Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

94149 May 5, 1992 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION and/or NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION (Manila), respondents. PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul and set aside the (a) decision 1 dated May 30, 1990 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP. No. 20043 entitled "American Home Assurance Company v. Hon. Domingo D. Panis, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41 and National Marine Corporation and/or National Marine Corporation (Manila)", dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari, and (b) resolution 2 dated June 29, 1990 of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The undisputed facts of the case are follows: Both petitioner American Home Assurance Co. and the respondent National Marine Corporation are foreign corporations licensed to do business in the Philippines, the former through its branch. The American Home Assurance Company (Philippines), Inc. and the latter through its branch. The National Marine Corporation (Manila) (Rollo, p. 20, Annex L, p.1). That on or about June 19, 1988, Cheng Hwa Pulp Corporation shipped 5,000 bales (1,000 ADMT) of bleached kraft pulp from Haulien, Taiwan on board "SS Kaunlaran", which is owned and operated by herein respondent National Marine Corporation with Registration No. PID-224. The said shipment was consigned to Mayleen Paper, Inc. of Manila, which insured the shipment with herein petitioner American Home Assurance Co. as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. HLMN-01. On June 22, 1988, the shipment arrived in Manila and was discharged into the custody of the Marina Port Services, Inc., for eventual delivery to the consignee-assured. However, upon delivery of the shipment to Mayleen Paper, Inc., it was found that 122 bales had either been damaged or lost. The loss was calculated to be 4,360 kilograms with an estimated value of P61,263.41. Mayleen Paper, Inc. then duly demanded indemnification from respondent National Marine Corporation for the aforesaid damages/losses in the shipment but, for apparently no justifiable reason, said demand was not heeded (Petition, p. 4). As the shipment was insured with petitioner in the amount of US$837,500.00, Mayleen Paper, Inc. sought recovery from the former. Upon demand and submission of proper documentation, American Home Assurance paid Mayleen Paper, Inc. the adjusted amount of P31,506.75 for the damages/losses suffered by the shipment, hence, the former was subrogated to the rights and interests on Mayleen Paper, Inc. On June 6, 1989, the petitioner, as subrogee, then brought suit against respondent for the recovery of the amount of P31.506.75 and 25% of the total amount due as attorney's fees, by filing a complaint for recovery of sum of money (Petition, p. 4). Respondent, National Marine Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss dated August 7, 1989 stating that American Home Assurance Company had no cause of action based on Article 848 of the Code of Commerce which provides "that claims for averages shall not be admitted if they do not exceed 5% of the interest which the claimant may have in the vessel or in the cargo if it be gross average and 1% of the goods damaged if particular average, deducting in both cases the expenses of appraisal, unless there is an agreement to the contrary." It contended that based on the allegations of the complaint, the loss sustained in the case was P35,506.75 which is only .18% of P17,420,000.00, the total value of the cargo. On the other hand, petitioner countered that Article 848 does not apply as it refers to averages and that a

particular average presupposes that the loss or damages is due to an inherent defect of the goods, an accident of the sea, or a force majeure or the negligence of the crew of the carrier, while claims for damages due to the negligence of the common carrier are governed by the Civil Code provisions on Common Carriers. In its order dated November 23, 1989, the Regional Trial Court sustained private respondent's contention. In part it stated: Before the Court for resolution is a motion for reconsideration filed by defendant through counsel dated October 6, 1989. The record shows that last August 8, 1989, defendant through counsel filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Resolving the said motion last September 18, 1989, the court ruled to defer resolution thereof until after trial on the merits. In the motion now under consideration, defendant prays for the reconsideration of the order of September 18, 1989 and in lieu thereof, another order be entered dismissing plaintiff's complaint. There appears to be good reasons for the court to take a second look at the issues raised by the defendant. xxx xxx xxx It is not disputed defendants that the loss suffered by the shipment is only .18% or less that 1% of the interest of the consignee on the cargo Invoking the provision of the Article 848 of the Code of Commerce which reads: Claims for average shall not be admitted if they do not exceed five percent of the interest which the claimant may have in the vessels or cargo if it is gross average, and one percent of the goods damaged if particular average, deducting in both cases the expenses of appraisal, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. (Emphasis supplied) defendant claims that plaintiff is barred from suing for recovery. Decisive in this case in whether the loss suffered by the cargo in question is a "particular average." Particular average, is a loss happening to the ship, freight, or cargo which is not be (sic) shared by contributing among all those interested, but must be borne by the owner of the subject to which it occurs. (Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, p. 172, citing Bargett v. Insurance Co. 3 Bosw. [N.Y.] 395). as distinguished from general average which is a contribution by the several interests engaged in the maritime venture to make good the loss of one of them for the voluntary sacrifice of a part of the ship or cargo to save the residue of the property and the lives of those on board, or for extraordinary expenses necessarily incurred for the common benefit and safety of all (Ibid., citing California Canneries Co. v. Canton Ins. Office 25 Cal. App. 303, 143 p. 549-553). From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the damage on the cargo in question, is in the nature of the "particular average." Since the loss is less than 1% to the value of the cargo and there appears to be no allegations as to any agreement defendants and the consignee of the goods to the contrary, by express provision of the law, plaintiff is barred from suing for recovery. WHEREOF, plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of cause of action. (Rollo, p. 27; Annex A, pp. 3-4). The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal but same was denied by the court in its order dated January 26, 1990 (supra). Instead of filing an appeal from the order of the court a quo dismissing the complaint for recovery of a sum of money, American Home Assurance Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the two orders or respondent judge in said court (Rollo, p. 25).

But the Court of Appeals in its decision dated May 30, 1990, dismissed the petition as constituting plain errors of law and not grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari (a Special Civil Action). If at all, respondent court ruled that there are errors of judgment subject to correction by certiorari as a mode of appeal but the appeal is to the Supreme Court under Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended by Republic Act No. 5440. Otherwise stated, respondent Court opined that the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on pure questions of law (Rollo, p. 30). Hence, this petition. In a resolution dated December 10, 1990, this Court gave due course to the petition and required both parties to file their respective memoranda (Rollo, p. 58). The procedural issue in this case is whether or not certiorari was the proper remedy in the case before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled that appeal is the proper remedy, for aside from the fact that the two orders dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action are final orders within the meaning of Rule 41, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, subject petition raised questions which if at all, constituting grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. Evidently, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for as ruled by this Court, an order of dismissal whether right or wrong is a final order, hence, a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari (Marahay v. Melicor, 181 SCRA 811 (1990]). However, where the fact remains that respondent Court of Appeals obviously in the broader interests of justice, nevertheless proceeded to decide the petition for certiorari and ruled on specific points raised therein in a manner akin to what would have been done on assignments of error in a regular appeal, the petition therein was therefore disposed of on the merits and not on a dismissal due to erroneous choice of remedies or technicalities (Cruz v. I.A.C., 169 SCRA 14 (1989]). Hence, a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on the merits against the petitioner in this case is in order. On the main controversy, the pivotal issue to be resolved is the application of the law on averages (Articles 806, 809 and 848 of the Code of Commerce). Petitioner avers that respondent court failed to consider that respondent National Marine Corporation being a common carrier, in conducting its business is regulated by the Civil Code primarily and suppletorily by the Code of Commerce; and that respondent court refused to consider the Bill of Lading as the law governing the parties. Private respondent countered that in all matters not covered by the Civil Code, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws as provided for in Article 1766 of the Civil Code; that Article 806, 809 and 848 of the Code of Commerce should be applied suppletorily as they provide for the extent of the common carriers' liability. This issue has been resolved by this Court in National Development Co. v. C.A. (164 SCRA 593 [1988]; citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. I.A.C., 150 SCRA 469, 470 [1987] where it was held that "the law of the country to which the goods are to be transported persons the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration." (Article 1753, Civil Code). Thus, for cargoes transported to the Philippines as in the case at bar, the liability of the carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code and in all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws (Article 1766, Civil Code). Corollary thereto, the Court held further that under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them according to all circumstances of each case. Thus, under Article 1735 of the same Code, in all cases other than those mentioned in Article 1734 thereof, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by law (Ibid., p. 595). But more importantly, the Court ruled that common carriers cannot limit their liability for injury or loss of goods where such injury or loss was caused by its own negligence. Otherwise stated, the law on averages under the Code of Commerce cannot be applied in determining liability where there is negligence (Ibid., p. 606). Under the foregoing principle and in line with the Civil Code's mandatory requirement of extraordinary diligence on common carriers in the car care of goods placed in their stead, it is but reasonable to conclude that the issue of negligence must first be addressed before the proper provisions of the Code of Commerce on the extent of liability may be applied.

The records show that upon delivery of the shipment in question of Mayleen's warehouse in Manila, 122 bales were found to be damaged/lost with straps cut or loose, calculated by the so-called "percentage method" at 4,360 kilograms and amounting to P61,263.41 (Rollo, p. 68). Instead of presenting proof of the exercise of extraordinary diligence as required by law, National Marine Corporation (NMC) filed its Motion to Dismiss dated August 7, 1989, hypothetically admitting the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint to the effect that the loss or damage to the 122 bales was due to the negligence or fault of NMC (Rollo, p. 179). As ruled by this Court, the filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action carries with it the admission of the material facts pleaded in the complaint (Sunbeam Convenience Foods, Inc. v. C.A., 181 SCRA 443 [1990]). Such being the case, it is evident that the Code of Commerce provisions on averages cannot apply. On the other hand, Article 1734 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are responsible for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, unless due to any of the causes enumerated therein. It is obvious that the case at bar does not fall under any of the exceptions. Thus, American Home Assurance Company is entitled to reimbursement of what it paid to Mayleen Paper, Inc. as insurer. Accordingly, it is evident that the findings of respondent Court of Appeals, affirming the findings and conclusions of the court a quo are not supported by law and jurisprudence. PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, appealed from are REVERSED; and (2) private respondent National Marine Corporation is hereby ordered to reimburse the subrogee, petitioner American Home Assurance Company, the amount of P31,506.75. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

