But, the record shows that the plaintiff-appellee dismally failed to prove the basis of its cause of action, i.e. the alleged negligence of defendant carrier. It appears that the plaintiff was under the impression that it did not have to establish defendant's negligence. Be that as it may, contrary to the trial court's finding, the record of the instant case discloses ample evidence showing that defendant carrier was not negligent in performing its obligation . . . 18 (emphasis supplied). Petitioner PPI appeals to us by way of a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner theorizes that the Home Insurance case has no bearing on the present controversy because the issue raised therein is the validity of a stipulation in the charter-party delimiting the liability of the shipowner for loss or damage to goods cause by want of due deligence on its part or that of its manager to make the vessel seaworthy in all respects, and not whether the presumption of negligence provided under the Civil Code applies only to common carriers and not to private carriers. 19 Petitioner further argues that since the possession and control of the vessel remain with the shipowner, absent any stipulation to the contrary, such shipowner should made liable for the negligence of the captain and crew. In fine, PPI faults the appellate court in not applying the presumption of negligence against respondent carrier, and instead shifting the onus probandi on the shipper to show want of due deligence on the part of the carrier, when he was not even at hand to witness what transpired during the entire voyage. As earlier stated, the primordial issue here is whether a common carrier becomes a private carrier by reason of a charter-party; in the negative, whether the shipowner in the instant case was able to prove that he had exercised that degree of diligence required of him under the law.

It is said that etymology is the basis of reliable judicial decisions in commercial cases. This being so, we find it fitting to first define important terms which are relevant to our discussion. A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another person for a specified time or use; 20 a contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a merchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of the payment of freight; 21 Charter parties are of two types: (a) contract of affreightment which involves the use of shipping space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by demise or bareboat charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him of its entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his servants. Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage. 22 In both cases, the charter-party provides for the hire of vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or consecutive voyage, the shipowner to supply the ship's stores, pay for the wages of the master and the crew, and defray the expenses for the maintenance of the ship. Upon the other hand, the term "common or public carrier" is defined in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code. 23 The definition extends to carriers either by land, air or water which hold themselves out as ready to engage in carrying goods or transporting passengers or both for compensation as a public employment and not as a casual occupation. The distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies in the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering such service is a private carrier. 24 Article 1733 of the New Civil Code mandates that common carriers, by reason of the nature of their business, should observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they carry. 25 In the case of private carriers, however, the exercise of ordinary diligence in the carriage of goods will suffice. Moreover, in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving otherwise rests on them. 26 On the contrary, no such presumption applies to private carriers, for whosoever alleges damage to or deterioration of the goods carried has the onus of proving that the cause was the negligence of the carrier. It is not disputed that respondent carrier, in the ordinary course of business, operates as a common carrier, transporting goods indiscriminately for all persons. When petitioner chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its officers and compliment were under the employ of the shipowner and therefore continued to be under its direct supervision and control. Hardly then can we charge the charterer, a stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring for his cargo when the charterer did not have any control of the means in doing so. This is evident in the present case considering that the steering of the ship, the manning of the decks, the determination of the course of the voyage and other technical incidents of maritime navigation were all consigned to the officers and crew who were screened, chosen and hired by the shipowner. 27 It is therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter or voyage-charter. It is only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession and

control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment, be the property of the charterer.
28

Verily, the presumption of negligence on the part of the respondent carrier has been efficaciously overcome by the showing of extraordinary zeal and assiduity exercised by the carrier in the care of the cargo. This was confirmed by respondent appellate court thus . . . Be that as it may, contrary to the trial court's finding, the record of the instant case discloses ample evidence showing that defendant carrier was not negligent in performing its obligations. Particularly, the following testimonies of plaintiff-appellee's own witnesses clearly show absence of negligence by the defendant carrier; that the hull of the vessel at the time of the discharge of the cargo was sealed and nobody could open the same except in the presence of the owner of the cargo and the representatives of the vessel (TSN, 20 July 1977, p. 14); that the cover of the hatches was made of steel and it was overlaid with tarpaulins, three layers of tarpaulins and therefore their contents were protected from the weather (TSN, 5 April 1978, p. 24); and, that to open these hatches, the seals would have to be broken, all the seals were found to be intact (TSN, 20 July 1977, pp. 15-16) (emphasis supplied). The period during which private respondent was to observe the degree of diligence required of it as a public carrier began from the time the cargo was unconditionally placed in its charge after the vessel's holds were duly inspected and passed scrutiny by the shipper, up to and until the vessel reached its destination and its hull was reexamined by the consignee, but prior to unloading. This is clear from the limitation clause agreed upon by the parties in the Addendum to the standard "GENCON" time charter-party which provided for an F.I.O.S., meaning, that the loading, stowing, trimming and discharge of the cargo was to be done by the charterer, free from all risk and expense to the carrier. 35 Moreover, a shipowner is liable for damage to the cargo resulting from improper stowage only when the stowing is done by stevedores employed by him, and therefore under his control and supervision, not when the same is done by the consignee or stevedores under the employ of the latter. 36 Article 1734 of the New Civil Code provides that common carriers are not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods if caused by the charterer of the goods or defects in the packaging or in the containers. The Code of Commerce also provides that all losses and deterioration which the goods may suffer during the transportation by reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent defect of the goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper, and that proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier. 37 The carrier, nonetheless, shall be liable for the loss and damage resulting from the preceding causes if it is proved, as against him, that they arose through his negligence or by reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage has established among careful persons.
38

Respondent carrier's heavy reliance on the case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, supra, is misplaced for the reason that the meat of the controversy therein was the validity of a stipulation in the charter-party exempting the shipowners from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent, and not the effects of a special charter on common carriers. At any rate, the rule in the United States that a ship chartered by a single shipper to carry special cargo is not a common carrier, 29 does not find application in our jurisdiction, for we have observed that the growing concern for safety in the transportation of passengers and /or carriage of goods by sea requires a more exacting interpretation of admiralty laws, more particularly, the rules governing common carriers. We quote with approval the observations of Raoul Colinvaux, the learned barrister-at-law 30 As a matter of principle, it is difficult to find a valid distinction between cases in which a ship is used to convey the goods of one and of several persons. Where the ship herself is let to a charterer, so that he takes over the charge and control of her, the case is different; the shipowner is not then a carrier. But where her services only are let, the same grounds for imposing a strict responsibility exist, whether he is employed by one or many. The master and the crew are in each case his servants, the freighter in each case is usually without any representative on board the ship; the same opportunities for fraud or collusion occur; and the same difficulty in discovering the truth as to what has taken place arises . . . In an action for recovery of damages against a common carrier on the goods shipped, the shipper or consignee should first prove the fact of shipment and its consequent loss or damage while the same was in the possession, actual or constructive, of the carrier. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to respondent to prove that he has exercised extraordinary diligence required by law or that the loss, damage or deterioration of the cargo was due to fortuitous event, or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability. 31 To our mind, respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of negligence. The master of the carrying vessel, Captain Lee Tae Bo, in his deposition taken on 19 April 1977 before the Philippine Consul and Legal Attache in the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, testified that before the fertilizer was loaded, the four (4) hatches of the vessel were cleaned, dried and fumigated. After completing the loading of the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon hatches were closed and sealed with iron lids, then covered with three (3) layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained close and tightly sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it impossible for a person to open without the use of the ship's boom. 32 It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel was in good condition, foreclosing the possibility of spillage of the cargo into the sea or seepage of water inside the hull of the vessel. 33 When M/V "Sun Plum" docked at its berthing place, representatives of the consignee boarded, and in the presence of a representative of the shipowner, the foreman, the stevedores, and a cargo surveyor representing CSCI, opened the hatches and inspected the condition of the hull of the vessel. The stevedores unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the shipmates who were overseeing the whole operation on rotation basis. 34

Respondent carrier presented a witness who testified on the characteristics of the fertilizer shipped and the expected risks of bulk shipping. Mr. Estanislao Chupungco, a chemical engineer working with Atlas Fertilizer, described Urea as a chemical compound consisting mostly of ammonia and carbon monoxide compounds which are used as fertilizer. Urea also contains 46% nitrogen and is highly soluble in water. However, during storage, nitrogen and ammonia do not normally evaporate even on a long voyage, provided that the temperature inside the hull does not exceed eighty (80) degrees centigrade. Mr. Chupungco further added that in unloading fertilizer in bulk with the use of a clamped shell, losses due to spillage during such operation amounting to one percent (1%) against the bill of lading is deemed "normal" or "tolerable." The primary cause of these spillages is the clamped shell which does not seal very tightly. Also, the wind tends to blow away some of the materials during the unloading process.

The dissipation of quantities of fertilizer, or its daterioration in value, is caused either by an extremely high temperature in its place of storage, or when it comes in contact with water. When Urea is drenched in water, either fresh or saline, some of its particles dissolve. But the salvaged portion which is in liquid form still remains potent and usable although no longer saleable in its original market value. The probability of the cargo being damaged or getting mixed or contaminated with foreign particles was made greater by the fact that the fertilizer was transported in "bulk," thereby exposing it to the inimical effects of the elements and the grimy condition of the various pieces of equipment used in transporting and hauling it. The evidence of respondent carrier also showed that it was highly improbable for sea water to seep into the vessel's holds during the voyage since the hull of the vessel was in good condition and her hatches were tightly closed and firmly sealed, making the M/V "Sun Plum" in all respects seaworthy to carry the cargo she was chartered for. If there was loss or contamination of the cargo, it was more likely to have occurred while the same was being transported from the ship to the dump trucks and finally to the consignee's warehouse. This may be gleaned from the testimony of the marine and cargo surveyor of CSCI who supervised the unloading. He explained that the 18 M/T of alleged "bar order cargo" as contained in their report to PPI was just an approximation or estimate made by them after the fertilizer was discharged from the vessel and segregated from the rest of the cargo. The Court notes that it was in the month of July when the vessel arrived port and unloaded her cargo. It rained from time to time at the harbor area while the cargo was being discharged according to the supply officer of PPI, who also testified that it was windy at the waterfront and along the shoreline where the dump trucks passed enroute to the consignee's warehouse. Indeed, we agree with respondent carrier that bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like fertilizer carries with it the risk of loss or damage. More so, with a variable weather condition prevalent during its unloading, as was the case at bar. This is a risk the shipper or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly, respondent carrier has sufficiently proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the inadequacy of its packaging which further contributed to the loss. On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the petitioner showing that the carrier was remise in the exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the loss or damage to the goods it carried. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court, is AFFIRMED. Consequently, Civil Case No. 98623 of the then Court of the First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Manila should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts. The bus came to rest off the road. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it and smashed its front portion. Several passengers were injured. Private respondent Amyline Antonio was thrown on the floor of the bus and pinned down by a wooden seat which came down by a wooden seat which came off after being unscrewed. It took three persons to safely remove her from this portion. She was in great pain and could not move. The driver, petitioner Cabil, claimed he did not see the curve until it was too late. He said he was not familiar with the area and he could not have seen the curve despite the care he took in driving the bus, because it was dark and there was no sign on the road. He said that he saw the curve when he was already within 15 to 30 meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kilometers per hour, but it was too late. The Lingayen police investigated the incident the next day, November 3, 1984. On the basis of their finding they filed a criminal complaint against the driver, Porfirio Cabil. The case was later filed with the Lingayen Regional Trial Court. Petitioners Fabre paid Jesus Escano P1,500.00 for the damage to the latter's fence. On the basis of Escano's affidavit of desistance the case against petitioners Fabre was dismissed. Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila. As a result of the accident, she is now suffering from paraplegia and is permanently paralyzed from the waist down. During the trial she described the operations she underwent and adduced evidence regarding the cost of her treatment and therapy. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to the Nazareth Hospital in Baay, Lingayen. As this hospital was not adequately equipped, she was transferred to the Sto. Nio Hospital, also in the town of Baay, where she was given sedatives. An x-ray was taken and the damage to her spine was determined to be too severe to be treated there. She was therefore brought to Manila, first to the Philippine General Hospital and later to the Makati Medical Center where she underwent an operation to correct the dislocation of her spine. In its decision dated April 17, 1989, the trial court found that: No convincing evidence was shown that the minibus was properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the driver was properly screened and tested before being admitted for employment. Indeed, all the evidence presented have shown the negligent act of the defendants which ultimately resulted to the accident subject of this case. Accordingly, it gave judgment for private respondents holding: Considering that plaintiffs Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. and Ms. Amyline Antonio were the only ones who adduced evidence in support of their claim for damages, the Court is therefore not in a position to award damages to the other plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment against defendants Mr. & Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr. and Porfirio Cabil y Jamil pursuant to articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and said defendants are ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs the following amount: 1) P93,657.11 as compensatory and actual damages;