epublic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 106999 June 20, 1996 PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., respondents. KAPUNAN, J.:p Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. (ESLI) loaded on board SS Eastern Explorer in Kobe, Japan, the following shipment for carriage to Manila and Cebu, freight pre-paid and in good order and condition, viz: (a) two (2) boxes internal combustion engine parts, consigned to William Lines, Inc. under Bill of Lading No. 042283; (b) ten (l0) metric ton. (334 bags) ammonium chloride, consigned to Orca's Company under Bill of Lading No. KCE-I2; (c) two hundred (200) bags Glue 300, consigned to Pan Oriental Match Company under Bill of Lading No. KCE-8; and (d) garments, consigned to Ding Velayo under Bills of Lading Nos. KMA-73 and KMA-74. While the vessel was off Okinawa, Japan, a small flame was detected on the acetylene cylinder located in the accommodation area near the engine room on the main deck level. As the crew was trying to extinguish the fire, the acetylene cylinder suddenly exploded sending a flash of flame throughout the accommodation area, thus causing death and severe injuries to the crew and instantly setting fire to the whole superstructure of the vessel. The incident forced the master and the crew to abandon the ship. Thereafter, SS Eastern Explorer was found to be a constructive total loss and its voyage was declared abandoned. Several hours later, a tugboat under the control of Fukuda Salvage Co. arrived near the vessel and commenced to tow the vessel for the port of Naha, Japan. Fire fighting operations were again conducted at the said port. After the fire was extinguished, the cargoes which were saved were loaded to another vessel for delivery to their original ports of destination. ESLI charged the consignees several amounts corresponding to additional freight and salvage charges, as follows: (a) for the goods covered by Bill of Lading No. 042283, ESLI charged the consignee the sum of P1,927.65, representing salvage charges assessed against the goods; (b) for the goods covered by Bill of Lading No. KCE-12, ESLI charged the consignee the sum of P2,980.64 for additional freight and P826.14 for salvage charges against the goods; (c) for the goods covered by Bill of Lading No. KCE-8, ESLI charged the consignee the sum of P3,292.26 for additional freight and P4,130.68 for salvage charges against the goods; and (d) for the goods under Bills of Lading Nos. KMA-73 and KMA-74, ESLI charged the consignee the sum of P8,337.06 for salvage charges against the goods. The charges were all paid by Philippine Home Assurance Corporation (PHAC) under protest for and in behalf of the consignees. PHAC, as subrogee of the consignees, thereafter filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39, against ESLI to recover the sum paid under protest on the ground that the same were actually damages directly brought about by the fault, negligence, illegal act and/or breach of contract of ESLI. In its answer, ESLI contended that it exercised the diligence required by law in the handling, custody and carriage of the shipment; that the fire was caused by an unforeseen event; that the additional freight charges are due and demandable pursuant to the Bill of Lading; 1 and that salvage charges are properly collectible under Act No. 2616, known as the Salvage Law. The trial court dismissed PHAC's complaint and ruled in favor of ESLI ratiocinating thus: petitioner,

The question to be resolved is whether or not the fire on the vessel which was caused by the explosion of an acetylene cylinder loaded on the same was the fault or negligence of the defendant. Evidence has been presented that the SS "Eastern Explorer" was a seaworthy vessel (Deposition of Jumpei Maeda, October 23, 1980, p. 3) and before the ship loaded the Acetylene Cylinder No. NCW 875, the same has been tested, checked and examined and was certified to have complied with the required safety measures and standards (Deposition of Senjei Hayashi, October 23, 1980, pp. 2-3). When the fire was detected by the crew, fire fighting operations was immediately conducted but due to the explosion of the acetylene cylinder, the crew were unable to contain the fire and had to abandon the ship to save their lives and were saved from drowning by passing vessels in the vicinity. The burning of the vessel rendering it a constructive total loss and incapable of pursuing its voyage to the Philippines was, therefore, not the fault or negligence of defendant but a natural disaster or calamity which nobody would like to happen. The salvage operations conducted by Fukuda Salvage Company (Exhibits "4-A" and "6-A") was perfectly a legal operation and charges made on the goods recovered were legitimate charges. Act No. 2616, otherwise known as the Salvage Law, is thus applicable to the case at bar. Section 1 of Act No. 2616 states: Sec 1. When in case of shipwreck, the vessel or its cargo shall be beyond the control of the crew, or shall have been abandoned by them, and picked up and conveyed to a safe place by other persons, the latter shall be entitled to a reward for the salvage. Those who, not being included in the above paragraph, assist in saving a vessel or its cargo from shipwreck, shall be entitled to like reward. In relation to the above provision, the Supreme Court has ruled in Erlanger & Galinger v. Swedish East Asiatic Co., Ltd., 34 Phil. 178, that three elements are necessary to a valid salvage claim, namely (a)a marine peril (b) service voluntarily rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract and (c) success in whole or in part, or that the service rendered contributed to such success. The above elements are all present in the instant case. Salvage charges may thus be assessed on the cargoes saved from the vessel. As provided for in Section 13 of the Salvage Law, "The expenses of salvage, as well as the reward for salvage or assistance, shall be a charge on the things salvaged or their value." In Manila Railroad Co. v. Macondray Co., 37 Phil. 583, it was also held that "when a ship and its cargo are saved together, the salvage allowance should be charged against the ship and cargo in the proportion of their respective values, the same as in a case of general average . . ." Thus, the "compensation to be paid by the owner of the cargo is in proportion to the value of the vessel and the value of the cargo saved." (Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha, 42 Phil. 321). (Memorandum for Defendant, Records, pp. 212-213). With respect to the additional freight charged by defendant from the consignees of the goods, the same are also validly demandable. As provided by the Civil Code: Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation require the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable. Art 1266. The debtor in obligations to do shall also be released when the prestation becomes legally or physically impossible without the fault of the obligor."

The burning of "EASTERN EXPLORER" while off Okinawa rendered it physically impossible for defendant to comply with its obligation of delivering the goods to their port of destination pursuant to the contract of carriage. Under Article 1266 of the Civil Code, the physical impossibility of the prestation extinguished defendant's obligation.. It is but legal and equitable for the defendant therefore, to demand additional freight from the consignees for forwarding the goods from Naha, Japan to Manila and Cebu City on board another vessel, the "EASTERN MARS." This finds support under Article 844 of the Code of Commerce which provides as follows: Art. 844. A captain who may have taken on board the goods saved from the wreck shall continue his course to the port of destination; and on arrival should deposit the same, with judicial intervention at the disposal of their legitimate owners. . . . The owners of the cargo shall defray all the expenses of this arrival as well as the payment of the freight which, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, may be fixed by agreement or by a judicial decision. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the Bill of Lading authorize the imposition of additional freight charges in case of forced interruption or abandonment of the voyage. At the dorsal portion of the Bills of Lading issued to the consignees is this stipulation: 12. All storage, transshipment, forwarding or other disposition of cargo at or from a port of distress or other place where there has been a forced interruption or abandonment of the voyage shall be at the expense of the owner, shipper, consignee of the goods or the holder of this bill of lading who shall be jointly and severally liable for all freight charges and expenses of every kind whatsoever, whether payable in advance or not that may be incurred by the cargo in addition to the ordinary freight, whether the service be performed by the named carrying vessel or by carrier's other vessels or by strangers. All such expenses and charges shall be due and payable day by day immediately when they are incurred. The bill of lading is a contract and the parties are bound by its terms (Gov't of the Philippine Islands vs. Ynchausti and Co., 40 Phil. 219). The provision quoted is binding upon the consignee. Defendant therefore, can validly require payment of additional freight from the consignee. Plaintiff can not thus recover the additional freight paid by the consignee to defendant. (Memorandum for Defendant, Record, pp. 215-216). 2 On appeal to the Court of Appeals, respondent court affirmed the trial court's findings and conclusions, 3 hence, the present petition for review before this Court on the following errors: I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRONEOUSLY ADOPTED WITH APPROVAL THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS THAT THE BURNING OF THE SS "EASTERN EXPLORER", RENDERING ET A CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS, IS A NATURAL DISASTER OR CALAMITY WHICH NOBODY WOULD LIKE TO HAPPEN, DESPITE EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. II. THE RESPONDENT COURT ARBITRARILY RULED THAT THE BURNING OF THE SS "EASTERN EXPLORER" WAS NOT THE FAULT AND NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT EASTERN SHIPPING LINES. III. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED THE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE VIGILANCE OVER THE GOODS AS REQUIRED BY LAW. IV. THE RESPONDENT COURT ARBITRARILY RULED THAT THE MARINE NOTE OF PROTEST AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUED BY THE VESSEL'S MASTER ARE NOT HEARSAY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE VESSEL'S MASTER, CAPT. LICAYLICAY WAS NOT PRESENTED COURT, WITHOUT EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR HIS NONPRESENTATION, THUS, PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF ITS RIGHT TO CROSS-

EXAMINE THE AUTHOR THEREOF. V. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRONEOUSLY ADOPTED WITH APPROVAL THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENSES OR AVERAGES INCURRED IN SAVING THE CARGO CONSTITUTE GENERAL AVERAGE. VI. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRONEOUSLY ADOPTED THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT PETITIONER WAS LIABLE TO RESPONDENT CARRIER FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT AND SALVAGE CHARGES. 4 It is quite evident that the foregoing assignment of errors challenges the findings of fact and the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and later affirmed by respondent court. While it is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is equally wellsettled that the same admits of the following exceptions, namely: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (j) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 5 Thus, if there is a showing, as in the instant case, that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the same may be properly reviewed and evaluated by this Court. It is worthy to note at the outset that the goods subject of the present controversy were neither lost nor damaged in transit by the fire that razed the carrier. In fact, the said goods were all delivered to the consignees, even if the transshipment took longer than necessary. What is at issue therefore is not whether or not the carrier is liable for the loss, damage, or deterioration of the goods transported by them but who, among the carrier, consignee or insurer of the goods, is liable for the additional charges or expenses incurred by the owner of the ship in the salvage operations and in the transshipment of the goods via a different carrier. In absolving respondent carrier of any liability, respondent Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's finding that the fire that gutted the ship was a natural disaster or calamity. Petitioner takes exception to this conclusion and we agree. In our jurisprudence, fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity since it almost always arises from some act of man or by human means. It cannot be an act of God unless caused by lightning or a natural disaster or casualty not attributable to human agency. 6 In the case at bar, it is not disputed that a small flame was detected on the acetylene cylinder and that by reason thereof, the same exploded despite efforts to extinguish the fire. Neither is there any doubt that the acetylene cylinder, obviously fully loaded, was stored in the accommodation area near the engine room and not in a storage area considerably far, and in a safe distance, from the engine room. Moreover, there was no showing, and none was alleged by the parties, that the fire was caused by a natural disaster or calamity not attributable to human agency. On the contrary, there is strong evidence indicating that the acetylene cylinder caught fire because of the fault and negligence of respondent ESLI, its captain and its crew. First, the acetylene cylinder which was fully loaded should not have been stored in the accommodation area near the engine room where the heat generated therefrom could cause the acetylene cylinder to explode by reason of spontaneous combustion. Respondent ESLI should have easily foreseen that the acetylene cylinder, containing highly inflammable material was in real danger of exploding because it was stored in close proximity to the engine room. Second, respondent ESLI should have known that by storing the acetylene cylinder in the accommodation area supposed to be reserved for passengers, it unnecessarily exposed its passengers to grave danger and injury. Curious passengers, ignorant of the danger the tank might have on humans and property, could have handled the same or could have lighted and smoked cigarettes while repairing in the accommodation area. Third, the fact that the acetylene cylinder was checked, tested and examined and subsequently certified as