G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996 MR. & MRS. ENGRACIO FABRE, JR. and PORFIRIO CABIL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE WORD FOR THE WORLD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, INC., AMYLINE ANTONIO, JOHN RICHARDS, GONZALO GONZALES, VICENTE V. QUE, JR., ICLI CORDOVA, ARLENE GOJOCCO, ALBERTO ROXAS CORDERO, RICHARD BAUTISTA, JOCELYN GARCIA, YOLANDA CORDOVA, NOEL ROQUE, EDWARD TAN, ERNESTO NARCISO, ENRIQUETA LOCSIN, FRANCIS NORMAN O. LOPES, JULIUS CAESAR, GARCIA, ROSARIO MA. V. ORTIZ, MARIETTA C. CLAVO, ELVIE SENIEL, ROSARIO MARA-MARA, TERESITA REGALA, MELINDA TORRES, MARELLA MIJARES, JOSEFA CABATINGAN, MARA NADOC, DIANE MAYO, TESS PLATA, MAYETTE JOCSON, ARLENE Y. MORTIZ, LIZA MAYO, CARLOS RANARIO, ROSAMARIA T. RADOC and BERNADETTE FERRER, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:p This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-GR No. 28245, dated September 30, 1992, which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58, ordering petitioners jointly and severally to pay damages to private respondent Amyline Antonio, and its resolution which denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a 1982 model Mazda minibus. They used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in Manila. The couple had a driver, Porfirio J. Cabil, whom they hired in 1981, after trying him out for two weeks, His job was to take school children to and from the St. Scholastica's College in Malate, Manila. On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid petitioners the amount of P3,000.00. The group was scheduled to leave on November 2, 1984, at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. However, as several members of the party were late, the bus did not leave the Tropical Hut at the corner of Ortigas Avenue and EDSA until 8:00 o'clock in the evening. Petitioner Porfirio Cabil drove the minibus. The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen, Pangasinan. However, the bridge at Carmen was under repair, sot hat petitioner Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area (it being his first trip to La Union), was forced to take a detour through the town of Baay in Lingayen, Pangasinan. At 11:30 that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway, running on a south to east direction, which he described as "siete." The road was slippery because it was raining, causing the bus, which was running at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road shoulder. The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the

2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of plaintiff Amyline Antonio; 3) P20,000.00 as moral damages; 4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; 6) Costs of suit. SO ORDERED. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with respect to Amyline Antonio but dismissed it with respect to the other plaintiffs on the ground that they failed to prove their respective claims. The Court of Appeals modified the award of damages as follows: 1) P93,657.11 as actual damages; 2) P600,000.00 as compensatory damages; 3) P50,000.00 as moral damages; 4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; 5) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and 6) Costs of suit. The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's finding that petitioner Cabil failed to exercise due care and precaution in the operation of his vehicle considering the time and the place of the accident. The Court of Appeals held that the Fabres were themselves presumptively negligent. Hence, this petition. Petitioners raise the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE NEGLIGENT. II. WHETHER OF NOT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. III WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AND IN THE POSITIVE, UP TO WHAT EXTENT. Petitioners challenge the propriety of the award of compensatory damages in the amount of P600,000.00. It is insisted that, on the assumption that petitioners are liable an award of P600,000.00 is unconscionable and highly speculative. Amyline Antonio testified that she was a casual employee of a company called "Suaco," earning P1,650.00 a month, and a

dealer of Avon products, earning an average of P1,000.00 monthly. Petitioners contend that as casual employees do not have security of tenure, the award of P600,000.00, considering Amyline Antonio's earnings, is without factual basis as there is no assurance that she would be regularly earning these amounts. With the exception of the award of damages, the petition is devoid of merit. First, it is unnecessary for our purpose to determine whether to decide this case on the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage or culpa contractual or on the theory of quasi delict or culpa aquiliana as both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature," nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort." 2 In either case, the question is whether the bus driver, petitioner Porfirio Cabil, was negligent. The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the Fabres, who owned the bus, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee is fully supported by the evidence on record. These factual findings of the two courts we regard as final and conclusive, supported as they are by the evidence. Indeed, it was admitted by Cabil that on the night in question, it was raining, and as a consequence, the road was slippery, and it was dark. He averred these facts to justify his failure to see that there lay a sharp curve ahead. However, it is undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour and only slowed down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead. 3 By then it was too late for him to avoid falling off the road. Given the conditions of the road and considering that the trip was Cabil's first one outside of Manila, Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate speed. There is testimony 4 that the vehicles passing on that portion of the road should only be running 20 kilometers per hour, so that at 50 kilometers per hour, Cabil was running at a very high speed. Considering the foregoing the fact that it was raining and the road was slippery, that it was dark, that he drove his bus at 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal speed was only 20 kilometers an hour, and that he was unfamiliar with the terrain, Cabil was grossly negligent and should be held liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio. Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise to the presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection and supervisions of their employee. Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed a professional driver's license. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of service. 5 Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. 6 In the case at bar, the Fabres, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus to La Union, apparently did not consider the fact that Cabil had been driving for school children only, from their homes to the St. Scholastica's College in Metro Manila. 7 They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship. They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship. They had tested him for certain matters, such as whether he could remember the names of the children he would be taking to school, which were irrelevant to his qualification to drive on a long distance travel, especially considering that the trip to La Union was his first. The existence of hiring

procedures and supervisory policies cannot be casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an employer. 8 Petitioners argue that they are not liable because (1) an earlier departure (made impossible by the congregation's delayed meeting) could have a averted the mishap and (2) under the contract, the WWCF was directly responsible for the conduct of the trip. Neither of these contentions hold water. The hour of departure had not been fixed. Even if it had been, the delay did not bear directly on the cause of the accident. With respect to the second contention, it was held in an early case that: [A] person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver directions as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver, is not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence or the automobile driver. 9 As already stated, this case actually involves a contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them. As this Court has held: 10 Art. 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 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 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. As common carriers, the Fabres were found to exercise "extraordinary diligence" for the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee. As Art. 1759 of the Code provides: Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful 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 does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

The same circumstances detailed above, supporting the finding of the trial court and of the appellate court that petitioners are liable under Arts. 2176 and 2180 for quasi delict, fully justify findings them guilty of breach of contract of carriage under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1759 of the Civil Code. Secondly, we sustain the award of damages in favor of Amyline Antonio. However, we think the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the amount of compensatory damages because private respondents did not question this award as inadequate. 11 To the contrary, the award of P500,000.00 for compensatory damages which the Regional Trial Court made is reasonable considering the contingent nature of her income as a casual employee of a company and as distributor of beauty products and the fact that the possibility that she might be able to work again has not been foreclosed. In fact she testified that one of her previous employers had expressed willingness to employ her again. With respect to the other awards, while the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals do not sufficiently indicate the factual and legal basis for them, we find that they are nevertheless supported by evidence in the records of this case. Viewed as an action for quasi delict, this case falls squarely within the purview of Art. 2219(2) providing for the payment of moral damages in cases of quasi delict. On the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage, the award of moral damages is authorized by Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2220, since Cabil's gross negligence amounted to bad faith. 12 Amyline Antonio's testimony, as well as the testimonies of her father and copassengers, fully establish the physical suffering and mental anguish she endured as a result of the injuries caused by petitioners' negligence. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees was also properly made. However, for the same reason that it was error for the appellate court to increase the award of compensatory damages, we hold that it was also error for it to increase the award of moral damages and reduce the award of attorney's fees, inasmuch as private respondents, in whose favor the awards were made, have not appealed. 13 As above stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals can be sustained either on the theory of quasi delict or on that of breach of contract. The question is whether, as the two courts below held, petitioners, who are the owners and driver of the bus, may be made to respond jointly and severally to private respondent. We hold that they may be. In Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 14 on facts similar to those in this case, this Court held the bus company and the driver jointly and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger. Again, in Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 15 a driver found negligent in failing to stop the bus in order to let off passengers when a fellow passenger ran amuck, as a result of which the passengers jumped out of the speeding bus and suffered injuries, was held also jointly and severally liable with the bus company to the injured passengers. The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an accident. In Anuran v. Buo, 16 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 17 and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 18 the bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or the latters' heirs. The basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan v. Court of Appeals, 19 thus: Nor should it make any difference that the liability of petitioner [bus owner] springs from contract while that of respondents [owner and driver

of other vehicle] arises from quasi-delict. As early as 1913, we already ruled in Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict. 20 It is true that in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 21 this Court exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and their families while holding the owners of the jeepney jointly and severally liable, but that is because that case was expressly tried and decided exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual. As this Court there explained: The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo (the driver) and spouses Mangune and Carreon (the jeepney owners) were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier is exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). 22 As in the case of BLTB, private respondents in this case and her coplaintiffs did not stake out their claim against the carrier and the driver exclusively on one theory, much less on that of breach of contract alone. After all, it was permitted for them to allege alternative causes of action and join as many parties as may be liable on such causes of action 23 so long as private respondent and her coplaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury. What is clear from the cases is the intent of the plaintiff there to recover from both the carrier and the driver, thus, justifying the holding that the carrier and the driver were jointly and severally liable because their separate and distinct acts concurred to produce the same injury. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to award of damages. Petitioners are ORDERED to PAY jointly and severally the private respondent Amyline Antonio the following amounts: 1) P93,657.11 as actual damages; 2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of plaintiff Amyline Antonio; 3) P20,000.00 as moral damages; 4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; 5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; and 6) costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996

Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937, inclusive, of the Land Records of Laguna, between the plaintiffs as buyers and the defendant Producers Bank for an agreed price of Five and One Half Million (P5,500,000.00) Pesos; 2. Ordering defendant Producers Bank of the Philippines, upon finality of this decision and receipt from the plaintiffs the amount of P5.5 Million, to execute in favor of said plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale over the aforementioned six (6) parcels of land, and to immediately deliver to the plaintiffs the owner's copies of T.C.T. Nos. T-106932 to T- 106937, inclusive, for purposes of registration of the same deed and transfer of the six (6) titles in the names of the plaintiffs; 3. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs Jose A. Janolo and Demetrio Demetria the sums of P200,000.00 each in moral damages; 4. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages ; 5. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P400,000.00 for and by way of attorney's fees; 6. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, actual and moderate damages in the amount of P20,000.00; With costs against the defendants. After the parties filed their comment, reply, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder and reply to sur-rejoinder, the petition was given due course in a Resolution dated January 18, 1995. Thence, the parties filed their respective memoranda and reply memoranda. The First Division transferred this case to the Third Division per resolution dated October 23, 1995. After carefully deliberating on the aforesaid submissions, the Court assigned the case to the undersigned ponente for the writing of this Decision. The Parties

FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines) and MERCURIO RIVERA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS EJERCITO, in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, and JOSE JANOLO, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: In the absence of a formal deed of sale, may commitments given by bank officers in an exchange of letters and/or in a meeting with the buyers constitute a perfected and enforceable contract of sale over 101 hectares of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna? Does the doctrine of "apparent authority" apply in this case? If so, may the Central Bank-appointed conservator of Producers Bank (now First Philippine International Bank) repudiate such "apparent authority" after said contract has been deemed perfected? During the pendency of a suit for specific performance, does the filing of a "derivative suit" by the majority shareholders and directors of the distressed bank to prevent the enforcement or implementation of the sale violate the ban against forum-shopping? Simply stated, these are the major questions brought before this Court in the instant Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to set aside the Decision promulgated January 14, 1994 of the respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R CV No. 35756 and the Resolution promulgated June 14, 1994 denying the motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is MODIFIED by the elimination of the damages awarded under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of its dispositive portion and the reduction of the award in paragraph 5 thereof to P75,000.00, to be assessed against defendant bank. In all other aspects, said decision is hereby AFFIRMED. All references to the original plaintiffs in the decision and its dispositive portion are deemed, herein and hereafter, to legally refer to the plaintiffappellee Carlos C. Ejercito. Costs against appellant bank. The dispositive portion of the trial court's2 decision dated July 10, 1991, on the other hand, is as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows: 1. Declaring the existence of a perfected contract to buy and sell over the six (6) parcels of land situated at Don Jose, Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an area of 101 hectares, more or less, covered by and embraced in

Petitioner First Philippine International Bank (formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines; petitioner Bank, for brevity) is a banking institution organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner Mercurio Rivera (petitioner Rivera, for brevity) is of legal age and was, at all times material to this case, Head-Manager of the Property Management Department of the petitioner Bank. Respondent Carlos Ejercito (respondent Ejercito, for brevity) is of legal age and is the assignee of original plaintiffs-appellees Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo. Respondent Court of Appeals is the court which issued the Decision and Resolution sought to be set aside through this petition. The Facts

The facts of this case are summarized in the respondent Court's Decision3 as follows: (1) In the course of its banking operations, the defendant Producer Bank of the Philippines acquired six parcels of land with a total area of 101 hectares located at Don Jose, Sta. Rose, Laguna, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. The property used to be owned by BYME Investment and Development Corporation which had them mortgaged with the bank as collateral for a loan. The original plaintiffs, Demetrio Demetria and Jose O. Janolo, wanted to purchase the property and thus initiated negotiations for that purpose. (2) In the early part of August 1987 said plaintiffs, upon the suggestion of BYME investment's legal counsel, Jose Fajardo, met with defendant Mercurio Rivera, Manager of the Property Management Department of the defendant bank. The meeting was held pursuant to plaintiffs' plan to buy the property (TSN of Jan. 16, 1990, pp. 7-10). After the meeting, plaintiff Janolo, following the advice of defendant Rivera, made a formal purchase offer to the bank through a letter dated August 30, 1987 (Exh. "B"), as follows: August 30, 1987 The Producers Bank of the Philippines Makati, Metro Manila Attn. Mr. Mercurio Q. Rivera Manager, Property Management Dept. Gentleman: I have the honor to submit my formal offer to purchase your properties covered by titles listed hereunder located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, with a total area of 101 hectares, more or less. TCT NO. T-106932 T-106933 T-106934 T-106935 T-106936 T-106937 AREA 113,580 sq. m. 70,899 sq. m. 52,246 sq. m. 96,768 sq. m. 187,114 sq. m. 481,481 sq. m.