having complied with the safety measures and standards by qualified experts 7 before it was loaded in the vessel only shows to a great extent that negligence was present in the handling of the acetylene cylinder after it was loaded and while it was on board the ship. Indeed, had the respondent and its agents not been negligent in storing the acetylene cylinder near the engine room, then the same would not have leaked and exploded during the voyage. Verily, there is no merit in the finding of the trial court to which respondent court erroneously agreed that the fire was not the fault or negligence of respondent but a natural disaster or calamity. The records are simply wanting in this regard. Anent petitioner's objection to the admissibility of Exhibits "4'' and ''5", the Statement of Facts and the Marine Note of Protest issued by Captain Tiburcio A. Licaylicay, we find the same impressed with merit because said documents are hearsay evidence. Capt. Licaylicay, Master of S.S. Eastern Explorer who issued the said documents, was not presented in court to testify to the truth of the facts he stated therein; instead, respondent ESLI presented Junpei Maeda, its Branch Manager in Tokyo and Yokohama, Japan, who evidently had no personal knowledge of the facts stated in the documents at issue. It is clear from Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule. 8 It is excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed. On the issue of whether or not respondent court committed an error in concluding that the expenses incurred in saving the cargo are considered general average, we rule in the affirmative. As a rule, general or gross averages include all damages and expenses which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel, its cargo, or both at the same time, from a real and known risk 9 While the instant case may technically fall within the purview of the said provision, the formalities prescribed under Articles 813 10 and 814 11 of the Code of Commerce in order to incur the expenses and cause the damage corresponding to gross average were not complied with. Consequently, respondent ESLI's claim for contribution from the consignees of the cargo at the time of the occurrence of the average turns to naught. Prescinding from the foregoing premises, it indubitably follows that the cargo consignees cannot be made liable to respondent carrier for additional freight and salvage charges. Consequently, respondent carrier must refund to herein petitioner the amount it paid under protest for additional freight and salvage charges in behalf of the consignees. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. is ORDERED to return to petitioner Philippine Home Assurance Corporation the amount it paid under protest in behalf of the consignees herein. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-17192 March 30, 1963 HONORIO M. BARRIOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CARLOS A. GO THONG & COMPANY, defendant-appellee. Laput & Jardiel for plaintiff-appellant. Quisumbing & Quisumbing for defendant-appellee. BARRERA, J.: From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 37219) dismissing with costs his case against defendant Carlos A. Go Thong & Co., plaintiff Honorio M. Barrios, interposed the present appeal. The facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are briefly stated in its decision, to wit: The plaintiff Honorio M. Barrios was, on May 1 and 2, 1958, captain and/or master of the MV Henry I of the William Lines Incorporated, of Cebu City, plying between and to and from Cebu City and other southern cities and ports, among which are Dumaguete City, Zamboanga City, and Davao City. At about 8:00 o'clock on the evening of May 1, 1958, plaintiff in his capacity as such captain and/or master of the aforesaid MV Henry I, received or otherwise intercepted an S.O.S. or distress signal by blinkers from the MV Don Alfredo, owned and/or operated by the defendant Carlos A. Go Thong & Company. Acting on and/or answering the S.O.S. call, the plaintiff Honorio M. Barrios, also in his capacity as captain and/or master of the MV Henry I, which was then sailing or navigating from Dumaguete City, altered the course of said vessel, and steered and headed towards the beckoning MV Don Alfredo, which plaintiff found to be in trouble, due to engine failure and the loss of her propeller, for which reason, it was drifting slowly southward from Negros Island towards Borneo in the open China Sea, at the mercy of a moderate easterly wind. At about 8:25 p.m. on the same day, May 1, 1958, the MV Henry I, under the command of the plaintiff, succeeded in getting near the MV Don Alfredo in fact as near as about seven meters from the latter ship and with the consent and knowledge of the captain and/or master of the MV Don Alfredo, the plaintiff caused the latter vessel to be tied to, or well-secured and connected with two lines from the MV Henry I; and in that manner, position and situation, the latter had the MV Don Alfredo in tow and proceeded towards the direction of Dumaguete City, as evidenced by a written certificate to this effect executed and accomplished by the Master, the Chief Engineer, the Chief Officer, and the Second Engineer, of the MV Don Alfredo, who were then on board the latter ship at the time of the occurrence stated above (Exh. A). At about 5:10 o'clock the following morning, May 2, 1958, or after almost nine hours during the night, with the MV Don Alfredo still in tow by the MV Henry I, and while both vessels were approaching the vicinity of Apo Islands off Zamboanga town, Negros Oriental, the MV Lux, a sister ship of the MV Don Alfredo, was sighted heading towards the direction of the aforesaid two vessels, reaching then fifteen minutes later, or at about 5:25 o'clock on that same morning. Thereupon, at the request and instance of the captain and/or master of the MV Don Alfredo, the plaintiff caused the tow lines to be released, thereby also releasing the MV Don Alfredo. These are the main facts of the present case as to which plaintiff and defendant quite agree with each other. As was manifested in its memorandum presented in this case on August 22, 1958, defendant thru counsel said that there is, indeed, between the parties, no dispute as to the factual circumstances, but counsel adds that where plaintiff concludes that they establish an impending sea peril from which salvage of a ship worth more than P100,000.00, plus life and cargo was done, the defendant insists that the facts made out no such case, but that what merely happened was only mere towage from which plaintiff cannot claim any compensation or remuneration independently of the shipping company that owned the vessel commanded by him. On the basis of these facts, the trial court (on April 5, 1960) dismissed the case, stating: Plaintiff bases his claim upon the provisions of the Salvage Law, Act No. 2616, ..... In accordance with the Salvage Law, a ship which is lost or abandoned at sea is considered a derelict and, therefore, proper subject of salvage. A ship in a desperate condition, where persons on board are

incapable, by reason of their mental and physical condition, of doing anything for their own safety, is a quasi-derelict and may, likewise, be the proper subject of salvage. Was the MV Don Alfredo, on May 1, 1958, when her engine failed and, for that reason, was left drifting without power on the high seas, a derelict or a quasi-derelict? In other words, was it a ship that was lost or abandoned, or in a desperate condition, which could not be saved by reason of incapacity or incapacity of its crew or the persons on board thereof? From all appearances and from the evidence extant in the records, there can be no doubt, for it seems clear enough, that the MV Don Alfredo was not a lost ship, nor was it abandoned. Can it be said that the said ship was in a desperate condition, simply because S.O.S. signals were sent from it?. From the testimony of the captain of the MV Don Alfredo, the engine failed and the ship already lost power as early as 8:00 o'clock on the morning of May 1, 1958; although it was helpless, in the sense that it could not move, it did not drift too far from the place where it was, at the time it had an engine failure. The weather was fair in fact, as described by witnesses, the weather was clear and good. The waves were small, too slight there were only ripples on the sea, and the sea was quite smooth. And, during the night, while towing was going on, there was a moonlight. Inasmuch as the MV Don Alfredo was drifting towards the open sea, there was no danger of floundering. As testified to by one of the witnesses, it would take days or even weeks before the ship could as much as approach an island. And, even then, upon the least indication, the anchor could always be weighed down, in order to prevent the ship from striking against the rocks. "There was no danger of the vessel capsizing, in view of the fairness of the sea, and the condition of the weather, as described above. As a matter of fact, although the MV Don Alfredo had a motor launch, and two lifeboats, there was no attempt, much less, was there occasion or necessity, to lower anyone or all of them, in order to evacuate the persons on board; nor did the conditions then obtaining require an order to jettison the cargo. But, it is insisted for the plaintiff that an S.O.S. or a distress signal was sent from aboard the MV Don Alfredo, which was enough to establish the fact that it was exposed to imminent peril at sea. It is admitted by the defendant that such S.O.S. signal was, in fact, sent by blinkers. However, defendant's evidence shows that Captain Loresto of the MV Don Alfredo, did not authorize the radio operator of the aforesaid ship to send an S.O.S. or distress signal, for the ship was never in distress, nor was it exposed to a great imminent peril of the sea. What the aforesaid Captain told the radio operator to transmit was a general call; for, at any rate, message had been sent to defendant's office at Cebu City, which the latter had acknowledged, by sending back a reply stating that help was on the way. However, as explained by the said radio operator, in spite of his efforts to send a general call by radio, he did not receive any response. For this reason, the Captain instructed him to send the general call by blinkers from the deck of the ship; but the call by blinkers, which follows the dots and dashes method of sending messages, could not be easily understood by deck officers who ordinarily are not radio operators. Hence, the only way by which the attention of general officers on deck could be called, was to send an S.O.S. signal which can be understood by all and sundry. Be it as it may, the evidence further shows that when the two ships were already within hearing distance (barely seven meters) of each other, there was a sustained conversation between Masters and complement of the two vessels, by means of loud speakers and the radio; and, the plaintiff must have learned of the exact nature and extent of the disability from which the MV Don Alfredo had suffered that is, that the only trouble that the said vessel had developed was an engine failure, due to the loss of its propellers.. It can thus be said that the MV Don Alfredo was not in a perilous condition wherein the members of its crew would be incapable of doing anything to save passengers and cargo, and, for this reason, it cannot be duly considered as a quasi-derelict; hence, it was not the proper subject of salvage, and the Salvage Law, Act No. 2616, is not applicable. Plaintiff, likewise, predicates his action upon the provisions of Article 2142 of the New Civil Code, which reads as follows: Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. This does not find clear application to the case at bar, for the reason that it is not the William Lines, Inc., owners of the MV Henry I which is claiming for damages or remuneration, because it has waived all such

claims, but the plaintiff herein is the Captain of the salvaging ship, who has not shown that, in his voluntary act done towards and which benefited the MV Don Alfredo, he had been unduly prejudiced by his employers, the said William Lines, Incorporated. What about equity? Does not equity permit plaintiff to recover for his services rendered and sacrifices made? In this jurisdiction, equity may only be taken into account when the circumstances warrant its application, and in the absence of any provision of law governing the matter under litigation. That is not so in the present case. In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the case with costs against the plaintiff; and inasmuch as the plaintiff has not been found to have brought the case maliciously, the counterclaim of the defendant is, likewise, dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. The main issue to be resolved in this appeal is, whether under the facts of the case, the service rendered by plaintiff to defendant constituted "salvage" or "towage", and if so, whether plaintiff may recover from defendant compensation for such service. The pertinent provision of the Salvage Law (Act No. 2616), provides: SECTION 1. When in case of shipwreck, the vessel or its cargo shall be beyond the control of the crew, or shall have been abandoned by them, and picked up and conveyed to a safe place by other persons, the latter shall be entitled to a reward for the salvage. Those who, not being included in the above paragraph, assist in saving a vessel or its cargo from shipwreck, shall be entitled to a like reward. According to this provision, those who assist in saving a vessel or its cargo from shipwreck, shall be entitled to a reward (salvage). "Salvage" has been defined as "the compensation allowed to persons by whose assistance a ship or her cargo has been saved, in whole or in part, from impending peril on the sea, or in recovering such property from actual loss, as in case of shipwreck, derelict, or recapture." (Blackwall v. Saucelito Tug Company, 10 Wall. 1, 12, cited in Erlanger & Galinger v. Swedish East Asiatic Co., Ltd., 34 Phil. 178.) In the Erlanger & Galinger case, it was held that three elements are necessary to a valid salvage claim, namely, (1) a marine peril, (2) service voluntarily rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract, and (3) success in whole or in part, or that the service rendered contributed to such success.1 Was there a marine peril, in the instant case, to justify a valid salvage claim by plaintiff against defendant? Like the trial court, we do not think there was. It appears that although the defendant's vessel in question was, on the night of May 1, 1958, in a helpless condition due to engine failure, it did not drift too far from the place where it was. As found by the court a quo the weather was fair, clear, and good. The waves were small and too slight, so much so, that there were only ripples on the sea, which was quite smooth. During the towing of the vessel on the same night, there was moonlight. Although said vessel was drifting towards the open sea, there was no danger of it floundering or being stranded, as it was far from any island or rocks. In case of danger of stranding, its anchor could released, to prevent such occurrence. There was no danger that defendant's vessel would sink, in view of the smoothness of the sea and the fairness of the weather. That there was absence of danger is shown by the fact that said vessel or its crew did not even find it necessary to lower its launch and two motor boats, in order to evacuate its passengers aboard. Neither did they find occasion to jettison the vessel's cargo as a safety measure. Neither the passengers nor the cargo were in danger of perishing. All that the vessel's crew members could not do was to move the vessel on its own power. That did not make the vessel a quasi-derelict, considering that even before the appellant extended the help to the distressed ship, a sister vessel was known to be on its way to succor it. If plaintiff's service to defendant does not constitute "salvage" within the purview of the Salvage Law, can it be considered as a quasi-contract of "towage" created in the spirit of the new Civil Code? The answer seems to incline in the affirmative, for in consenting to plaintiff's offer to tow the vessel, defendant (through the captain of its vessel MV Don Alfredo) thereby impliedly entered into a juridical relation of "towage" with the owner of the vessel MV Henry I, captained by plaintiff, the William Lines, Incorporated. Tug which put line aboard liberty ship which was not in danger or peril but which had reduced its engine speed because of hot grounds, and assisted ship over bar and, thereafter, dropped towline and stood by while ship proceeded to dock under own power, was entitled, in absence of written agreement as to amount to be paid for services, to payment for towage services, and not for salvage services. (Sause, et

al. v. United States, et al., 107 F. Supp. 489) If the contract thus created, in this case, is one for towage, then only the owner of the towing vessel, to the exclusion of the crew of the said vessel, may be entitled to remuneration. It often becomes material too, for courts to draw a distinct line between salvage and towage, for the reason that a reward ought sometimes to be given to the crew of the salvage vessel and to other participants in salvage services; and such reward should not be given if the services were held to be merely towage. (The Rebecca Shepherd, 148 F. 731.) The master and members of the crew of a tug were not entitled to participate in payment by liberty ship for services rendered by tug which were towage services and not salvage services. (Sause, et al. v. United States, et al., supra.) "The distinction between salvage and towage is of importance to the crew of the salvaging ship, for the following reasons: If the contract for towage is in fact towage, then the crew does not have any interest or rights in the remuneration pursuant to the contract. But if the owners of the respective vessels are of a salvage nature, the crew of the salvaging ship is entitled to salvage, and can look to the salvaged vessel for its share. (I Norris, The Law of Seamen, Sec. 222.) And, as the vessel-owner, William Lines, Incorporated, had expressly waived its claim for compensation for the towage service rendered to defendant, it is clear that plaintiff, whose right if at all depends upon and not separate from the interest of his employer, is not entitled to payment for such towage service. Neither may plaintiff invoke equity in support of his claim for compensation against defendant. There being an express provision of law (Art. 2142, Civil Code) applicable to the relationship created in this case, that is, that of a quasi-contract of towage where the crew is not entitled to compensation separate from that of the vessel, there is no occasion to resort to equitable considerations. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the court a quo appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in all respects, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. So ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-51910 August 10, 1989 LITONJUA SHIPPING COMPANY INC., petitioner vs. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD and GREGORIO P. CANDONGO respondents. Ferrer, Valte, Mariano, Sangalang & Villanueva for petitioner. Estratonico S. Anano for private respondent. FELICIANO, J.: In this Petition for Certiorari, petitioner Litonjua Shipping Company, Inc. ("Lintonjua") seeks to annul and set aside a decision dated, 31 May 1979 of the National Seamen Board ("NSB") in NSB Case No. 1331-77 affirming the decision dated 17 February 1977 of the NSB hearing officer which adjudged petitioner Litonjua liable to private respondent for violation of the latter's contract of employment and which ordered petitioner to pay damages. Petitioner Litonjua is the duly appointed local crewing Managing Office of the Fairwind Shipping Corporation ('Fairwind). The M/V Dufton Bay is an ocean-going vessel of foreign registry owned by the R.D. Mullion Ship Broking Agency Ltd. ("Mullion"). On 11 September 1976, while the Dufton Bay was in the port of Cebu and while under charter by Fairwind, the vessel's master contracted the services of, among others, private respondent Gregorio Candongo to serve as Third Engineer for a period of twelve (12) months with a monthly wage of US$500.00. This agreement was executed before the Cebu Area Manning Unit of the NSB. Thereafter, private respondent boarded the vessel. On 28 December 1976, before expiration of his contract, private respondent was required to disembark at Port Kelang, Malaysia, and was returned to the Philippines on 5 January 1977. The cause of the discharge was described in his Seaman's Book as 'by owner's arrange". 1 Shortly after returning to the Philippines, private respondent filed a complaint before public respondent NSB, which complaint was docketed as NSB-1331-77, for violation of contract, against Mullion as the shipping company and petitioner Litonjua as agent of the shipowner and of the charterer of the vessel. At the initial hearing, the NSB hearing officer held a conference with the parties, at which conference petitioner Litonjua was represented by one of its supercargos, Edmond Cruz. Edmond Cruz asked, in writing, that the hearing be postponed for a month upon the ground that the employee of Litonjua in charge of the case was out of town. The hearing officer denied this request and then declared petitioner Litonjua in default. At the hearing, private respondent testified that when he was recruited by the Captain of the Dufton Bay, the latter was accompanied to the NSB Cebu Area Manning Unit by two (2) supercargos sent by petitioner Litonjua to Cebu, and that the two (2) supercargos Edmond Cruz and Renato Litonjua assisted private respondent in the procurement of his National Investigation and Security Agency (NISA) clearance. Messrs. Cruz and Litonjua were also present during private respondent's interview by Captain Ho King Yiu of the Dufton Bay. On 17 February 1977, the hearing officer of the NSB rendered a judgment by default, 2 the dispositive portion of which read: Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents R.D. Mullion Shipbrokers Co., Ltd., and Litonjua Shipping Co., Inc., jointly and solidarily to pay the complainant the sum of four thousand six hundred fifty seven dollars and sixty three cents ($4,657.63) or its equivalent in the Phil. currency within 10 days from receipt of the copy of this Decision the payment of which to be coursed through the then NSB. The above conclusion was rationalized in the following terms:

From the evidence on record it clearly appears that there was no sufficient or valid cause for the respondents to terminate the services of complainant prior to 17 September 1977, which is the expiry date of the contract. For this reason the respondents have violated the conditions of the contract of employment which is a sufficient justification for this Board to render award in favor of the complainant of the unpaid salaries due the latter as damages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract including the accrued leave pay computed on the basis of five [51 days pay for every month of service based at $500.00 monthly salary. Complainant's wages account further show that he has an undrawn wage amounting to US$13.19 to be paid by the respondents Philippine agency together with his accrued leave pay. 3 Petitioner Litonjua filed a motion for reconsideration of the hearing officer's decision; the motion was denied. Petitioner next filed an "Appeal and/or Motion for Reconsideration of the Default Judgment dated 9 August 1977" with the central office of the NSB. NSB then suspended its hearing officer's decision and lifted the order of default against petitioner Litonjua, thereby allowing the latter to adduce evidence in its own behalf The NSB hearing officer, on 26 April 1978, made the following findings: While it appears that in the preparation of the employment papers of the complainant, what was indicated therein was R.D. Mullion Co. (HK) Ltd. referring to Exhibit "B" (Standard Format of a Service Agreement) and Exhibit "C" (Affidavit of Undertaking), as thecompany whom Captain Ho King Yiu, the Master of the vessel Dufton Bay, was representing to be the shipowner, the fact remains that at the time of the recruitment of the complainant, as duly verified by the National Seamen Board, Cebu Area Manning Unit, the Litonjua Shipping Company was the authorized agent of the vessel's charterer, the Fairwind Shipping Corporation, and that in the recruitment process, the Litonjua Shipping Company through its supercargos in the persons of Edmund Cruz and Renato Litonjua, had knowledge thereof and in fact assisted in the interviews conducted by the Master of the crew applicants as admitted by Renato Litonjua including the acts of facilitating the crew's NISA clearances as testified to by complainant. Moreover, the participation of the Litonjua Shipping Corporation in the recruitment of complainant, together with the other crewmembers, in Cebu in September 1976 can be traced to the contents of the letter of April 5, 1976 by the Fairwind Shipping Limited, thru its Director David H.L. Wu addressed to the National Seamen Board, copy of which is on file with Contracts and Licensing Division, quote: This is to certify that Messrs. Litonjua Shipping, Inc. is duly appointed local crewing Managing Office to attend on our Crew requirements as well as attend to our ship's requirements when in Philippine ports. We further authorized Litonjua Shipping Co., Inc. to act as local representative who can sue and be sued, and to bind and sign contracts for our behalf. 4 The NSB then lifted the suspension of the hearing officer's 17 February 1977 decision. Petitioner Litonjua once more moved for reconsideration. On 31 May 1979, public respondent NSB rendered a decision 5 which affirmed its hearing offices decision of 17 February 1977 and which read in part as follows: It is clear that respondent Litonjua Shipping Co., Inc. is the authorized Philippine agent of Fairwind Shipping Corporation, charterer of the vessel 'Dufton Bay, wherein complainant, served as 3rd Engineer from 17 September until disembarkation on December 28, 1976. It is also clear from the complainant's wages account bearing the heading 'Fairwind Shipping Corporation', signed by the Master of the vessel that the Philippine agency referred to herein directed to pay the said withdrawn wages of $13.19 is no other than Litonjua Shipping Company, Inc. From this observation, it can be reasonably inferred that the master of the vessel acted for and in behalf of Fairwind Shipping Corporation who had the obligation to pay the salary of the complainant. It necessarily follows that Fairwind Shipping Corporation is the employer of said complainant. Moreover, it had been established by complainant that Litonjua Shipping Company, Inc., had knowledge of and participated, through its employee, in the recruitment of herein complainant. xxx xxx xxx In view of the foregoing, and pursuant to Art. 3 of the New Labor Code of the Philippines, which provides that, 'The state shall afford protection to labor . . .' as well as the provisions of Art. 4