(3) On September 1, 1987, defendant Rivera made on behalf of the bank a formal reply by letter which is hereunder quoted (Exh. "C"): September 1, 1987 JP M-P GUTIERREZ ENTERPRISES 142 Charisma St., Doa Andres II Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila Attention: JOSE O. JANOLO Dear Sir: Thank you for your letter-offer to buy our six (6) parcels of acquired lots at Sta. Rosa, Laguna (formerly owned by Byme Industrial Corp.). Please be informed however that the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis. We shall be very glad to hear your position on the on the matter. Best regards. (4) On September 17, 1987, plaintiff Janolo, responding to Rivera's aforequoted reply, wrote (Exh. "D"): September 17, 1987 Producers Bank Paseo de Roxas Makati, Metro Manila Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera Gentlemen: In reply to your letter regarding my proposal to purchase your 101hectare lot located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, I would like to amend my previous offer and I now propose to buy the said lot at P4.250 million in CASH.. Hoping that this proposal meets your satisfaction. (5) There was no reply to Janolo's foregoing letter of September 17, 1987. What took place was a meeting on September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs and Luis Co, the Senior Vice-President of defendant bank. Rivera as well as Fajardo, the BYME lawyer, attended the meeting. Two days later, or on September 30, 1987, plaintiff Janolo sent to the bank, through Rivera, the following letter (Exh. "E"):

My offer is for PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00) PESOS, in cash. Kindly contact me at Telephone Number 921-1344.

The Producers Bank of the Philippines Paseo de Roxas, Makati Metro Manila Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera Re: 101 Hectares of Land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna Gentlemen: Pursuant to our discussion last 28 September 1987, we are pleased to inform you that we are accepting your offer for us to purchase the property at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned by Byme Investment, for a total price of PESOS: FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P5,500,000.00). Thank you. (6) On October 12, 1987, the conservator of the bank (which has been placed under conservatorship by the Central Bank since 1984) was replaced by an Acting Conservator in the person of defendant Leonida T. Encarnacion. On November 4, 1987, defendant Rivera wrote plaintiff Demetria the following letter (Exh. "F"): Attention: Atty. Demetrio Demetria

Paseo de Roxas, Makati Metro Manila Dear Mr. Rivera: This is in connection with the offer of our client, Mr. Jose O. Janolo, to purchase your 101-hectare lot located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, and which are covered by TCT No. T-106932 to 106937. From the documents at hand, it appears that your counter-offer dated September 1, 1987 of this same lot in the amount of P5.5 million was accepted by our client thru a letter dated September 30, 1987 and was received by you on October 5, 1987. In view of the above circumstances, we believe that an agreement has been perfected. We were also informed that despite repeated follow-up to consummate the purchase, you now refuse to honor your commitment. Instead, you have advertised for sale the same lot to others. In behalf of our client, therefore, we are making this formal demand upon you to consummate and execute the necessary actions/documentation within three (3) days from your receipt hereof. We are ready to remit the agreed amount of P5.5 million at your advice. Otherwise, we shall be constrained to file the necessary court action to protect the interest of our client. We trust that you will be guided accordingly.

Dear Sir: Your proposal to buy the properties the bank foreclosed from Byme investment Corp. located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna is under study yet as of this time by the newly created committee for submission to the newly designated Acting Conservator of the bank. For your information. (7) What thereafter transpired was a series of demands by the plaintiffs for compliance by the bank with what plaintiff considered as a perfected contract of sale, which demands were in one form or another refused by the bank. As detailed by the trial court in its decision, on November 17, 1987, plaintiffs through a letter to defendant Rivera (Exhibit "G") tendered payment of the amount of P5.5 million "pursuant to (our) perfected sale agreement." Defendants refused to receive both the payment and the letter. Instead, the parcels of land involved in the transaction were advertised by the bank for sale to any interested buyer (Exh, "H" and "H1"). Plaintiffs demanded the execution by the bank of the documents on what was considered as a "perfected agreement." Thus: Mr. Mercurio Rivera Manager, Producers Bank (8) Defendant bank, through defendant Rivera, acknowledged receipt of the foregoing letter and stated, in its communication of December 2, 1987 (Exh. "I"), that said letter has been "referred . . . to the office of our Conservator for proper disposition" However, no response came from the Acting Conservator. On December 14, 1987, the plaintiffs made a second tender of payment (Exh. "L" and "L-1"), this time through the Acting Conservator, defendant Encarnacion. Plaintiffs' letter reads: PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila Attn.: Atty. NIDA ENCARNACION Central Bank Conservator We are sending you herewith, in - behalf of our client, Mr. JOSE O. JANOLO, MBTC Check No. 258387 in the amount of P5.5 million as our agreed purchase price of the 101-hectare lot covered by TCT Nos. 106932, 106933, 106934, 106935, 106936 and 106937 and registered under Producers Bank.

This is in connection with the perfected agreement consequent from your offer of P5.5 Million as the purchase price of the said lots. Please inform us of the date of documentation of the sale immediately. Kindly acknowledge receipt of our payment.

forum shopping justifies the dismissal of both cases, with prejudice." 5 Private respondent, in his memorandum, averred that this motion is still pending in the Makati RTC. In their Petition6 and Memorandum7, petitioners summarized their position as follows: I.

(9) The foregoing letter drew no response for more than four months. Then, on May 3, 1988, plaintiff, through counsel, made a final demand for compliance by the bank with its obligations under the considered perfected contract of sale (Exhibit "N"). As recounted by the trial court (Original Record, p. 656), in a reply letter dated May 12, 1988 (Annex "4" of defendant's answer to amended complaint), the defendants through Acting Conservator Encarnacion repudiated the authority of defendant Rivera and claimed that his dealings with the plaintiffs, particularly his counter-offer of P5.5 Million are unauthorized or illegal. On that basis, the defendants justified the refusal of the tenders of payment and the non-compliance with the obligations under what the plaintiffs considered to be a perfected contract of sale. (10) On May 16, 1988, plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance with damages against the bank, its Manager Rivers and Acting Conservator Encarnacion. The basis of the suit was that the transaction had with the bank resulted in a perfected contract of sale, The defendants took the position that there was no such perfected sale because the defendant Rivera is not authorized to sell the property, and that there was no meeting of the minds as to the price. On March 14, 1991, Henry L. Co (the brother of Luis Co), through counsel Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan, filed a motion to intervene in the trial court, alleging that as owner of 80% of the Bank's outstanding shares of stock, he had a substantial interest in resisting the complaint. On July 8, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to intervene on the ground that it was filed after trial had already been concluded. It also denied a motion for reconsideration filed thereafter. From the trial court's decision, the Bank, petitioner Rivera and conservator Encarnacion appealed to the Court of Appeals which subsequently affirmed with modification the said judgment. Henry Co did not appeal the denial of his motion for intervention. In the course of the proceedings in the respondent Court, Carlos Ejercito was substituted in place of Demetria and Janolo, in view of the assignment of the latters' rights in the matter in litigation to said private respondent. On July 11, 1992, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals, Henry Co and several other stockholders of the Bank, through counsel Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz, filed an action (hereafter, the "Second Case") purportedly a "derivative suit" with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, docketed as Civil Case No. 921606, against Encarnacion, Demetria and Janolo "to declare any perfected sale of the property as unenforceable and to stop Ejercito from enforcing or implementing the sale" 4 In his answer, Janolo argued that the Second Case was barred by litis pendentia by virtue of the case then pending in the Court of Appeals. During the pre-trial conference in the Second Case, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Dismiss the Case Without Prejudice. "Private respondent opposed this motion on the ground, among others, that plaintiff's act of

The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that a contract of sale was perfected between Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) and the bank. II. The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the existence of an enforceable contract of sale between the parties. III. The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the conservator does not have the power to overrule or revoke acts of previous management. IV. The findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals do not conform to the evidence on record. On the other hand, petitioners prayed for dismissal of the instant suit on the ground 8 that: I. Petitioners have engaged in forum shopping. II. The factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are supported by the evidence on record and may no longer be questioned in this case. III. The Court of Appeals correctly held that there was a perfected contract between Demetria and Janolo (substituted by; respondent Ejercito) and the bank. IV.

The Court of Appeals has correctly held that the conservator, apart from being estopped from repudiating the agency and the contract, has no authority to revoke the contract of sale. The Issues From the foregoing positions of the parties, the issues in this case may be summed up as follows: 1) Was there forum-shopping on the part of petitioner Bank? 2) Was there a perfected contract of sale between the parties? 3) Assuming there was, was the said contract enforceable under the statute of frauds? 4) Did the bank conservator have the unilateral power to repudiate the authority of the bank officers and/or to revoke the said contract? 5) Did the respondent Court commit any reversible error in its findings of facts? The First Issue: Was There Forum-Shopping? In order to prevent the vexations of multiple petitions and actions, the Supreme Court promulgated Revised Circular No. 28-91 requiring that a party "must certify under oath . . . [that] (a) he has not (t)heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending" in said courts or agencies. A violation of the said circular entails sanctions that include the summary dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints. To be sure, petitioners have included a VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION in their Petition stating "for the record(,) the pendency of Civil Case No. 92-1606 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, involving a derivative suit filed by stockholders of petitioner Bank against the conservator and other defendants but which is the subject of a pending Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. 9 Private respondent Ejercito vigorously argues that in spite of this verification, petitioners are guilty of actual forum shopping because the instant petition pending before this Court involves "identical parties or interests represented, rights asserted and reliefs sought (as that) currently pending before the Regional Trial Court, Makati Branch 134 in the Second Case. In fact, the issues in the two cases are so interwined that a judgement or resolution in either case will constitute res judicata in the other." 10 On the other hand, petitioners explain 11 that there is no forum-shopping because: 1) In the earlier or "First Case" from which this proceeding arose, the Bank was impleaded as a defendant, whereas in the "Second Case" (assuming the Bank is the real party in interest in a derivative suit), it was plaintiff;

2) "The derivative suit is not properly a suit for and in behalf of the corporation under the circumstances"; 3) Although the CERTIFICATION/VERIFICATION (supra) signed by the Bank president and attached to the Petition identifies the action as a "derivative suit," it "does not mean that it is one" and "(t)hat is a legal question for the courts to decide"; 4) Petitioners did not hide the Second Case at they mentioned it in the said VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION. We rule for private respondent. To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law.12, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. In this light, Black's Law Dictionary 13 says that forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." Hence, according to Words and Phrases14, "a litigant is open to the charge of "forum shopping" whenever he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expenses and vexatious situations on the courts". In the Philippines, forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues, as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws, but also to a choice of remedies. As to the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4, Sec, 2 [b]). As to remedies, aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal, arising from the same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal each remedy being available independently of the others although he cannot recover more than once. In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy), the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action, This was the original concept of the term forum shopping. Eventually, however, instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions, litigants, through the encouragement of their lawyers, file their actions in all available courts, or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. This practice had not only resulted to (sic) conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to an orderly administration of justice. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the parties to the action.