thereof, that 'all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor', it is our conclusion, that the decision dated February 17, 1977, is based on evidence formally offered and presented during the hearing and that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the hearing officer in finding respondent Litonjua Shipping Company, Inc., liable to complainant. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant Petition for Certiorari, petitioner Litonjua assails the decision of public respondent NSB declaring the charterer Fairwind as employer of private respondent, and for whose liability petitioner was made responsible, as constituting a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The principal if not the sole issue to be resolved here is whether or not the charterer Fairwind was properly regarded as the employer of private respondent Candongo. Petitioner Litonjua makes two (2) principal submissions in support of its contention, to wit: 1) As a general rule, admiralty law as embodied in the Philippine Code of Commerce fastens liability for payment of the crew's wages upon the ship owner, and not the charterer; and 2) The evidence of record is grossly inadequate to shift such liability from the shipowner to the petitioner. 6 Petitioner Litonjua contends that the shipowner, not the charterer, was the employer of private respondent; and that liability for damages cannot be imposed upon petitioner which was a mere agent of the charterer. It is insisted that private respondent's contract of employment and affidavit of undertaking clearly showed that the party with whom he had contracted was none other than Mullion, the shipowner, represented by the ship's master. 7 Petitioner also argues that its supercargos merely assisted Captain Ho King Yiu of the Dufton Bay in being private respondent as Third Engineer. Petitioner also points to the circumstance that the discharge and the repatriation of private respondent was specified in his Seaman's Book as having been "by owner's arrange." Petitioner Litonjua thus argues that being the agent of the charterer and not of the shipowner, it accordingly should not have been held liable on the contract of employment of private respondent. We are not persuaded by petitioner's argument. We believe that there are two (2) grounds upon which petitioner Litonjua may be held liable to the private respondent on the contract of employment. The first basis is the charter party which existed between Mullion, the shipowner, and Fairwind, the charterer. In modern maritime law and usage, there are three (3) distinguishable types of charter parties: (a) the "bareboat" or "demise" charter; (b) the "time" charter; and (c) the "voyage" or "trip" charter. A bareboat or demise charter is a demise of a vessel, much as a lease of an unfurnished house is a demise of real property. The shipowner turns over possession of his vessel to the charterer, who then undertakes to provide a crew and victuals and supplies and fuel for her during the term of the charter. The shipowner is not normally required by the terms of a demise charter to provide a crew, and so the charterer gets the "bare boat", i.e., without a crew. 8 Sometimes, of course, the demise charter might provide that the shipowner is to furnish a master and crew to man the vessel under the charterer's direction, such that the master and crew provided by the shipowner become the agents and servants or employees of the charterer, and the charterer (and not the owner) through the agency of the master, has possession and control of the vessel during the charter period. A time charter, upon the other hand, like a demise charter, is a contract for the use of a vessel for a specified period of time or for the duration of one or more specified voyages. In this case, however, the owner of a time-chartered vessel (unlike the owner of a vessel under a demise or bare-boat charter), retains possession and control through the master and crew who remain his employees. What the time charterer acquires is the right to utilize the carrying capacity and facilities of the vessel and to designate her destinations during the term of the charter. A voyage charter, or trip charter, is simply a contract of affreightment, that is, a contract for the carriage of goods, from one or more ports of loading to one or more ports of unloading, on one or on a series of voyages. In a voyage charter, master and crew remain in the employ of the owner of the vessel. 9 It is well settled that in a demise or bare boat charter, the charterer is treated as owner pro hac vice of the vessel, the charterer assuming in large measure the customary rights and liabilities of the shipowner in relation to third persons who have dealt with him or with the vessel. 10 In such case, the Master of the vessel is the agent of the charterer and not of the shipowner. 11 The charterer or owner pro hac vice, and not the general owner of the vessel, is held liable for the expenses of the voyage including the wages of the seamen. 12

It is important to note that petitioner Litonjua did not place into the record of this case a copy of the charter party covering the M/V Dufton Bay. We must assume that petitioner Litonjua was aware of the nature of a bareboat or demise charter and that if petitioner did not see fit to include in the record a copy of the charter party, which had been entered into by its principal, it was because the charter party and the provisions thereof were not supportive of the position adopted by petitioner Litonjua in the present case, a position diametrically opposed to the legal consequence of a bareboat charter. 13 Treating Fairwind as owner pro hac vice, petitioner Litonjua having failed to show that it was not such, we believe and so hold that petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the charterer, may be held liable on the contract of employment between the ship captain and the private respondent. There is a second and ethically more compelling basis for holding petitioner Litonjua liable on the contract of employment of private respondent. The charterer of the vessel, Fairwind, clearly benefitted from the employment of private respondent as Third Engineer of the Dufton Bay, along with the ten (10) other Filipino crewmembers recruited by Captain Ho in Cebu at the same occasion. 14 If private respondent had not agreed to serve as such Third Engineer, the ship would not have been able to proceed with its voyage. The equitable consequence of this benefit to the charterer is, moreover, reinforced by convergence of other circumstances of which the Court must take account. There is the circumstance that only the charterer, through the petitioner, was present in the Philippines. Secondly, the scope of authority or the responsibility of petitioner Litonjua was not clearly delimited. Petitioner as noted, took the position that its commission was limited to taking care of vessels owned by Fairwind. But the documentary authorization read into the record of this case does not make that clear at all. The words "our ships" may well be read to refer both to vessels registered in the name of Fairwind and vessels owned by others but chartered by Fairwind. Indeed the commercial, operating requirements of a vessel for crew members and for supplies and provisions have no relationship to the technical characterization of the vessel as owned by or as merely chartered by Fairwind. In any case, it is not clear from the authorization given by Fairwind to petitioner Litonjua that vessels chartered by Fairwind (and owned by some other companies) were not to be taken care of by petitioner Litonjua should such vessels put into a Philippine port. The statement of account which the Dufton Bay's Master had signed and which pertained to the salary of private respondent had referred to a Philippine agency which would take care of disbursing or paying such account. 'there is no question that Philippine agency was the Philippine agent of the charterer Fairwind. Moreover, there is also no question that petitioner Litonjua did assist the Master of the vessel in locating and recruiting private respondent as Third Engineer of the vessel as well as ten (10) other Filipino seamen as crew members. In so doing, petitioner Litonjua certainly in effect represented that it was taking care of the crewing and other requirements of a vessel chartered by its principal, Fairwind. 15 Last, but certainly not least, there is the circumstance that extreme hardship would result for the private respondent if petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the charterer, is not held liable to private respondent upon the contract of employment. Clearly, the private respondent, and the other Filipino crew members of the vessel, would be defenseless against a breach of their respective contracts. While wages of crew members constitute a maritime lien upon the vessel, private respondent is in no position to enforce that lien. If only because the vessel, being one of foreign registry and not ordinarily doing business in the Philippines or making regular calls on Philippine ports cannot be effectively held to answer for such claims in a Philippine forum. Upon the other hand, it seems quite clear that petitioner Litonjua, should it be held liable to private respondent for the latter's claims, would be better placed to secure reimbursement from its principal Fairwind. In turn, Fairwind would be in an indefinitely better position (than private respondent) to seek and obtain recourse from Mullion, the foreign shipowner, should Fairwind feel entitled to reimbursement of the amounts paid to private respondent through petitioner Litonjua. We conclude that private respondent was properly regarded as an employee of the charterer Fairwind and that petitioner Litonjua may be held to answer to private respondent for the latter's claims as the agent in the Philippines of Fairwind. We think this result, which public respondent reached, far from constituting a grave abuse of discretion, is compelled by equitable principles and by the demands of substantial justice. To hold otherwise would be to leave private respondent (and others who may find themselves in his position) without any effective recourse for the unjust dismissal and for the breach of his contract of employment. WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED and the Decision of the then National Seamen Board dated 31 May 1979 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 102316 June 30, 1997 VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: Is a stipulation in a charter party that the "(o)wners shall not be responsible for loss, split, short-landing, breakages and any kind of damages to the cargo" 1 valid? This is the main question raised in this petition for review assailing the Decision of Respondent Court of Appeals 2 in CA-G.R. No. CV-20156 promulgated on October 15, 1991. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 171, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered ordering South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. to pay plaintiff the sum of TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) representing the value of the policy of the lost logs with legal interest thereon from the date of demand on February 2, 1984 until the amount is fully paid or in the alternative, defendant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation to pay plaintiff the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS (2,000,000.00) representing the value of lost logs plus legal interest from the date of demand on April 24, 1984 until full payment thereof; the reasonable attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to five (5) percent of the amount of the claim and the costs of the suit. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay defendant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P230,000.00) representing the balance of the stipulated freight charges. Defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Company's counterclaim is hereby dismissed. In its assailed Decision, Respondent Court of Appeals held: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED except in so far (sic) as the liability of the Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation to the plaintiff is concerned which is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 3 The Facts The factual antecedents of this case as narrated in the Court of Appeals Decision are as follows: It appears that on 16 January 1984, plaintiff (Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc.) entered into an agreement with the defendant Seven Brothers (Shipping Corporation) whereby the latter undertook to load on board its vessel M/V Seven Ambassador the former's lauan round logs numbering 940 at the port of Maconacon, Isabela for shipment to Manila. On 20 January 1984, plaintiff insured the logs against loss and/or damage with defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. for P2,000,000.00 and the latter issued its Marine Cargo Insurance Policy No. 84/24229 for P2,000,000.00 on said date. On 24 January 1984, the plaintiff gave the check in payment of the premium on the insurance policy to Mr. Victorio Chua. In the meantime, the said vessel M/V Seven Ambassador sank on 25 January 1984 resulting in the loss of the plaintiff's insured logs.

On 30 January 1984, a check for P5,625.00 (Exh. "E") to cover payment of the premium and documentary stamps due on the policy was tendered due to the insurer but was not accepted. Instead, the South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. cancelled the insurance policy it issued as of the date of the inception for non-payment of the premium due in accordance with Section 77 of the Insurance Code. On 2 February 1984, plaintiff demanded from defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. the payment of the proceeds of the policy but the latter denied liability under the policy. Plaintiff likewise filed a formal claim with defendant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation for the value of the lost logs but the latter denied the claim. After due hearing and trial, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. Both defendants shipping corporation and the surety company appealed. Defendant-appellant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation impute (sic) to the court a quo the following assignment of errors, to wit: A. The lower court erred in holding that the proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel Seven Ambassadors, was not due to fortuitous event but to the negligence of the captain in stowing and securing the logs on board, causing the iron chains to snap and the logs to roll to the portside. B. The lower court erred in declaring that the non-liability clause of the Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation from logs (sic) of the cargo stipulated in the charter party is void for being contrary to public policy invoking article 1745 of the New Civil Code. C. The lower court erred in holding defendant-appellant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation liable in the alternative and ordering/directing it to pay plaintiff-appellee the amount of two million (2,000,000.00) pesos representing the value of the logs plus legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. D. The lower court erred in ordering defendant-appellant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation to pay appellee reasonable attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to 5% of the amount of the claim and the costs of the suit. E. The lower court erred in not awarding defendant-appellant Seven Brothers Corporation its counter-claim for attorney's fees. F. The lower court erred in not dismissing the complaint against Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation. Defendant-appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. assigns the following errors: A. The trial court erred in holding that Victorio Chua was an agent of defendant-appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. and likewise erred in not holding that he was the representative of the insurance broker Columbia Insurance Brokers, Ltd. B. The trial court erred in holding that Victorio Chua received compensation/commission on the premiums paid on the policies issued by the defendant-appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. C. The trial court erred in not applying Section 77 of the Insurance Code. D. The trial court erred in disregarding the "receipt of payment clause" attached to and forming part of the Marine Cargo Insurance Policy No. 84/24229. E. The trial court in disregarding the statement of account or bill stating the amount of premium and documentary stamps to be paid on the policy by the plaintiff-appellee. F. The trial court erred in disregarding the endorsement of cancellation of the policy due to nonpayment of premium and documentary stamps. G. The trial court erred in ordering defendant-appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. to pay plaintiff-appellee P2,000,000.00 representing value of the policy with legal interest from 2 February 1984 until the amount is fully paid, H. The trial court erred in not awarding to the defendant-appellant the attorney's fees alleged and proven in its counterclaim.

The primary issue to be resolved before us is whether defendants shipping corporation and the surety company are liable to the plaintiff for the latter's lost logs. 4 The Court of Appeals affirmed in part the RTC judgment by sustaining the liability of South Sea Surety and Insurance Company ("South Sea"), but modified it by holding that Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation ("Seven Brothers") was not liable for the lost cargo. 5 In modifying the RTC judgment, the respondent appellate court ratiocinated thus: It appears that there is a stipulation in the charter party that the ship owner would be exempted from liability in case of loss. The court a quo erred in applying the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to establish the liability of the shipping corporation. The provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability even for the negligence of its agent is valid (Home Insurance Company, Inc. vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 23 SCRA 24). The shipping corporation should not therefore be held liable for the loss of the logs. 6 South Sea and herein Petitioner Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. ("Valenzuela") filed separate petitions for review before this Court. In a Resolution dated June 2, 1995, this Court denied the petition of South Sea. 7 There the Court found no reason to reverse the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Chua was indeed an authorized agent of South Sea when he received Valenzuela's premium payment for the marine cargo insurance policy which was thus binding on the insurer. 8 The Court is now called upon to resolve the petition for review filed by Valenzuela assailing the CA Decision which exempted Seven Brothers from any liability for the lost cargo. The Issue Petitioner Valenzuela's arguments resolve around a single issue: "whether or not respondent Court (of Appeals) committed a reversible error in upholding the validity of the stipulation in the charter party executed between the petitioner and the private respondent exempting the latter from liability for the loss of petitioner's logs arising from the negligence of its (Seven Brothers') captain." 9 The Court's Ruling The petition is not meritorious. Validity of Stipulation is Lis Mota The charter party between the petitioner and private respondent stipulated that the "(o)wners shall not be responsible for loss, split, short-landing, breakages and any kind of damages to the cargo." 10 The validity of this stipulation is the lis mota of this case. It should be noted at the outset that there is no dispute between the parties that the proximate cause of the sinking of M/V Seven Ambassadors resulting in the loss of its cargo was the "snapping of the iron chains and the subsequent rolling of the logs to the portside due to the negligence of the captain in stowing and securing the logs on board the vessel and not due to fortuitous event." 11 Likewise undisputed is the status of Private Respondent Seven Brothers as a private carrier when it contracted to transport the cargo of Petitioner Valenzuela. Even the latter admits this in its petition. 12 The trial court deemed the charter party stipulation void for being contrary to public policy, 13 citing Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;

(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods; (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods; (4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported; (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; (7) That the common carrier is 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. Petitioner Valenzuela adds that the stipulation is void for being contrary to Articles 586 and 587 of the Code of Commerce 14 and Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code. Citing Article 1306 and paragraph 1, Article 1409 of the Civil Code, 15 petitioner further contends that said stipulation "gives no duty or obligation to the private respondent to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the custody and transportation of the cargo." The Court is not persuaded. As adverted to earlier, it is undisputed that private respondent had acted as a private carrier in transporting petitioner's lauan logs. Thus, Article 1745 and other Civil Code provisions on common carriers which were cited by petitioner may not be applied unless expressly stipulated by the parties in their charter party. 16 In a contract of private carriage, the parties may validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer, exempting the shipowner from liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even by the negligence of the ship captain. Pursuant to Article 1306 17 of the Civil Code, such stipulation is valid because it is freely entered into by the parties and the same is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Indeed, their contract of private carriage is not even a contract of adhesion. We stress that in a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier. Consequently, the public policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts involving common carriers. The issue posed in this case and the arguments raised by petitioner are not novel; they were resolved long ago by this Court in Home Insurance Co. vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. 18 In that case, the trial court similarly nullified a stipulation identical to that involved in the present case for being contrary to public policy based on Article 1744 of the Civil Code and Article 587 of the Code of Commerce. Consequently, the trial court held the shipowner liable for damages resulting for the partial loss of the cargo. This Court reversed the trial court and laid down, through Mr. Justice Jose P. Bengzon, the following well-settled observation and doctrine: The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law. Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy, 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 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 this case of a ship totally chartered for the used of a single party. 19 (Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, where the reason for the rule ceases, the rule itself does not apply. The general public enters into a contract of transportation with common carriers without a hand or a voice in the preparation thereof. The riding

public merely adheres to the contract; even if the public wants to, it cannot submit its own stipulations for the approval of the common carrier. Thus, the law on common carriers extends its protective mantle against onesided stipulations inserted in tickets, invoices or other documents over which the riding public has no understanding or, worse, no choice. Compared to the general public, a charterer in a contract of private carriage is not similarly situated. It can and in fact it usually does enter into a free and voluntary agreement. In practice, the parties in a contract of private carriage can stipulate the carrier's obligations and liabilities over the shipment which, in turn, determine the price or consideration of the charter. Thus, a charterer, in exchange for convenience and economy, may opt to set aside the protection of the law on common carriers. When the charterer decides to exercise this option, he takes a normal business risk. Petitioner contends that the rule in Home Insurance is not applicable to the present case because it "covers only a stipulation exempting a private carrier from liability for the negligence of his agent, but it does not apply to a stipulation exempting a private carrier like private respondent from the negligence of his employee or servant which is the situation in this case." 20 This contention of petitioner is bereft of merit, for it raises a distinction without any substantive difference. The case Home Insurance specifically dealt with "the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew" 21 and a charter party stipulation which "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." 22 Undoubtedly, Home Insurance is applicable to the case at bar. The naked assertion of petitioner that the American rule enunciated in Home Insurance is not the rule in the Philippines 23 deserves scant consideration. The Court there categorically held that said rule was "reasonable" and proceeded to apply it in the resolution of that case. Petitioner miserably failed to show such circumstances or arguments which would necessitate a departure from a well-settled rule. Consequently, our ruling in said case remains a binding judicial precedent based on the doctrine of stare decisis and Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides that "(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines." In fine, the respondent appellate court aptly stated that "[in the case of] a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability even for the negligence of its agents is valid." 24 Other Arguments On the basis of the foregoing alone, the present petition may already be denied; the Court, however, will discuss the other arguments of petitioner for the benefit and satisfaction of all concerned. Articles 586 and 587, Code of Commerce Petitioner Valenzuela insists that the charter party stipulation is contrary to Articles 586 and 587 of the Code of Commerce which confer on petitioner the right to recover damages from the shipowner and ship agent for the acts or conduct of the captain. 25 We are not persuaded. Whatever rights petitioner may have under the aforementioned statutory provisions were waived when it entered into the charter party. Article 6 of the Civil Code provides that "(r)ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a person with a right recognized by law." As a general rule, patrimonial rights may be waived as opposed to rights to personality and family rights which may not be made the subject of waiver. 26 Being patently and undoubtedly patrimonial, petitioner's right conferred under said articles may be waived. This, the petitioner did by acceding to the contractual stipulation that it is solely responsible or any damage to the cargo, thereby exempting the private carrier from any responsibility for loss or damage thereto. Furthermore, as discussed above, the contract of private carriage binds petitioner and private respondent alone; it is not imbued with public policy considerations for the general public or third persons are not affected thereby. Articles 1170 and 1173, Civil Code Petitioner likewise argues that the stipulation subject of this controversy is void for being contrary to Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code 27 which read: Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, shall apply. If the law does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. The Court notes that the foregoing articles are applicable only to the obligor or the one with an obligation to perform. In the instant case, Private Respondent Seven Brothers is not an obligor in respect of the cargo, for this obligation to bear the loss was shifted to petitioner by virtue of the charter party. This shifting of responsibility, as earlier observed, is not void. The provisions cited by petitioner are, therefore, inapplicable to the present case. Moreover, the factual milieu of this case does not justify the application of the second paragraph of Article 1173 of the Civil Code which prescribes the standard of diligence to be observed in the event the law or the contract is silent. In the instant case, Article 362 of the Code of Commerce 28 provides the standard of ordinary diligence for the carriage of goods by a carrier. The standard of diligence under this statutory provision may, however, be modified in a contract of private carriage as the petitioner and private respondent had done in their charter party. Cases Cited by Petitioner Inapplicable Petitioner cites Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. 29 which, in turn, quoted Juan Ysmael & Co. vs. Gabino Barreto & Co. 30 and argues that the public policy considerations stated there vis-a-vis contractual stipulations limiting the carrier's liability be applied "with equal force" to this case. 31 It also cites Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compaia Transatlantica 32 and contends that stipulations exempting a party from liability for damages due to negligence "should not be countenanced" and should be "strictly construed" against the party claiming its benefit. 33 We disagree. The cases of Shewaram and Ysmael both involve a common carrier; thus, they necessarily justify the application of such policy considerations and concomitantly stricter rules. As already discussed above, the public policy considerations behind the rigorous treatment of common carriers are absent in the case of private carriers. Hence, the stringent laws applicable to common carriers are not applied to private carries. The case of Manila Railroad is also inapplicable because the action for damages there does not involve a contract for transportation. Furthermore, the defendant therein made a "promise to use due care in the lifting operations" and, consequently, it was "bound by its undertaking"'; besides, the exemption was intended to cover accidents due to hidden defects in the apparatus or other unforseeable occurrences" not caused by its "personal negligence." This promise was thus constructed to make sense together with the stipulation against liability for damages. 34 In the present case, we stress that the private respondent made no such promise. The agreement of the parties to exempt the shipowner from responsibility for any damage to the cargo and place responsibility over the same to petitioner is the lone stipulation considered now by this Court. Finally, petitioner points to Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Lopez Costelo, 35 Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 36 N. T . Hashim and Co. vs. Rocha and Co., 37 Ohta Development Co. vs. Steamship "Pompey" 38 and Limpangco Sons vs. Yangco Steamship Co. 39 in support of its contention that the shipowner be held liable for damages. 40 These however are not on all fours with the present case because they do not involve a similar factual milieu or an identical stipulation in the charter party expressly exempting the shipowner form responsibility for any damage to the cargo. Effect of the South Sea Resolution In its memorandum, Seven Brothers argues that petitioner has no cause of action against it because this Court has earlier affirmed the liability of South Sea for the loss suffered by petitioner. Private respondent submits that petitioner is not legally entitled to collect twice for a single loss. 41 In view of the above disquisition upholding the validity of the questioned charter party stipulation and holding that petitioner may not recover from private respondent, the present issue is moot and academic. It suffices to state that the Resolution of this Court dated June 2, 1995 42 affirming the liability of South Sea does not, by itself, necessarily preclude the petitioner from proceeding against private respondent. An aggrieved party may still recover the deficiency for the person causing the loss in the event the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the loss. Article