Thus, "forum shopping" had acquired a different concept which is unethical professional legal practice. And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice. 15 What therefore originally started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and mis-used to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs. To avoid or minimize this unethical practice of subverting justice, the Supreme Court, as already mentioned, promulgated Circular 28-91. And even before that, the Court had prescribed it in the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued on January 11, 1983 and had struck down in several cases 16 the inveterate use of this insidious malpractice. Forum shopping as "the filing of repetitious suits in different courts" has been condemned by Justice Andres R. Narvasa (now Chief Justice) in Minister of Natural Resources, et al., vs. Heirs of Orval Hughes, et al., "as a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and proceedings . . ." 17 when does forum shopping take place? There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction.18 The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid dawn in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez 19, also by Chief Justice Narvasa, and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, as follows: There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No. 86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant. xxx xxx xxx

86-36563 promulgated on July 15, 1986, which dismissed the petition upon grounds which appear persuasive. Consequently, where a litigant (or one representing the same interest or person) sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendencia in one case is bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. In either case, forum shopping could be cited by the other party as a ground to ask for summary dismissal of the two 20 (or more) complaints or petitions, and for imposition of the other sanctions, which are direct contempt of court, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. Applying the foregoing principles in the case before us and comparing it with the Second Case, it is obvious that there exist identity of parties or interests represented, identity of rights or causes and identity of reliefs sought. Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave rise to the instant petition was filed by the buyer (herein private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest) against the seller (herein petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand, the complaint 21 in the Second Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the same real property "as unenforceable as against the Bank", which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent. In Danville Maritime, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit. 22, this Court ruled that the filing by a party of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective, constituted forum shopping: In the attempt to make the two actions appear to be different, petitioner impleaded different respondents therein PNOC in the case before the lower court and the COA in the case before this Court and sought what seems to be different reliefs. Petitioner asks this Court to set aside the questioned letter-directive of the COA dated October 10, 1988 and to direct said body to approve the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between the PNOC and petitioner, while in the complaint before the lower court petitioner seeks to enjoin the PNOC from conducting a rebidding and from selling to other parties the vessel "T/T Andres Bonifacio", and for an extension of time for it to comply with the paragraph 1 of the memorandum of agreement and damages. One can see that although the relief prayed for in the two (2) actions are ostensibly different, the ultimate objective in both actions is the same, that is, approval of the sale of vessel in favor of petitioner and to overturn the letter-directive of the COA of October 10, 1988 disapproving the sale. (emphasis supplied). In an earlier case 23 but with the same logic and vigor, we held: In other words, the filing by the petitioners of the instant special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in this Court despite the pendency of their action in the Makati Regional Trial Court, is a species of forumshopping. Both actions unquestionably involve the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances. The petitioners' claim of absence of identity simply because the PCGG had not been impleaded

As already observed, there is between the action at bar and RTC Case No. 86-36563, an identity as regards parties, or interests represented, rights asserted and relief sought, as well as basis thereof, to a degree sufficient to give rise to the ground for dismissal known as auter action pendant or lis pendens. That same identity puts into operation the sanction of twin dismissals just mentioned. The application of this sanction will prevent any further delay in the settlement of the controversy which might ensue from attempts to seek reconsideration of or to appeal from the Order of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No.

in the RTC suit, and the suit did not involve certain acts which transpired after its commencement, is specious. In the RTC action, as in the action before this Court, the validity of the contract to purchase and sell of September 1, 1986, i.e., whether or not it had been efficaciously rescinded, and the propriety of implementing the same (by paying the pledgee banks the amount of their loans, obtaining the release of the pledged shares, etc.) were the basic issues. So, too, the relief was the same: the prevention of such implementation and/or the restoration of the status quo ante. When the acts sought to be restrained took place anyway despite the issuance by the Trial Court of a temporary restraining order, the RTC suit did not become functus oficio. It remained an effective vehicle for obtention of relief; and petitioners' remedy in the premises was plain and patent: the filing of an amended and supplemental pleading in the RTC suit, so as to include the PCGG as defendant and seek nullification of the acts sought to be enjoined but nonetheless done. The remedy was certainly not the institution of another action in another forum based on essentially the same facts, The adoption of this latter recourse renders the petitioners amenable to disciplinary action and both their actions, in this Court as well as in the Court a quo, dismissible. In the instant case before us, there is also identity of parties, or at least, of interests represented. Although the plaintiffs in the Second Case (Henry L. Co. et al.) are not name parties in the First Case, they represent the same interest and entity, namely, petitioner Bank, because: Firstly, they are not suing in their personal capacities, for they have no direct personal interest in the matter in controversy. They are not principally or even subsidiarily liable; much less are they direct parties in the assailed contract of sale; and Secondly, the allegations of the complaint in the Second Case show that the stockholders are bringing a "derivative suit". In the caption itself, petitioners claim to have brought suit "for and in behalf of the Producers Bank of the Philippines" 24. Indeed, this is the very essence of a derivative suit: An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holdsstock in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the corporation as the real party in interest. (Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40, 47 [1979]; emphasis supplied). In the face of the damaging admissions taken from the complaint in the Second Case, petitioners, quite strangely, sought to deny that the Second Case was a derivative suit, reasoning that it was brought, not by the minority shareholders, but by Henry Co et al., who not only own, hold or control over 80% of the outstanding capital stock, but also constitute the majority in the Board of Directors of petitioner Bank. That being so, then they really represent the Bank. So, whether they sued "derivatively" or directly, there is undeniably an identity of interests/entity represented. Petitioner also tried to seek refuge in the corporate fiction that the personality Of the Bank is separate and distinct from its shareholders. But the rulings of this Court are consistent: "When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle

for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals." 25 In addition to the many cases 26 where the corporate fiction has been disregarded, we now add the instant case, and declare herewith that the corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as the majority in direct actions or as the minority in a derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court processes, particularly where, as in this case, the corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and applying remedies available to it. To rule otherwise would be to encourage corporate litigants to use their shareholders as fronts to circumvent the stringent rules against forum shopping. Finally, petitioner Bank argued that there cannot be any forum shopping, even assuming arguendo that there is identity of parties, causes of action and reliefs sought, "because it (the Bank) was the defendant in the (first) case while it was the plaintiff in the other (Second Case)",citing as authority Victronics Computers, Inc., vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, etc. et al., 27 where Court held: The rule has not been extended to a defendant who, for reasons known only to him, commences a new action against the plaintiff instead of filing a responsive pleading in the other case setting forth therein, as causes of action, specific denials, special and affirmative defenses or even counterclaims, Thus, Velhagen's and King's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 91-2069 by no means negates the charge of forum-shopping as such did not exist in the first place. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner pointed out that since it was merely the defendant in the original case, it could not have chosen the forum in said case. Respondent, on the other hand, replied that there is a difference in factual setting between Victronics and the present suit. In the former, as underscored in the above-quoted Court ruling, the defendants did not file any responsive pleading in the first case. In other words, they did not make any denial or raise any defense or counter-claim therein In the case before us however, petitioners filed a responsive pleading to the complaint as a result of which, the issues were joined. Indeed, by praying for affirmative reliefs and interposing counterclaims in their responsive pleadings, the petitioners became plaintiffs themselves in the original case, giving unto themselves the very remedies they repeated in the Second Case. Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. In this case, this is exactly the problem: a decision recognizing the perfection and directing the enforcement of the contract of sale will directly conflict with a possible decision in the Second Case barring the parties front enforcing or implementing the said sale. Indeed, a final decision in one would constitute res judicata in the other 28.

The foregoing conclusion finding the existence of forum-shopping notwithstanding, the only sanction possible now is the dismissal of both cases with prejudice, as the other sanctions cannot be imposed because petitioners' present counsel entered their appearance only during the proceedings in this Court, and the Petition's VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION contained sufficient allegations as to the pendency of the Second Case to show good faith in observing Circular 28-91. The Lawyers who filed the Second Case are not before us; thus the rudiments of due process prevent us from motu propio imposing disciplinary measures against them in this Decision. However, petitioners themselves (and particularly Henry Co, et al.) as litigants are admonished to strictly follow the rules against forum-shopping and not to trifle with court proceedings and processes They are warned that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Having said that, let it be emphasized that this petition should be dismissed not merely because of forum-shopping but also because of the substantive issues raised, as will be discussed shortly. The Second Issue: Was The Contract Perfected? The respondent Court correctly treated the question of whether or not there was, on the basis of the facts established, a perfected contract of sale as the ultimate issue. Holding that a valid contract has been established, respondent Court stated: There is no dispute that the object of the transaction is that property owned by the defendant bank as acquired assets consisting of six (6) parcels of land specifically identified under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. It is likewise beyond cavil that the bank intended to sell the property. As testified to by the Bank's Deputy Conservator, Jose Entereso, the bank was looking for buyers of the property. It is definite that the plaintiffs wanted to purchase the property and it was precisely for this purpose that they met with defendant Rivera, Manager of the Property Management Department of the defendant bank, in early August 1987. The procedure in the sale of acquired assets as well as the nature and scope of the authority of Rivera on the matter is clearly delineated in the testimony of Rivera himself, which testimony was relied upon by both the bank and by Rivera in their appeal briefs. Thus (TSN of July 30, 1990. pp. 19-20): A: The procedure runs this way: Acquired assets was turned over to me and then I published it in the form of an inter-office memorandum distributed to all branches that these are acquired assets for sale. I was instructed to advertise acquired assets for sale so on that basis, I have to entertain offer; to accept offer, formal offer and upon having been offered, I present it to the Committee. I provide the Committee with necessary information about the property such as original loan of the borrower, bid price during the foreclosure, total claim of the bank, the appraised value at the time the property is being offered for sale and then the information which are relative to the evaluation of the bank to buy which the Committee considers and it is the Committee that evaluate as against the exposure of the bank and it is also the Committee that submit to the Conservator for final approval and once approved, we have to execute the deed of sale and it is the Conservator that sign the deed of sale, sir.

The plaintiffs, therefore, at that meeting of August 1987 regarding their purpose of buying the property, dealt with and talked to the right person. Necessarily, the agenda was the price of the property, and plaintiffs were dealing with the bank official authorized to entertain offers, to accept offers and to present the offer to the Committee before which the said official is authorized to discuss information relative to price determination. Necessarily, too, it being inherent in his authority, Rivera is the officer from whom official information regarding the price, as determined by the Committee and approved by the Conservator, can be had. And Rivera confirmed his authority when he talked with the plaintiff in August 1987. The testimony of plaintiff Demetria is clear on this point (TSN of May 31,1990, pp. 27-28): Q: When you went to the Producers Bank and talked with Mr. Mercurio Rivera, did you ask him point-blank his authority to sell any property? A: No, sir. Not point blank although it came from him, (W)hen I asked him how long it would take because he was saying that the matter of pricing will be passed upon by the committee. And when I asked him how long it will take for the committee to decide and he said the committee meets every week. If I am not mistaken Wednesday and in about two week's (sic) time, in effect what he was saying he was not the one who was to decide. But he would refer it to the committee and he would relay the decision of the committee to me. Q Please answer the question. A He did not say that he had the authority (.) But he said he would refer the matter to the committee and he would relay the decision to me and he did just like that. "Parenthetically, the Committee referred to was the Past Due Committee of which Luis Co was the Head, with Jose Entereso as one of the members. What transpired after the meeting of early August 1987 are consistent with the authority and the duties of Rivera and the bank's internal procedure in the matter of the sale of bank's assets. As advised by Rivera, the plaintiffs made a formal offer by a letter dated August 20, 1987 stating that they would buy at the price of P3.5 Million in cash. The letter was for the attention of Mercurio Rivera who was tasked to convey and accept such offers. Considering an aspect of the official duty of Rivera as some sort of intermediary between the plaintiffs-buyers with their proposed buying price on one hand, and the bank Committee, the Conservator and ultimately the bank itself with the set price on the other, and considering further the discussion of price at the meeting of August resulting in a formal offer of P3.5 Million in cash, there can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1, 1987, Rivera informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis," such counter-offer price had been determined by the Past Due Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented plaintiffs' offer for

discussion by the Committee of such matters as original loan of borrower, bid price during foreclosure, total claim of the bank, and market value. Tersely put, under the established facts, the price of P5.5 Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"), the official and definitive price at which the bank was selling the property. There were averments by defendants below, as well as before this Court, that the P5.5 Million price was not discussed by the Committee and that price. As correctly characterized by the trial court, this is not credible. The testimonies of Luis Co and Jose Entereso on this point are at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and self-serving character of these declarations, the bank's submission on this point does not inspire belief. Both Co ad Entereso, as members of the Past Due Committee of the bank, claim that the offer of the plaintiff was never discussed by the Committee. In the same vein, both Co and Entereso openly admit that they seldom attend the meetings of the Committee. It is important to note that negotiations on the price had started in early August and the plaintiffs had already offered an amount as purchase price, having been made to understand by Rivera, the official in charge of the negotiation, that the price will be submitted for approval by the bank and that the bank's decision will be relayed to plaintiffs. From the facts, the official bank price. At any rate, the bank placed its official, Rivera, in a position of authority to accept offers to buy and negotiate the sale by having the offer officially acted upon by the bank. The bank cannot turn around and later say, as it now does, that what Rivera states as the bank's action on the matter is not in fact so. It is a familiar doctrine, the doctrine of ostensible authority, that if a corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such agent, he estopped from denying his authority (Francisco v. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577, 583-584; PNB v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 369-370; Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103957, June 14, 1993). 29 Article 1318 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid and perfected contract as follows: "(1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established." There is no dispute on requisite no. 2. The object of the questioned contract consists of the six (6) parcels of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an aggregate area of about 101 hectares, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. There is, however, a dispute on the first and third requisites. Petitioners allege that "there is no counter-offer made by the Bank, and any supposed counter-offer which Rivera (or Co) may have made is unauthorized. Since there was no counter-offer by the Bank, there was nothing for Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) to accept." 30 They disputed the factual basis of the respondent Court's findings that there was an offer made by Janolo for P3.5 million, to which the Bank counter-offered P5.5 million. We have perused the evidence but cannot find fault with the said Court's findings of fact. Verily, in a petition under Rule 45 such as this, errors of fact if there be any - are, as a rule, not reviewable. The mere fact that respondent Court (and the trial court as well) chose to believe the evidence presented by respondent more than that presented by petitioners is not by itself a reversible error. In fact, such findings merit serious consideration by this Court,

particularly where, as in this case, said courts carefully and meticulously discussed their findings. This is basic. Be that as it may, and in addition to the foregoing disquisitions by the Court of Appeals, let us review the question of Rivera's authority to act and petitioner's allegations that the P5.5 million counter-offer was extinguished by the P4.25 million revised offer of Janolo. Here, there are questions of law which could be drawn from the factual findings of the respondent Court. They also delve into the contractual elements of consent and cause. The authority of a corporate officer in dealing with third persons may be actual or apparent. The doctrine of "apparent authority", with special reference to banks, was laid out in Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals31, where it was held that: Conformably, we have declared in countless decisions that the principal is liable for obligations contracted by the agent. The agent's apparent representation yields to the principal's true representation and the contract is considered as entered into between the principal and the third person (citing National Food Authority vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 184 SCRA 166). A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the bank or in the course of dealings of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts outside the scape of their authority (9 C.J.S., p. 417). A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114). Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his own ultimate benefit (McIntosh v. Dakota Trust Co., 52 ND 752, 204 NW 818, 40 ALR 1021). Application of these principles is especially necessary because banks have a fiduciary relationship with the public and their stability depends on the confidence of the people in their honesty and efficiency. Such faith will be eroded where banks do not exercise strict care in the selection and supervision of its employees, resulting in prejudice to their depositors. From the evidence found by respondent Court, it is obvious that petitioner Rivera has apparent or implied authority to act for the Bank in the matter of selling its acquired assets. This evidence includes the following: (a) The petition itself in par. II-i (p. 3) states that Rivera was "at all times material to this case, Manager of the Property Management Department of the Bank". By his own admission, Rivera was already the person in charge of the Bank's acquired assets (TSN, August 6, 1990, pp. 8-9);

(b) As observed by respondent Court, the land was definitely being sold by the Bank. And during the initial meeting between the buyers and Rivera, the latter suggested that the buyers' offer should be no less than P3.3 million (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 16-17); (c) Rivera received the buyers' letter dated August 30, 1987 offering P3.5 million (TSN, 30 July 1990, p.11); (d) Rivera signed the letter dated September 1, 1987 offering to sell the property for P5.5 million (TSN, July 30, p. 11); (e) Rivera received the letter dated September 17, 1987 containing the buyers' proposal to buy the property for P4.25 million (TSN, July 30, 1990, p. 12); (f) Rivera, in a telephone conversation, confirmed that the P5.5 million was the final price of the Bank (TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 18); (g) Rivera arranged the meeting between the buyers and Luis Co on September 28, 1994, during which the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was confirmed by Rivera (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 34-35). At said meeting, Co, a major shareholder and officer of the Bank, confirmed Rivera's statement as to the finality of the Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million (TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 21; TSN, April 26, 1990, p. 35); (h) In its newspaper advertisements and announcements, the Bank referred to Rivera as the officer acting for the Bank in relation to parties interested in buying assets owned/acquired by the Bank. In fact, Rivera was the officer mentioned in the Bank's advertisements offering for sale the property in question (cf. Exhs. "S" and "S-1"). In the very recent case of Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. , the Court, through Justice Jose A. R. Melo, affirmed the doctrine of apparent authority as it held that the apparent authority of the officer of the Bank of P.I. in charge of acquired assets is borne out by similar circumstances surrounding his dealings with buyers. To be sure, petitioners attempted to repudiate Rivera's apparent authority through documents and testimony which seek to establish Rivera's actual authority. These pieces of evidence, however, are inherently weak as they consist of Rivera's self-serving testimony and various inter-office memoranda that purport to show his limited actual authority, of which private respondent cannot be charged with knowledge. In any event, since the issue is apparent authority, the existence of which is borne out by the respondent Court's findings, the evidence of actual authority is immaterial insofar as the liability of a corporation is concerned 33. Petitioners also argued that since Demetria and Janolo were experienced lawyers and their "law firm" had once acted for the Bank in three criminal cases, they should be charged with actual knowledge of Rivera's limited authority. But the Court of Appeals in its Decision (p. 12) had already made a factual finding that the buyers had no notice of Rivera's actual authority prior to the sale. In fact, the Bank has not shown that they acted as its counsel in respect to any acquired assets; on the other hand, respondent has proven that Demetria and Janolo merely associated with a loose aggrupation of lawyers (not a professional partnership), one of whose members (Atty. Susana Parker) acted in said criminal cases.
32

Petitioners also alleged that Demetria's and Janolo's P4.25 million counter-offer in the letter dated September 17, 1987 extinguished the Bank's offer of P5.5 million 34 .They disputed the respondent Court's finding that "there was a meeting of minds when on 30 September 1987 Demetria and Janolo through Annex "L" (letter dated September 30, 1987) "accepted" Rivera's counter offer of P5.5 million under Annex "J" (letter dated September 17, 1987)", citing the late Justice Paras35, Art. 1319 of the Civil Code 36 and related Supreme Court rulings starting with Beaumont vs. Prieto 37. However, the above-cited authorities and precedents cannot apply in the instant case because, as found by the respondent Court which reviewed the testimonies on this point, what was "accepted" by Janolo in his letter dated September 30, 1987 was the Bank's offer of P5.5 million as confirmed and reiterated to Demetria and Atty. Jose Fajardo by Rivera and Co during their meeting on September 28, 1987. Note that the said letter of September 30, 1987 begins with"(p)ursuant to our discussion last 28 September 1987 . . . Petitioners insist that the respondent Court should have believed the testimonies of Rivera and Co that the September 28, 1987 meeting "was meant to have the offerors improve on their position of P5.5. million."38 However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found petitioners' testimonial evidence "not credible", and we find no basis for changing this finding of fact. Indeed, we see no reason to disturb the lower courts' (both the RTC and the CA) common finding that private respondents' evidence is more in keeping with truth and logic that during the meeting on September 28, 1987, Luis Co and Rivera "confirmed that the P5.5 million price has been passed upon by the Committee and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35)"39. Hence, assuming arguendo that the counter-offer of P4.25 million extinguished the offer of P5.5 million, Luis Co's reiteration of the said P5.5 million price during the September 28, 1987 meeting revived the said offer. And by virtue of the September 30, 1987 letter accepting this revived offer, there was a meeting of the minds, as the acceptance in said letter was absolute and unqualified. We note that the Bank's repudiation, through Conservator Encarnacion, of Rivera's authority and action, particularly the latter's counter-offer of P5.5 million, as being "unauthorized and illegal" came only on May 12, 1988 or more than seven (7) months after Janolo' acceptance. Such delay, and the absence of any circumstance which might have justifiably prevented the Bank from acting earlier, clearly characterizes the repudiation as nothing more than a lastminute attempt on the Bank's part to get out of a binding contractual obligation. Taken together, the factual findings of the respondent Court point to an implied admission on the part of the petitioners that the written offer made on September 1, 1987 was carried through during the meeting of September 28, 1987. This is the conclusion consistent with human experience, truth and good faith. It also bears noting that this issue of extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was raised for the first time on appeal and should thus be disregarded. This Court in several decisions has repeatedly adhered to the principle that points of law, theories, issues of fact and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (Santos vs. IAC, No. 74243, November 14, 1986, 145 SCRA 592).40

. . . It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process (Dihiansan vs. CA, 153 SCRA 713 [1987]; Anchuelo vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 434 [1987]; Dulos Realty & Development Corp. vs. CA, 157 SCRA 425 [1988]; Ramos vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 70 [1989]; Gevero vs. IAC, G.R. 77029, August 30, 1990).41 Since the issue was not raised in the pleadings as an affirmative defense, private respondent was not given an opportunity in the trial court to controvert the same through opposing evidence. Indeed, this is a matter of due process. But we passed upon the issue anyway, if only to avoid deciding the case on purely procedural grounds, and we repeat that, on the basis of the evidence already in the record and as appreciated by the lower courts, the inevitable conclusion is simply that there was a perfected contract of sale. The Third Issue: Is the Contract Enforceable? The petition alleged42: Even assuming that Luis Co or Rivera did relay a verbal offer to sell at P5.5 million during the meeting of 28 September 1987, and it was this verbal offer that Demetria and Janolo accepted with their letter of 30 September 1987, the contract produced thereby would be unenforceable by action there being no note, memorandum or writing subscribed by the Bank to evidence such contract. (Please see article 1403[2], Civil Code.) Upon the other hand, the respondent Court in its Decision (p, 14) stated:

Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of article 1403, are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefits under them. As private respondent pointed out in his Memorandum, oral testimony on the reaffirmation of the counter-offer of P5.5 million is a plenty and the silence of petitioners all throughout the presentation makes the evidence binding on them thus; A Yes, sir, I think it was September 28, 1987 and I was again present because Atty. Demetria told me to accompany him we were able to meet Luis Co at the Bank. xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, what transpired during this meeting with Luis Co of the Producers Bank? A Atty. Demetria asked Mr. Luis Co whether the price could be reduced, sir. Q What price? A The 5.5 million pesos and Mr. Luis Co said that the amount cited by Mr. Mercurio Rivera is the final price and that is the price they intends (sic) to have, sir. Q What do you mean?.

. . . Of course, the bank's letter of September 1, 1987 on the official price and the plaintiffs' acceptance of the price on September 30, 1987, are not, in themselves, formal contracts of sale. They are however clear embodiments of the fact that a contract of sale was perfected between the parties, such contract being binding in whatever form it may have been entered into (case citations omitted). Stated simply, the banks' letter of September 1, 1987, taken together with plaintiffs' letter dated September 30, 1987, constitute in law a sufficient memorandum of a perfected contract of sale. The respondent Court could have added that the written communications commenced not only from September 1, 1987 but from Janolo's August 20, 1987 letter. We agree that, taken together, these letters constitute sufficient memoranda since they include the names of the parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, the price and a description of the property as the object of the contract. But let it be assumed arguendo that the counter-offer during the meeting on September 28, 1987 did constitute a "new" offer which was accepted by Janolo on September 30, 1987. Still, the statute of frauds will not apply by reason of the failure of petitioners to object to oral testimony proving petitioner Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million. Hence, petitioners by such utter failure to object are deemed to have waived any defects of the contract under the statute of frauds, pursuant to Article 1405 of the Civil Code:

A That is the amount they want, sir. Q What is the reaction of the plaintiff Demetria to Luis Co's statement (sic) that the defendant Rivera's counter-offer of 5.5 million was the defendant's bank (sic) final offer? A He said in a day or two, he will make final acceptance, sir. Q What is the response of Mr. Luis Co?. A He said he will wait for the position of Atty. Demetria, sir. [Direct testimony of Atty. Jose Fajardo, TSN, January 16, 1990, at pp. 18-21.] Q What transpired during that meeting between you and Mr. Luis Co of the defendant Bank? A We went straight to the point because he being a busy person, I told him if the amount of P5.5 million could still be reduced and he said that was already passed upon by the committee. What the bank expects

which was contrary to what Mr. Rivera stated. And he told me that is the final offer of the bank P5.5 million and we should indicate our position as soon as possible. Q What was your response to the answer of Mr. Luis Co? A I said that we are going to give him our answer in a few days and he said that was it. Atty. Fajardo and I and Mr. Mercurio [Rivera] was with us at the time at his office. Q For the record, your Honor please, will you tell this Court who was with Mr. Co in his Office in Producers Bank Building during this meeting? A Mr. Co himself, Mr. Rivera, Atty. Fajardo and I. Q By Mr. Co you are referring to? A Mr. Luis Co. Q After this meeting with Mr. Luis Co, did you and your partner accede on (sic) the counter offer by the bank? A Yes, sir, we did.? Two days thereafter we sent our acceptance to the bank which offer we accepted, the offer of the bank which is P5.5 million. [Direct testimony of Atty. Demetria, TSN, 26 April 1990, at pp. 34-36.]