2207 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity for the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency form the person causing the loss or injury. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for its utter failure to show any reversible error on the part of Respondent Court. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-46340 April 28, 1983 SWEET LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MICAELA B. QUINTOS, FR. JOSE BACATAN, S.J., MARCIANO CABRAS and ANDREA VELOSO, respondents. Felixberto Leonardo and Ramon Tuangco for petitioner. Expedito P. Bugarin for respondents. RESOLUTION MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: For having by-passed a port of call without previous notice, petitioner shipping company and the ship captain were sued for damages by four of its passengers, private respondents herein, before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VIII, Briefly, the facts of record show that private respondents purchased first- class tickets from petitioner at the latter's office in Cebu City. They were to board petitioner's vessel, M/V Sweet Grace, bound for Catbalogan, Western Samar. Instead of departing at the scheduled hour of about midnight on July 8, 1972, the vessel set sail at 3:00 A.M. of July 9, 1972 only to be towed back to Cebu due to engine trouble, arriving there at about 4:00 P.M. on the same day. Repairs having been accomplished, the vessel lifted anchor again on July 10, 1972 at around 8:00 A.M. Instead of docking at Catbalogan, which was the first port of call, the vessel proceeded direct to Tacloban at around 9:00 P.M. of July 10, 1972. Private respondents had no recourse but to disembark and board a ferryboat to Catbalogan. Hence, this suit for damages for breach of contract of carriage which the Trial Court, affirmed by respondent Appellate Court, awarded as follows: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS, judgment is rendered ordering the defendant Sweet Lines, Incorporated to pay to the plaintiffs the following: l) P175,000.00 as moral damages divided among the plaintiffs as follows: P30,000.00 for Mrs. Micaela B. Quintos, P26,000.00 for Jesuit Father Jose Bacatan; P10,000.00 for Mrs. Andrea Veloso and P10,000.00 for plaintiff Mike Cabras; 2) P30,000.00 as exemplary or corrective damages; 3) Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on the moral and exemplary damages as set forth above from the date of this decision until said damages are fully paid; 4) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and 5) The costs. Counterclaim dismissed. The governing provisions are found in the Code of Commerce and read as follows: ART. 614. A captain who, having agreed to make a voyage, fails to fulfill his undertaking, without being prevented by fortuitous event or force majeure, shall indemnify all the losses which his failure may cause, without prejudice to criminal penalties which may be proper. and ART. 698. In case of interruption of a voyage already begun, the passengers shall only be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover damages if

the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure, but with a right to indemnity, if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel, and the passenger should agree to wait for her repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased fare of passage, but his living expenses during the delay shall be for his own account. The crucial factor then is the existence of a fortuitous event or force majeure. Without it, the right to damages and indemnity exists against a captain who fails to fulfill his undertaking or where the interruption has been caused by the captain exclusively. As found by both Courts below, there was no fortuitous event or force majeure which prevented the vessel from fulfilling its undertaking of taking private respondents to Catbalogan. In the first place, mechanical defects in the carrier are not considered a caso fortuito that exempts the carrier from responsibility. 1 In the second place, even granting arguendo that the engine failure was a fortuitous event, it accounted only for the delay in departure. When the vessel finally left the port of Cebu on July 10, 1972, there was no longer any force majeure that justified by-passing a port of call. The vessel was completely repaired the following day after it was towed back to Cebu. In fact, after docking at Tacloban City, it left the next day for Manila to complete its voyage. 2 The reason for by-passing the port of Catbalogan, as admitted by petitioner's General Manager, was to enable the vessel to catch up with its schedule for the next week. The record also discloses that there were 50 passengers for Tacloban compared to 20 passengers for Catbalogan, 3 so that the Catbalogan phase could be scrapped without too much loss for the company. In defense, petitioner cannot rely on the conditions in small bold print at the back of the ticket reading. The passenger's acceptance of this ticket shall be considered as an acceptance of the following conditions: 3. In case the vessel cannot continue or complete the trip for any cause whatsoever, the carrier reserves the right to bring the passenger to his/her destination at the expense of the carrier or to cancel the ticket and refund the passenger the value of his/her ticket; xxx xxx xxx 11. The sailing schedule of the vessel for which this ticket was issued is subject to change without previous notice. (Exhibit "l -A") Even assuming that those conditions are squarely applicable to the case at bar, petitioner did not comply with the same. It did not cancel the ticket nor did it refund the value of the tickets to private respondents. Besides, it was not the vessel's sailing schedule that was involved. Private respondents' complaint is directed not at the delayed departure the next day but at the by- passing of Catbalogan, their destination. Had petitioner notified them previously, and offered to bring them to their destination at its expense, or refunded the value of the tickets purchased, perhaps, this controversy would not have arisen. Furthermore, the conditions relied upon by petitioner cannot prevail over Articles 614 and 698 of the Code of Commerce heretofore quoted. The voyage to Catbalogan was "interrupted" by the captain upon instruction of management. The "interruption" was not due to fortuitous event or for majeure nor to disability of the vessel. Having been caused by the captain upon instruction of management, the passengers' right to indemnity is evident. The owner of a vessel and the ship agent shall be civilly liable for the acts of the captain. 4 Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages are justly due in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that there was bad faith on the part of petitioner in that: (1) Defendants-appellants did not give notice to plaintiffs- appellees as to the change of schedule of the vessel; (2) Knowing fully well that it would take no less than fifteen hours to effect the repairs of the damaged engine, defendants-appellants instead made announcement of assurance that the vessel would leave within a short period of time, and when plaintiffs-appellees wanted to leave

the port and gave up the trip, defendants-appellants' employees would come and say, 'we are leaving, already.' (3) Defendants-appellants did not offer to refund plaintiffs-appellees' tickets nor provide them with transportation from Tacloban City to Catbalogan. 5 That finding of bad faith is binding on us, since it is not the function of the Court to analyze and review evidence on this point all over again, 6 aside from the fact that we find it faithful to the meaning of bad faith enunciated thus: Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or illwill. Selfenrichment or fraternal interest, and not personal illwill may have been the motive, but it is malice nevertheless. 7 Under the circumstances, however, we find the award of moral damages excessive and accordingly reduce them to P3,000.00, respectively, for each of the private respondents. The total award of attorney's fees of P5,000.00 is in order considering that the case has reached this Tribunal. Insofar as exemplary damages are concerned, although there was bad faith, we are not inclined to grant them in addition to moral damages. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the Court decides whether or not they should be adjudicated. 8 The objective to meet its schedule might have been called for, but petitioner should have taken the necessary steps for the protection of its passengers under its contract of carriage. Article 2215(2) of the Civil Code 9 invoked by petitioner is inapplicable herein. The harm done to private respondents outweighs any benefits they may have derived from being transported to Tacloban instead of being taken to Catbalogan, their destination and the vessel's first port of call, pursuant to its normal schedule. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified in that petitioner is hereby sentenced to indemnify private respondents in the sum of P3,000.00 each, without interest, plus P1,250.00, each, by way of att/rney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

epublic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. RENATO T. ARROYO, respondents. DAVIDE, JR., J.:p As formulated by the petitioner, the issue in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is as follows: In case of interruption of a vessel's voyage and the consequent delay in that vessel's arrival at its port of destination, is the right of a passenger affected thereby to be determined and governed by the vague Civil Code provision on common carriers, or shall it be, in the absence of a specific provision thereon governed by Art. 698 of the Code of Commerce? 1 The petitioner considers it a "novel question of law." Upon a closer evaluation, however, of the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of 23 November 1994, 2 vis-a-vis, the decision of 29 June 1992 in Civil Case No. 91-491 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24, 3 as well as the allegations and arguments adduced by the parties, we find the petitioner's formulation of the issue imprecise. As this Court sees it, what stands for resolution is a common carrier's liability for damages to a passenger who disembarked from the vessel upon its return to the port of origin, after it suffered engine trouble and had to stop at sea, having commenced the contracted voyage on one engine. The antecedents are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows: Plaintiff [herein private respondent Atty. Renato Arroyo], a public attorney, bought a ticket [from] defendant [herein petitioner], a corporation engaged in . . . inter-island shipping, for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City on November 12, 1991. At around 5:30 in the evening of November 12, 1991, plaintiff boarded the M/V Asia Thailand vessel. At that instance, plaintiff noticed that some repair works [sic] were being undertaken on the engine of the vessel. The vessel departed at around 11:00 in the evening with only one (1) engine running. After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor thereat. After half an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to, Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceeded [sic] to their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City. At Cebu City, plaintiff together with the other passengers who requested to be brought back to Cebu City, were allowed to disembark. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City. Plaintiff, the next day, boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of defendant. On account of this failure of defendant to transport him to the place of destination on November 12, 1991, plaintiff filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against defendant. 4 In his complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 91-491, plaintiff (hereinafter private respondent) alleged that the

engines of the M/V Asia Thailand conked out in the open sea, and for more than an hour it was stalled and at the mercy of the waves, thus causing fear in the passengers. It sailed back to Cebu City after it regained power, but for unexplained reasons, the passengers, including the private respondent, were arrogantly told to disembark without the necessary precautions against possible injury to them. They were thus unceremoniously dumped, which only exacerbated the private respondent's mental distress. He further alleged that by reason of the petitioner's wanton, reckless, and willful acts, he was unnecessarily exposed to danger and, having been stranded in Cebu City for a day, incurred additional expenses and loss of income. He then prayed that he be awarded P1,100.00, P50,000.00, and P25,000.00 as compensatory, moral; and exemplary damages, respectively. 5 In his pre-trial brief, the private respondent asserted that his complaint was "an action for damages arising from bad faith, breach of contract and from tort," with the former arising from the petitioner's "failure to carry [him] to his place of destination as contracted," while the latter from the "conduct of the [petitioner] resulting [in] the infliction of emotional distress" to the private respondent. 6 After due trial, the trial court rendered its decision 7 and ruled that the action was only for breach of contract, with Articles 1170, 1172, and 1173 of the Civil Code as applicable law not Article 2180 of the same Code. It was of the opinion that Article 1170 made a person liable for damages if, in the performance of his obligation, he was guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, or in any manner contravened the tenor thereof; moreover, pursuant to Article 2201 of the same Code, to be entitled to damages, the non-performance of the obligation must have been tainted not only by fraud, negligence, or delay, but also bad faith, malice, and wanton attitude. It then disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, it not appearing from the evidence that plaintiff was left in the Port of Cebu because of the fault, negligence, malice or wanton attitude of defendant's employees, the complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant's counterclaim is likewise dismissed it not appearing also that filing of the case by plaintiff was motivated by malice or bad faith. 8 The trial court made the following findings to support its disposition: In the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and of the above provisions of the New Civil Code, the issue to be resolved, in the resolution of this case is whether or not, defendant thru its employees in [sic] the night of November 12, 1991, committed fraud, negligence, bad faith or malice when it left plaintiff in the Port of Cebu when it sailed back to Cagayan de Oro City after it has [sic] returned from Kawit Island. Evaluation of the evidence of the parties tended to show nothing that defendant committed fraud. As early as 3:00 p.m. of November 12, 1991, defendant did not hide the fact that the cylinder head cracked. Plaintiff even saw during its repair. If he had doubts as to the vessel's capacity to sail, he had time yet to take another boat. The ticket could be returned to defendant and corresponding cash [would] be returned to him. Neither could negligence, bad faith or malice on the part of defendant be inferred from the evidence of the parties. When the boat arrived at [the] Port of Cebu after it returned from Kawit Island, there was an announcement that passengers who would like to disembark were given ten (10) minutes only to do so. By this announcement, it could be inferred that the boat will [sic] proceed to Cagayan de Oro City. If plaintiff entertained doubts, he should have asked a member of the crew of the boat or better still, the captain of the boat. But as admitted by him, he was of the impression only that the boat will not proceed to Cagayan de Oro that evening so he disembarked. He was instead, the ones [sic] negligent. Had he been prudent, with the announcement that those who will disembark were given ten minutes only, he should have lingered a little by staying in his cot and inquired whether the boat will proceed to Cagayan de Oro City or not. Defendant cannot be expected to be telling [sic] the reasons to each passenger. Announcement by microphone was enough. The court is inclined to believe that the story of defendant that the boat returned to the Port of Cebu because of the request of the passengers in view of the waves. That it did not return because of the defective engines as shown by the fact that fifteen (15) minutes after the boat docked [at] the Port of Cebu and those who wanted to proceed to Cagayan de Oro disembarked, it left for Cagayan de Oro City.