functions is in a state of continuing inability or unwillingness to maintain a state of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest of depositors and creditors, the Monetary Board may appoint a conservator to take charge of the assets, liabilities, and the management of that institution, collect all monies and debts due said institution and exercise all powers necessary to preserve the assets of the institution, reorganize the management thereof, and restore its viability. He shall have the power to overrule or revoke the actions of the previous management and board of directors of the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and such other powers as the Monetary Board shall deem necessary. In the first place, this issue of the Conservator's alleged authority to revoke or repudiate the perfected contract of sale was raised for the first time in this Petition as this was not litigated in the trial court or Court of Appeals. As already stated earlier, issues not raised and/or ventilated in the trial court, let alone in the Court of Appeals, "cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."43 In the second place, there is absolutely no evidence that the Conservator, at the time the contract was perfected, actually repudiated or overruled said contract of sale. The Bank's acting conservator at the time, Rodolfo Romey, never objected to the sale of the property to Demetria and Janolo. What petitioners are really referring to is the letter of Conservator Encarnacion, who took over from Romey after the sale was perfected on September 30, 1987 (Annex V, petition) which unilaterally repudiated not the contract but the authority of Rivera to make a binding offer and which unarguably came months after the perfection of the contract. Said letter dated May 12, 1988 is reproduced hereunder: May 12, 1988

Q According to Atty. Demetrio Demetria, the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the Committee and it is not within his power to reduce this amount. What can you say to that statement that the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the Committee? A It was not discussed by the Committee but it was discussed initially by Luis Co and the group of Atty. Demetrio Demetria and Atty. Pajardo (sic) in that September 28, 1987 meeting, sir. [Direct testimony of Mercurio Rivera, TSN, 30 July 1990, pp. 14-15.] The Fourth Issue: May the Conservator Revoke the Perfected and Enforceable Contract. It is not disputed that the petitioner Bank was under a conservator placed by the Central Bank of the Philippines during the time that the negotiation and perfection of the contract of sale took place. Petitioners energetically contended that the conservator has the power to revoke or overrule actions of the management or the board of directors of a bank, under Section 28A of Republic Act No. 265 (otherwise known as the Central Bank Act) as follows: Whenever, on the basis of a report submitted by the appropriate supervising or examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or a non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking

Atty. Noe C. Zarate Zarate Carandang Perlas & Ass. Suite 323 Rufino Building Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro-Manila Dear Atty. Zarate: This pertains to your letter dated May 5, 1988 on behalf of Attys. Janolo and Demetria regarding the six (6) parcels of land located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna. We deny that Producers Bank has ever made a legal counter-offer to any of your clients nor perfected a "contract to sell and buy" with any of them for the following reasons. In the "Inter-Office Memorandum" dated April 25, 1986 addressed to and approved by former Acting Conservator Mr. Andres I. Rustia, Producers Bank Senior Manager Perfecto M. Pascua detailed the functions of Property Management Department (PMD) staff and officers (Annex A.), you will immediately read that Manager Mr. Mercurio Rivera or any of his subordinates has no authority, power or right to make any alleged

counter-offer. In short, your lawyer-clients did not deal with the authorized officers of the bank. Moreover, under Sec. 23 and 36 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Bates Pambansa Blg. 68.) and Sec. 28-A of the Central Bank Act (Rep. Act No. 265, as amended), only the Board of Directors/Conservator may authorize the sale of any property of the corportion/bank.. Our records do not show that Mr. Rivera was authorized by the old board or by any of the bank conservators (starting January, 1984) to sell the aforesaid property to any of your clients. Apparently, what took place were just preliminary discussions/consultations between him and your clients, which everyone knows cannot bind the Bank's Board or Conservator. We are, therefore, constrained to refuse any tender of payment by your clients, as the same is patently violative of corporate and banking laws. We believe that this is more than sufficient legal justification for refusing said alleged tender. Rest assured that we have nothing personal against your clients. All our acts are official, legal and in accordance with law. We also have no personal interest in any of the properties of the Bank. Please be advised accordingly. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) Leonida T. Encarnacion LEONIDA T. EDCARNACION Acting Conservator In the third place, while admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that such powers must be related to the "(preservation of) the assets of the bank, (the reorganization of) the management thereof and (the restoration of) its viability." Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are, cannot extend to the post-facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution 44. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing valid contract, how can it delegate such non-existent powers to the conservator under Section 28-A of said law? Obviously, therefore, Section 28-A merely gives the conservator power to revoke contracts that are, under existing law, deemed to be defective i.e., void, voidable, unenforceable or rescissible. Hence, the conservator merely takes the place of a bank's board of directors. What the said board cannot do such as repudiating a contract validly entered into under the doctrine of implied authority the conservator cannot do either. Ineluctably, his power is not unilateral and he cannot simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts as he has already done so in the instant case. A contrary understanding of the law would simply not be permitted by the Constitution. Neither by common sense. To rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or another or come to be

considered unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank. The Fifth Issue: Were There Reversible Errors of Facts? Basic is the doctrine that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. In Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation, 45, we held: . . . The rule regarding questions of fact being raised with this Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court has been stated in Remalante vs. Tibe, G.R. No. 59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138, thus: The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of the fact being conclusive " [Chan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of decisions]. This Court has emphatically declared that "it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court" (Tiongco v. De la Merced, G. R. No. L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596). "Barring, therefore, a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties" [Santa Ana, Jr. vs. Hernandez, G. R. No. L-16394, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 973] [at pp. 144-145.] Likewise, in Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals 46, we held: The resolution of this petition invites us to closely scrutinize the facts of the case, relating to the sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses presented. This Court so held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. . . . As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of Appeals and Goldrock Construction and Development Corp. 47: The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; when the findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. After a careful study of the case at bench, we find none of the above grounds present to justify the re-evaluation of the findings of fact made by the courts below. In the same vein, the ruling of this Court in the recent case of South Sea Surety and Insurance Company Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 48 is equally applicable to the present case: We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court, . . . (I)t is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties, particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide. (emphasis supplied) Petitioners, however, assailed the respondent Court's Decision as "fraught with findings and conclusions which were not only contrary to the evidence on record but have no bases at all," specifically the findings that (1) the "Bank's counter-offer price of P5.5 million had been determined by the past due committee and approved by conservator Romey, after Rivera presented the same for discussion" and (2) "the meeting with Co was not to scale down the price and start negotiations anew, but a meeting on the already determined price of P5.5 million" Hence, citing Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals 49, petitioners are asking us to review and reverse such factual findings. The first point was clearly passed upon by the Court of Appeals 50, thus: There can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1, 1987, Rivera informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis, "such counteroffer price had been determined by the Past Due Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented plaintiffs' offer for discussion by the Committee . . . Tersely put, under the established fact, the price of P5.5 Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"), the official and definitive price at which the bank was selling the property. (p. 11, CA Decision) xxx xxx xxx

self-serving character of these declarations, the bank's submissions on this point do not inspire belief." To become credible and unequivocal, petitioners should have presented then Conservator Rodolfo Romey to testify on their behalf, as he would have been in the best position to establish their thesis. Under the rules on evidence 51, such suppression gives rise to the presumption that his testimony would have been adverse, if produced. The second point was squarely raised in the Court of Appeals, but petitioners' evidence was deemed insufficient by both the trial court and the respondent Court, and instead, it was respondent's submissions that were believed and became bases of the conclusions arrived at. In fine, it is quite evident that the legal conclusions arrived at from the findings of fact by the lower courts are valid and correct. But the petitioners are now asking this Court to disturb these findings to fit the conclusion they are espousing, This we cannot do. To be sure, there are settled exceptions where the Supreme Court may disregard findings of fact by the Court of Appeals 52. We have studied both the records and the CA Decision and we find no such exceptions in this case. On the contrary, the findings of the said Court are supported by a preponderance of competent and credible evidence. The inferences and conclusions are seasonably based on evidence duly identified in the Decision. Indeed, the appellate court patiently traversed and dissected the issues presented before it, lending credibility and dependability to its findings. The best that can be said in favor of petitioners on this point is that the factual findings of respondent Court did not correspond to petitioners' claims, but were closer to the evidence as presented in the trial court by private respondent. But this alone is no reason to reverse or ignore such factual findings, particularly where, as in this case, the trial court and the appellate court were in common agreement thereon. Indeed, conclusions of fact of a trial judge as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court, absent any serious abuse or evident lack of basis or capriciousness of any kind, because the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and their courtroom manner as well as to examine the real evidence presented. Epilogue. In summary, there are two procedural issues involved forum-shopping and the raising of issues for the first time on appeal [viz., the extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million and the conservator's powers to repudiate contracts entered into by the Bank's officers] which per se could justify the dismissal of the present case. We did not limit ourselves thereto, but delved as well into the substantive issues the perfection of the contract of sale and its enforceability, which required the determination of questions of fact. While the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and as a rule we are not required to look into the factual bases of respondent Court's decisions and resolutions, we did so just the same, if only to find out whether there is reason to disturb any of its factual findings, for we are only too aware of the depth, magnitude and vigor by which the parties through their respective eloquent counsel, argued their positions before this Court. We are not unmindful of the tenacious plea that the petitioner Bank is operating abnormally under a government-appointed conservator and "there is need to rehabilitate the Bank in order to get it back on its feet . . . as many people depend on (it) for investments, deposits and well as employment. As of June 1987, the Bank's overdraft with the Central Bank had already reached P1.023 billion . . . and there were (other) offers to buy the subject properties for a substantial amount of money." 53

. . . The argument deserves scant consideration. As pointed out by plaintiff, during the meeting of September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs, Rivera and Luis Co, the senior vice-president of the bank, where the topic was the possible lowering of the price, the bank official refused it and confirmed that the P5.5 Million price had been passed upon by the Committee and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35) (p. 15, CA Decision). The respondent Court did not believe the evidence of the petitioners on this point, characterizing it as "not credible" and "at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and

While we do not deny our sympathy for this distressed bank, at the same time, the Court cannot emotionally close its eyes to overriding considerations of substantive and procedural law, like respect for perfected contracts, non-impairment of obligations and sanctions against forum-shopping, which must be upheld under the rule of law and blind justice. This Court cannot just gloss over private respondent's submission that, while the subject properties may currently command a much higher price, it is equally true that at the time of the transaction in 1987, the price agreed upon of P5.5 million was reasonable, considering that the Bank acquired these properties at a foreclosure sale for no more than P3.5 million 54. That the Bank procrastinated and refused to honor its commitment to sell cannot now be used by it to promote its own advantage, to enable it to escape its binding obligation and to reap the benefits of the increase in land values. To rule in favor of the Bank simply because the property in question has algebraically accelerated in price during the long period of litigation is to reward lawlessness and delays in the fulfillment of binding contracts. Certainly, the Court cannot stamp its imprimatur on such outrageous proposition. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned Decision and Resolution, the Court hereby DENIES the petition. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Moreover, petitioner Bank is REPRIMANDED for engaging in forum-shopping and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 147246 August 19, 2003

On September 14, 1990, a bidding was conducted to dispose of the damaged wheat retrieved and loaded on the three other barges.13 The total proceeds from the sale of the salvaged cargo was P201,379.75.14 On the same date, September 14, 1990, consignee sent a claim letter to the petitioner, and another letter dated September 18, 1990 to the private respondent for the value of the lost cargo. On January 30, 1991, the private respondent indemnified the consignee in the amount of P4,104,654.22.15 Thereafter, as subrogee, it sought recovery of said amount from the petitioner, but to no avail. On July 3, 1991, the private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of indemnity, attorney's fees and cost of suit.16 Petitioner filed its answer with counterclaim.17 The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent. The dispositive portion of its Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. liable to pay plaintiff Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc. the sum of P4,104,654.22 with interest from the date complaint was filed on July 3, 1991 until fully satisfied plus 10% of the amount awarded as and for attorney's fees. Defendant's counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED. With costs against defendant.18 Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals insisting that it is not a common carrier. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification. The dispositive portion of its decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the salvage value of P201,379.75 shall be deducted from the amount of P4,104,654.22. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated June 3, 2000 was likewise denied by the appellate court in a Resolution promulgated on February 21, 2001. Hence, this petition. Petitioner submits the following errors allegedly committed by the appellate court, viz:19 (1) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER IS A COMMON CARRIER. (2) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LOWER COURT A QUO THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL

ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., respondents. PUNO, J.: On appeal is the Court of Appeals' May 11, 2000 Decision1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49195 and February 21, 2001 Resolution2 affirming with modification the April 6, 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which found petitioner liable to pay private respondent the amount of indemnity and attorney's fees. First, the facts. On June 13, 1990, 3,150 metric tons of Better Western White Wheat in bulk, valued at US$423,192.354 was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation of Portland, Oregon on board the vessel M/V NEO CYMBIDIUM V-26 for delivery to the consignee, General Milling Corporation in Manila, evidenced by Bill of Lading No. PTD/Man-4.5 The shipment was insured by the private respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. against loss or damage for P14,621,771.75 under Marine Cargo Risk Note RN 11859/90.6 On July 25, 1990, the carrying vessel arrived in Manila and the cargo was transferred to the custody of the petitioner Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. The petitioner was contracted by the consignee as carrier to deliver the cargo to consignee's warehouse at Bo. Ugong, Pasig City. On August 15, 1990, 900 metric tons of the shipment was loaded on barge PSTSI III, evidenced by Lighterage Receipt No. 03647 for delivery to consignee. The cargo did not reach its destination. It appears that on August 17, 1990, the transport of said cargo was suspended due to a warning of an incoming typhoon. On August 22, 1990, the petitioner proceeded to pull the barge to Engineering Island off Baseco to seek shelter from the approaching typhoon. PSTSI III was tied down to other barges which arrived ahead of it while weathering out the storm that night. A few days after, the barge developed a list because of a hole it sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance underneath the water. The petitioner filed a Marine Protest on August 28, 1990.8 It likewise secured the services of Gaspar Salvaging Corporation which refloated the barge.9 The hole was then patched with clay and cement. The barge was then towed to ISLOFF terminal before it finally headed towards the consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990. Upon reaching the Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran aground due to strong current. To avoid the complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the goods was transferred to three other barges.10 The next day, September 6, 1990, the towing bits of the barge broke. It sank completely, resulting in the total loss of the remaining cargo.11 A second Marine Protest was filed on September 7, 1990.12

CODE APPLICABLE TO COMMON CARRIERS, "THE LOSS OF THE CARGO IS, THEREFORE, BORNE BY THE CARRIER IN ALL CASES EXCEPT IN THE FIVE (5) CASES ENUMERATED." (3) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE AND/OR WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE CONSIGNEE'S CARGO. The issues to be resolved are: (1) Whether the petitioner is a common carrier; and, (2) Assuming the petitioner is a common carrier, whether it exercised extraordinary diligence in its care and custody of the consignee's cargo. On the first issue, we rule that petitioner is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as 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. Petitioner contends that it is not a common carrier but a private carrier. Allegedly, it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not bound to carry goods unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the general public. 20 We disagree. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals,21 we held that the definition of common carriers in Article 1732 of the 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. We also did not distinguish 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. Further, we ruled that Article 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general public, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage 22 and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier. In De Guzman, supra,23 we considered private respondent Ernesto Cendaa to be a common carrier even if his principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others, but that of buying used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan and selling these items in Manila. We therefore hold that petitioner is a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.

To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down in Bascos vs. Court of Appeals.24 The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted." 25 In the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the business of shipping and lighterage, 26 offering its barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation.27 On the second issue, we uphold the findings of the lower courts that petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in its care and custody of the consignee's goods. Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them.28 They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.29 To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach: Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (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 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. In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing bits broke, resulting in the total loss of its cargo. Petitioner claims that this was caused by a typhoon, hence, it should not be held liable for the loss of the cargo. However, petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon is the proximate and only cause of the loss of the goods, and that it has exercised due diligence before, during and after the occurrence of the typhoon to prevent or minimize the loss. 30 The evidence show that, even before the towing bits of the barge broke, it had already previously sustained damage when it hit a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island. It even suffered a hole. Clearly, this could not be solely attributed to the typhoon. The partlysubmerged vessel was refloated but its hole was patched with only clay and cement. The patch work was merely a provisional remedy, not enough for the barge to sail safely. Thus, when petitioner persisted to proceed with the voyage, it recklessly exposed the cargo to further damage. A portion of the cross-examination of Alfredo Cunanan, cargo-surveyor of Tan-Gatue Adjustment Co., Inc., states: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DONN LEE:31 xxx xxx xxx

Can you tell us what else transpired after that incident?

q - And then from ISLOFF Terminal you proceeded to the premises of the GMC? Am I correct? a - The next day, in the morning, we hired for additional two (2) tugboats as I have stated. q Despite of the threats of an incoming typhoon as you testified a while ago?

a - After the first accident, through the initiative of the barge owners, they tried to pull out the barge from the place of the accident, and bring it to the anchor terminal for safety, then after deciding if the vessel is stabilized, they tried to pull it to the consignee's warehouse, now while on route another accident occurred, now this time the barge totally hitting something in the course. q - You said there was another accident, can you tell the court the nature of the second accident? a The sinking, sir.

a - It is already in an inner portion of Pasig River. The typhoon would be coming and it would be dangerous if we are in the vicinity of Manila Bay. q a But the fact is, the typhoon was incoming? Yes or no? Yes.

q - Can you tell the nature . . . can you tell the court, if you know what caused the sinking? a - Mostly it was related to the first accident because there was already a whole (sic) on the bottom part of the barge. xxx xxx xxx

q - And yet as a standard operating procedure of your Company, you have to secure a sort of Certification to determine the weather condition, am I correct? a q a q Yes, sir. So, more or less, you had the knowledge of the incoming typhoon, right? Yes, sir. And yet you proceeded to the premises of the GMC?

This is not all. Petitioner still headed to the consignee's wharf despite knowledge of an incoming typhoon. During the time that the barge was heading towards the consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990, typhoon "Loleng" has already entered the Philippine area of responsibility.32 A part of the testimony of Robert Boyd, Cargo Operations Supervisor of the petitioner, reveals: DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. LEE: xxx
33

xxx

xxx

a - ISLOFF Terminal is far from Manila Bay and anytime even with the typhoon if you are already inside the vicinity or inside Pasig entrance, it is a safe place to tow upstream. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot invoke the occurrence of the typhoon as force majeure to escape liability for the loss sustained by the private respondent. Surely, meeting a typhoon head-on falls short of due diligence required from a common carrier. More importantly, the officers/employees themselves of petitioner admitted that when the towing bits of the vessel broke that caused its sinking and the total loss of the cargo upon reaching the Pasig River, it was no longer affected by the typhoon. The typhoon then is not the proximate cause of the loss of the cargo; a human factor, i.e., negligence had intervened. IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 49195 dated May 11, 2000 and its Resolution dated February 21, 2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

q - Now, Mr. Witness, did it not occur to you it might be safer to just allow the Barge to lie where she was instead of towing it? a - Since that time that the Barge was refloated, GMC (General Milling Corporation, the consignee) as I have said was in a hurry for their goods to be delivered at their Wharf since they needed badly the wheat that was loaded in PSTSI-3. It was needed badly by the consignee. q a And this is the reason why you towed the Barge as you did? Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxx

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. IGNACIO:34 xxx xxx xxx

FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 138334 August 25, 2003

"Jewels of Europe" tour, such that the cost of the former should be properly set-off against the sum paid for the latter. For its part, respondent company, through its Operations Manager, Concepcion Chipeco, denied responsibility for petitioners failure to join the first tour. Chipeco insisted that petitioner was informed of the correct departure date, which was clearly and legibly printed on the plane ticket. The travel documents were given to petitioner two days ahead of the scheduled trip. Petitioner had only herself to blame for missing the flight, as she did not bother to read or confirm her flight schedule as printed on the ticket. Respondent explained that it can no longer reimburse the amount paid for "Jewels of Europe", considering that the same had already been remitted to its principal in Singapore, Lotus Travel Ltd., which had already billed the same even if petitioner did not join the tour. Lotus European tour organizer, Insight International Tours Ltd., determines the cost of a package tour based on a minimum number of projected participants. For this reason, it is accepted industry practice to disallow refund for individuals who failed to take a booked tour. 3 Lastly, respondent maintained that the "British Pageant" was not a substitute for the package tour that petitioner missed. This tour was independently procured by petitioner after realizing that she made a mistake in missing her flight for "Jewels of Europe". Petitioner was allowed to make a partial payment of only US$300.00 for the second tour because her niece was then an employee of the travel agency. Consequently, respondent prayed that petitioner be ordered to pay the balance of P12,901.00 for the "British Pageant" package tour. After due proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision,4 the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and CARAVAN TRAVEL & TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: In May 1991, petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed "Jewels of Europe". The package tour included the countries of England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechstenstein, Switzerland and France at a total cost of P74,322.70. Petitioner was given a 5% discount on the amount, which included airfare, and the booking fee was also waived because petitioners niece, Meriam Menor, was respondent companys ticketing manager. Pursuant to said contract, Menor went to her aunts residence on June 12, 1991 a Wednesday to deliver petitioners travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on Saturday, two hours before her flight on board British Airways. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To petitioners dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, 1991. She thus called up Menor to complain. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour the "British Pageant" which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. For this tour package, petitioner was asked anew to pay US$785.00 or P20,881.00 (at the then prevailing exchange rate of P26.60). She gave respondent US$300 or P7,980.00 as partial payment and commenced the trip in July 1991. Upon petitioners return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61,421.70, representing the difference between the sum she paid for "Jewels of Europe" and the amount she owed respondent for the "British Pageant" tour. Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.1 Petitioner was thus constrained to file a complaint against respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 92133 and raffled to Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In her complaint,2 petitioner alleged that her failure to join "Jewels of Europe" was due to respondents fault since it did not clearly indicate the departure date on the plane ticket. Respondent was also negligent in informing her of the wrong flight schedule through its employee Menor. She insisted that the "British Pageant" was merely a substitute for the

1. Ordering the defendant to return and/or refund to the plaintiff the amount of Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos and Forty Three Centavos (P53,989.43) with legal interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum starting January 16, 1992, the date when the complaint was filed; 2. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos as and for reasonable attorneys fees; 3. Dismissing the defendants counterclaim, for lack of merit; and 4. With costs against the defendant. SO ORDERED.5 The trial court held that respondent was negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of her departure date through its employee, Menor, who was not presented as witness to rebut petitioners testimony. However, petitioner should have verified the exact date and time of departure by looking at her ticket and should have simply not relied on Menors verbal representation. The trial court thus declared that petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and accordingly, deducted 10% from the amount being claimed as refund.

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which likewise found both parties to be at fault. However, the appellate court held that petitioner is more negligent than respondent because as a lawyer and well-traveled person, she should have known better than to simply rely on what was told to her. This being so, she is not entitled to any form of damages. Petitioner also forfeited her right to the "Jewels of Europe" tour and must therefore pay respondent the balance of the price for the "British Pageant" tour. The dispositive portion of the judgment appealed from reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated October 26, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby ENTERED requiring the plaintiff-appellee to pay to the defendant-appellant the amount of P12,901.00, representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Package Tour, the same to earn legal interest at the rate of SIX PERCENT (6%) per annum, to be computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the finality of this decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of TWELVE PERCENT (12%) interest per annum shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. The award of attorneys fees is DELETED. Costs against the plaintiff-appellee. SO ORDERED.6 Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration,7 petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 45 on the following grounds: I It is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court by ruling that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the cost of unavailed "Jewels of Europe" tour she being equally, if not more, negligent than the private respondent, for in the contract of carriage the common carrier is obliged to observe utmost care and extra-ordinary diligence which is higher in degree than the ordinary diligence required of the passenger. Thus, even if the petitioner and private respondent were both negligent, the petitioner cannot be considered to be equally, or worse, more guilty than the private respondent. At best, petitioners negligence i s only contributory while the private respondent [is guilty] of gross negligence making the principle of pari delicto inapplicable in the case; II The Honorable Court of Appeals also erred in not ruling that the "Jewels of Europe" tour was not indivisible and the amount paid therefor refundable; III The Honorable Court erred in not granting to the petitioner the consequential damages due her as a result of breach of contract of carriage. 8 Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule. She could not be deemed more negligent than respondent since the latter is required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence in the fulfillment of its obligation. If she were negligent at all, the same is merely contributory and not the proximate cause of the damage she suffered. Her loss

could only be attributed to respondent as it was the direct consequence of its employees gross negligence. Petitioners contention has no merit. By definition, a contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price.9 Such person or association of persons are regarded as carriers and are classified as private or special carriers and common or public carriers.10 A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code as 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. It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondents services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours. While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is a common carrier. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for her carriage to Europe. Respondents obligation to petitioner in this regard was simply to see to it that petitioner was properly booked with the airline for the appointed date and time. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the airline. The object of petitioners contractual relation with respondent is the latters service of arranging and facilitating petitioners booking, ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In contrast, the object of a contract of carriage is the transportation of passengers or goods. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Petitioners submission is premised on a wrong assumption. The nature of the contractual relation between petitioner and respondent is determinative of the degree of care required in the performance of the latters obligation under the contract. For reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances. 11 As earlier stated, however, respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. It is thus not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation, as petitioner claims. Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.12 This connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation. The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. 13 In the case at bar, the lower court found Menor negligent when she allegedly informed petitioner of the wrong day of departure. Petitioners testimony was accepted as indubitable

evidence of Menors alleged negligent act since respondent did not call Menor to the witness stand to refute the allegation. The lower court applied the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3 (e)14 of the Rules of Court that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced and thus considered petitioners uncontradicted testimony to be sufficient proof of her claim. On the other hand, respondent has consistently denied that Menor was negligent and maintains that petitioners assertion is belied by the evidence on record. The date and time of departure was legibly written on the plane ticket and the travel papers were delivered two days in advance precisely so that petitioner could prepare for the trip. It performed all its obligations to enable petitioner to join the tour and exercised due diligence in its dealings with the latter. We agree with respondent. Respondents failure to present Menor as witness to rebut petitioners testimony could not give rise to an inference unfavorable to the former. Menor was already working in France at the time of the filing of the complaint,15 thereby making it physically impossible for respondent to present her as a witness. Then too, even if it were possible for respondent to secure Menors testimony, the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) would still not apply. The opportunity and possibility for obtaining Menors testimony belonged to both parties, considering that Menor was not just respondents employee, but also petitioners niece. It was thus error for the lower court to invoke the presumption that respondent willfully suppressed evidence under Rule 131, Section 3(e). Said presumption would logically be inoperative if the evidence is not intentionally omitted but is simply unavailable, or when the same could have been obtained by both parties.16 In sum, we do not agree with the finding of the lower court that Menors negligence concurred with the negligence of petitioner and resultantly caused damage to the latter. Menors negligence was not sufficiently proved, considering that the only evidence presented on this score was petitioners uncorroborated narration of the events. It is well-settled that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation cannot take the place of evidence.17 If the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.18 Contrary to petitioners claim, the evidence on record shows that respondent exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner. As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane ticket 19 issued to petitioner clearly reflected the departure date and time, contrary to petitioners contention. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent also properly booked petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged petitioners hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking. Therefore, it is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour. Had petitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of her affairs, there would have been no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to say, after the travel papers were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbent upon her to take ordinary care of her concerns. This undoubtedly would require that she at least read the documents in order to assure herself of the important details regarding the trip.

The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands.20 There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its particular facts. The degree of diligence required depends on the circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into account the particulars of each case.211wphi1 The lower court declared that respondents employee was negligent. This factual finding, however, is not supported by the evidence on record. While factual findings below are generally conclusive upon this court, the rule is subject to certain exceptions, as when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will affect the result of the case. 22 In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that respondent company performed its duty diligently and did not commit any contractual breach. Hence, petitioner cannot recover and must bear her own damage. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51932 is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the amount of P12,901.00 representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Package Tour, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, to be computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the finality of this Decision. After this Decision becomes final and executory, the rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed until the obligation is fully settled, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.23 SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 186312 June 29, 2010

persons, consisting of 18 passengers and four crew members, who were brought to Pisa Island. Eight passengers, including petitioners son and his wife, died during the incident. At the time of Ruelitos death, he was 28 years old and employed as a contractual worker for Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Arabia, Ltd. in Saudi Arabia, with a basic monthly salary of $900.3 Petitioners, by letter of October 26, 2000,4 demanded indemnification from respondent for the death of their son in the amount of at least P4,000,000. Replying, respondent, by letter dated November 7, 2000,5 denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous event. It nevertheless offered, as an act of commiseration, the amount of P10,000 to petitioners upon their signing of a waiver. As petitioners declined respondents offer, they filed the Complaint, as earlier reflected, alleging that respondent, as a common carrier, was guilty of negligence in allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail notwithstanding storm warning bulletins issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) as early as 5:00 a.m. of September 11, 2000.6 In its Answer,7 respondent denied being a common carrier, alleging that its boats are not available to the general public as they only ferry Resort guests and crew members. Nonetheless, it claimed that it exercised the utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers; contrary to petitioners allegation, there was no storm on S eptember 11, 2000 as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage; and M/B Coco Beach III was not filled to capacity and had sufficient life jackets for its passengers. By way of Counterclaim, respondent alleged that it is entitled to an award for attorneys fees and litigation expenses amounting to not less than P300,000. Carlos Bonquin, captain of M/B Coco Beach III, averred that the Resort customarily requires four conditions to be met before a boat is allowed to sail, to wit: (1) the sea is calm, (2) there is clearance from the Coast Guard, (3) there is clearance from the captain and (4) there is clearance from the Resorts assistant manager.8 He added that M/B Coco Beach III met all four conditions on September 11, 2000,9 but a subasco or squall, characterized by strong winds and big waves, suddenly occurred, causing the boat to capsize.10 By Decision of February 16, 2005,11 Branch 267 of the Pasig RTC dismissed petitioners Complaint and respondents Counterclaim. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Order dated September 2, 2005,12 they appealed to the Court of Appeals. By Decision of August 19, 2008,13 the appellate court denied petitioners appeal, holding, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled that respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence; that respondent in fact observed extraordinary diligence in transporting its guests on board M/B Coco Beach III; and that the proximate cause of the incident was a squall, a fortuitous event. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated January 16, 2009,14 they filed the present Petition for Review.15

SPOUSES DANTE CRUZ and LEONORA CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. SUN HOLIDAYS, INC., Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz (petitioners) lodged a Complaint on January 25, 2001 1 against Sun Holidays, Inc. (respondent) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz (Ruelito) who perished with his wife on September 11, 2000 on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort) owned and operated by respondent. The stay of the newly wed Ruelito and his wife at the Resort from September 9 to 11, 2000 was by virtue of a tour package-contract with respondent that included transportation to and from the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas. Miguel C. Matute (Matute),2 a scuba diving instructor and one of the survivors, gave his account of the incident that led to the filing of the complaint as follows: Matute stayed at the Resort from September 8 to 11, 2000. He was originally scheduled to leave the Resort in the afternoon of September 10, 2000, but was advised to stay for another night because of strong winds and heavy rains. On September 11, 2000, as it was still windy, Matute and 25 other Resort guests including petitioners son and his wife trekked to the other side of the Coco Beach mountain that was sheltered from the wind where they boarded M/B Coco Beach III, which was to ferry them to Batangas. Shortly after the boat sailed, it started to rain. As it moved farther away from Puerto Galera and into the open seas, the rain and wind got stronger, causing the boat to tilt from side to side and the captain to step forward to the front, leaving the wheel to one of the crew members. The waves got more unwieldy. After getting hit by two big waves which came one after the other, M/B Coco Beach III capsized putting all passengers underwater. The passengers, who had put on their life jackets, struggled to get out of the boat. Upon seeing the captain, Matute and the other passengers who reached the surface asked him what they could do to save the people who were still trapped under the boat. The captain replied "Iligtas niyo na lang ang sarili niyo" (Just save yourselves). Help came after about 45 minutes when two boats owned by Asia Divers in Sabang, Puerto Galera passed by the capsized M/B Coco Beach III. Boarded on those two boats were 22

Petitioners maintain the position they took before the trial court, adding that respondent is a common carrier since by its tour package, the transporting of its guests is an integral part of its resort business. They inform that another division of the appellate court in fact held respondent liable for damages to the other survivors of the incident. Upon the other hand, respondent contends that petitioners failed to present evidence to prove that it is a common carrier; that the Resorts ferry services for guests cannot be considered as ancillary to its business as no income is derived therefrom; that it exercised extraordinary diligence as shown by the conditions it had imposed before allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail; that the incident was caused by a fortuitous event without any contributory negligence on its part; and that the other case wherein the appellate court held it liable for damages involved different plaintiffs, issues and evidence.16 The petition is impressed with merit. Petitioners correctly rely on De Guzman v. Court of Appeals17 in characterizing respondent as a common carrier. 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 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 1733 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 . . .18 (emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Indeed, respondent is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so intertwined with its main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondents ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by its having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour packages it offers, which include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the same. These services are thus available to the public. That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its ferry services is of no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose that it provides said services at a loss. The Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators offering tour packages to factor the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package price. That guests who opt not to avail of respondents ferry services pay the same amount is likewise inconsequential. These guests may only be deemed to have overpaid. As De Guzman instructs, Article 1732 of the Civil Code defining "common carriers" has deliberately refrained from making distinctions on whether the carrying of persons or goods is the carriers principal business, whether it is offered on a regular basis, or whether it is offered to the general public. The intent of the law is thus to not consider such distinctions. Otherwise, there is no telling how many other distinctions may be concocted by unscrupulous businessmen engaged in the carrying of persons or goods in order to avoid the legal obligations and liabilities of common carriers. Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. 19 They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.20 When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. In fact, there is even no need for the court to 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.21 Respondent nevertheless harps on its strict compliance with the earlier mentioned conditions of voyage before it allowed M/B Coco Beach III to sail on September 11, 2000. Respondents position does not impress. The evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24-hour public weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for shipping on September 10 and 11, 2000 advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon which would also affect the province of Mindoro.22 By the testimony of Dr. Frisco Nilo, supervising weather specialist of PAGASA, squalls are to be expected under such weather condition.23 A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave such stormy weather and put other peoples lives at risk. The extraordinary diligence required of common carriers demands that they take care of the goods or lives entrusted to their hands as if they were their own. This respondent failed to do. Respondents insistence that the incident was caused by a fortuitous event does not impress either. The elements of a "fortuitous event" are: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtors to comply with their obligations, must have been

independent of human will; (b) the event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor.24 To fully free a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous event must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. And it should have exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the fortuitous event. 25 Respondent cites the squall that occurred during the voyage as the fortuitous event that overturned M/B Coco Beach III. As reflected above, however, the occurrence of squalls was expected under the weather condition of September 11, 2000. Moreover, evidence shows that M/B Coco Beach III suffered engine trouble before it capsized and sank. 26 The incident was, therefore, not completely free from human intervention. The Court need not belabor how respondents evidence likewise fails to demonstrate that it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the squall. Article 176427 vis--vis Article 220628 of the Civil Code holds the common carrier in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger liable to pay the following: (1) indemnity for death, (2) indemnity for loss of earning capacity and (3) moral damages. Petitioners are entitled to indemnity for the death of Ruelito which is fixed at P50,000.29 As for damages representing unearned income, the formula for its computation is: Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses). Life expectancy is determined in accordance with the formula: 2 / 3 x [80 age of deceased at the time of death]30 The first factor, i.e., life expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.31 The second factor is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses.32 The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only such portion as he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. Hence, to be deducted from his gross earnings are the necessary expenses supposed to be used by the deceased for his own needs.33 In computing the third factor necessary living expense, Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja34 teaches that when, as in this case, there is no showing that the living expenses constituted the smaller percentage of the gross income, the living expenses are fixed at half of the gross income.

Applying the above guidelines, the Court determines Ruelito's life expectancy as follows:

Life expectancy =

2/3 x [80 - age of deceased at the time of death] 2/3 x [80 - 28] 2/3 x [52] 35

Life expectancy =

Documentary evidence shows that Ruelito was earning a basic monthly salary of $90035 which, when converted to Philippine peso applying the annual average exchange rate of $1 = P44 in 2000,36 amounts to P39,600. Ruelitos net earning capacity is thus computed as follows:

Net Earning Capacity

= life expectancy x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses). = 35 x (P475,200 - P237,600) = 35 x (P237,600) = P8,316,000

Net Earning Capacity

Respecting the award of moral damages, since respondent common carriers breach of contract of carriage resulted in the death of petitioners son, following Article 1764 vis--vis Article 2206 of the Civil Code, petitioners are entitled to moral damages. Since respondent failed to prove that it exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, it is presumed to have acted recklessly, thus warranting the award too of exemplary damages, which are granted in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.37 Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to award petitioners the amount of P100,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages.381avvphi1 Pursuant to Article 220839 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees may also be awarded where exemplary damages are awarded. The Court finds that 10% of the total amount adjudged against respondent is reasonable for the purpose. Finally, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals40 teaches that when an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for payment of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, subject to the following rules, to wit 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. (emphasis supplied). Since the amounts payable by respondent have been determined with certainty only in the present petition, the interest due shall be computed upon the finality of this decision at the rate of 12% per annum until satisfaction, in accordance with paragraph number 3 of the immediately cited guideline in Easter Shipping Lines, Inc. WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of August 19, 2008 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is rendered in favor of petitioners ordering respondent to pay petitioners the following: (1) P50,000 as indemnity for the death of Ruelito Cruz; (2) P8,316,000 as indemnity for Ruelitos loss of earning capacity; (3) P100,000 as moral damages; (4) P100,000 as exemplary damages; (5) 10% of the total amount adjudged against respondent as attorneys fees; and (6) the costs of suit. The total amount adjudged against respondent shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the finality of this decision until full payment. SO ORDERED.