The defendant got nothing when the boat returned to Cebu to let those who did not want to proceed to Cagayan de Oro City including plaintiff disembarked. On the contrary, this would mean its loss instead because it will have to refund their tickets or they will use it the next trip without paying anymore. It is hard therefore, to imagine how defendant by leaving plaintiff in Cebu could have acted in bad faith, negligently, wantonly and with malice. If plaintiff, therefore, was not able to [m]ake the trip that night of November 12, 1991, it was not because defendant maliciously did it to exclude him [from] the trip. If he was left, it was because of his fault or negligence. 9 Unsatisfied, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 39901) and submitted for its determination the following assignment of errors: (1) the trial court erred in not finding that the defendantappellee was guilty of fraud, delay, negligence, and bad faith; and (2) the trial court. erred in not awarding moral and exemplary damages. 10 In its decision of 23 November 1994, 11 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision by applying Article 1755 in relation to Articles 2201, 2208, 2217, and 2232 of the Civil Code and, accordingly, awarded compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one is rendered ordering defendant-appellee to pay plaintiff-appellant: 1. P20,000.00 as moral damages; 2. P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; 3. P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; 4. Cost of suit. SO ORDERED. 12 It did not, however, allow the grant of damages for the delay in the performance of the petitioner's obligation as the requirement of demand set forth in Article 1169 of the Civil Code had not been met by the private respondent. Besides, it found that the private respondent offered no evidence to prove that his contract of carriage with the petitioner provided for liability in case of delay in departure, nor that a designation of the time of departure was the controlling motive for the establishment of the contract. On the latter, the court a quo observed that the private respondent even admitted he was unaware of the vessel's departure time, and it was only when he boarded the vessel that he became aware of such. Finally, the respondent Court found no reasonable basis for the private respondent's belief that demand was useless because the petitioner had rendered it beyond its power to perform its obligation; on the contrary, he even admitted that the petitioner had been assuring the passengers that the vessel would leave on time, and that it could still perform its obligation to transport them as scheduled. To justify its award of damages, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows: It is an established and admitted fact that the vessel before the voyage had undergone some repair work on the cylinder head of the engine. It is likewise admitted by defendant-appellee that it left the port of Cebu City with only one engine running. Defendant-appellee averred: . . . The dropping of the vessel's anchor after running slowly on only one engine when it departed earlier must have alarmed some nervous passengers . . . The entries in the logbook which defendant-appellee itself offered as evidence categorically stated therein that the vessel stopped at Kawit Island because of engine trouble. It reads: 2330 HRS STBD ENGINE' EMERGENCY STOP 2350 HRS DROP ANCHOR DUE TO ENGINE TROUBLE, 2 ENGINE STOP. The stoppage was not to start and synchronized [sic] the engines of the vessel as claimed by defendant-appellee. It was because one of the engines of the vessel broke down; it was because of the disability of the vessel which from the very beginning of the voyage was known to defendant-appellee. Defendant-appellee from the very start of the voyage knew for a fact that the vessel was not yet

in its sailing condition because the second engine was still being repaired. Inspite of this knowledge, defendant-appellee still proceeded to sail with only one engine running. Defendant-appellee at that instant failed to exercise the diligence which all common carriers should exercise in transporting or carrying passengers. The law does not merely require extraordinary diligence in the performance of the obligation. The law mandates that common carrier[s] should exercise utmost diligence the transport of passengers. Article 1755 of the New Civil Code provides: Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Utmost diligence of a VERY CAUTIOUS person dictates that defendant-appellee should have pursued the voyage only when its vessel was already fit to sail. Defendant-appellee should have made certain that the vessel [could] complete the voyage before starting [to] sail. Anything less than this, the vessel [could not] sail . . . with so many passengers on board it. However, defendant-appellant [sic] in complete disregard of the safety of the passengers, chose to proceed with its voyage even if only one engine was running as the second engine was still being repaired during the voyage. Defendant-appellee disregarded the not very remote possibility that because of the disability of the vessel, other problems might occur which would endanger the lives of the passengers sailing with a disabled vessel. As expected, . . . engine trouble occurred. Fortunate[ly] for defendant-appellee, such trouble only necessitated the stoppage of the vessel and did not cause the vessel to capsize. No wonder why some passengers requested to be brought back to Cebu City. Common carriers which are mandated to exercise utmost diligence should not be taking these risks. On this premise, plaintiff-appellant should not be faulted why he chose to disembark from the vessel with the other passengers when it returned back to Cebu City. Defendant-appellee may call him a very "panicky passenger" or a "nervous person", but this will not relieve defendantappellee from the liability it incurred for its failure to exercise utmost diligence. 13 xxx xxx xxx As to the second assigned error, we find that plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the award of moral and exemplary damages for the breach committed by defendant-appellee. As discussed, defendant-appellee in sailing to Cagayan de Oro City with only one engine and with full knowledge of the true condition of the vessel, acted. in bad faith with malice, in complete disregard for the safety of the passengers and only for its own personal advancement/interest. The Civil Code provides: Art. 2201. xxx xxx xxx In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to moral damages for the mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety he suffered during the voyage when the vessel's engine broke down and when he disembarked from the vessel during the wee hours of the morning at Cebu City when it returned. 14 Moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith even if death does not result. 15 Fraud and bad faith by defendant-appellee having been established, the award of moral damages is in order. 16 To serve as a deterrent to the commission of similar acts in the future, exemplary damages

should be imposed upon defendant-appellee. 17 Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating . . . negative incentives or deterrents against such behavior. 18 Moral damages having been awarded, exemplary damages maybe properly awarded. When entitlement to moral damages has been established, the award of exemplary damages is proper. 19 The petitioner then instituted this petition and submitted the question of law earlier adverted to. Undoubtedly, there was, between the petitioner and the private respondent, a contract of common carriage. The laws of primary application then are the provisions on common carriers under Section 4, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV of the Civil Code, while for all other matters not regulated thereby, the Code of Commerce and special laws. 20 Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, the petitioner was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the private respondent. That meant that the petitioner was, pursuant to Article 1755 of the said Code, bound to carry the private respondent safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. In this case, we are in full accord with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner failed to discharge this obligation. Before commencing the contracted voyage, the petitioner undertook some repairs on the cylinder head of one of the vessel's engines. But even before it could finish these repairs, it allowed the vessel to leave the port of origin on only one functioning engine, instead of two. Moreover, even the lone functioning engine was not in perfect condition as sometime after it had run its course, it conked out. This caused the vessel to stop and remain a drift at sea, thus in order to prevent the ship from capsizing, it had to drop anchor. Plainly, the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage began. For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code. As to its liability for damages to the private respondent, Article 1764 of the Civil Code expressly provides: Art. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by common carrier. The damages comprised in Title XVIII of the Civil Code are actual or compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate or moderate, liquidated, and exemplary. In his complaint, the private respondent claims actual or compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages. Actual or compensatory damages represent the adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and for profits the obligee failed to obtain. 22 In contracts or quasi-contracts, the obligor is liable for all the damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation if he is guilty of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude. 23 Moral damages include moral suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or similar injury. They may be recovered in the cases enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, likewise, if they are the proximate result of, as in this case, the petitioner's breach of the contract of carriage. 24 Anent a breach of a contract of common carriage, moral damages may be awarded if the common carrier, like the petitioner, acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 25 Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. 26 In contracts and quasi-contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. 27 It cannot, however, be considered as a matter of right; the court having to decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. 28 Before the court may consider an award for exemplary damages, the plaintiff must first show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages; but it is not necessary that he prove the monetary

value thereof. 29 The Court of Appeals did not grant the private respondent actual or compensatory damages, reasoning that no delay was incurred since there was no demand, as required by Article 1169 of the Civil Code. This article, however, finds no application in this case because, as found by the respondent Court, there was in fact no delay in the commencement of the contracted voyage. If any delay was incurred, it was after the commencement of such voyage, more specifically, when the voyage was subsequently interrupted when the vessel had to stop near Kawit Island after the only functioning engine conked out. As to the rights and duties of the parties strictly arising out of such delay, the Civil Code is silent. However, as correctly pointed out by the petitioner, Article 698 of the Code of Commerce specifically provides for such a situation. It reads: In case a voyage already begun should be interrupted, the passengers shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover for losses and damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure, but with a right to indemnity if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel and a passenger should agree to await the repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased price of passage, but his living expenses during the stay shall be for his own account. This article applies suppletorily pursuant to Article 1766 of the Civil Code. Of course, this does not suffice for a resolution of the case at bench for, as earlier stated, the cause of the delay or interruption was the petitioner's failure to observe extraordinary diligence. Article 698 must then be read together with Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, and 2208 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. So read, it means that the petitioner is liable for any pecuniary loss or loss of profits which the private respondent may have suffered by reason thereof. For the private respondent, such would be the loss of income if unable to report to his office on the day he was supposed to arrive were it not for the delay. This, however, assumes that he stayed on the vessel and was with it when it thereafter resumed its voyage; but he did not. As he and some passengers resolved not to complete the voyage, the vessel had to return to its port of origin and allow them to disembark. The private respondent then took the petitioner's other vessel the following day, using the ticket he had purchased for the previous day's voyage. Any further delay then in the private respondent's arrival at the port of destination was caused by his decision to disembark. Had he remained on the first vessel, he would have reached his destination at noon of 13 November 1991, thus been able to report to his office in the afternoon. He, therefore, would have lost only the salary for half of a day. But actual or compensatory damages must be proved, 30 which the private respondent failed to do. There is no convincing evidence that he did not receive his salary for 13 November 1991 nor that his absence was not excused. We likewise fully agree with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner is liable for moral and exemplary damages. In allowing its unseaworthy M/V Asia Thailand to leave the port of origin and undertake the contracted voyage, with full awareness that it was exposed to perils of the sea, it deliberately disregarded its solemn duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and obviously acted with bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner. On this score, however, the petitioner asserts that the safety or the vessel and passengers was never at stake because the sea was "calm" in the vicinity where it stopped as faithfully recorded in the vessel's log book (Exhibit "4"). Hence, the petitioner concludes, the private respondent was merely "over-reacting" to the situation obtaining then. 31 We hold that the petitioner's defense cannot exculpate it nor mitigate its liability. On the contrary, such a claim demonstrates beyond cavil the petitioner's lack of genuine concern for the safety of its passengers. It was, perhaps, only providential then the sea happened to be calm. Even so, the petitioner should not expect its passengers to act in the manner it desired. The passengers were not stoics; becoming alarmed, anxious, or frightened at the stoppage of a vessel at sea in an unfamiliar zone as nighttime is not the sole prerogative of the faint-hearted. More so in the light of the many tragedies at sea resulting in the loss of lives of hopeless passengers and damage to property simply because common carriers failed in their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their obligations. We cannot, however, give our affirmance to the award of attorney's fees. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, these are recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, 32 not as moral damages 33 nor judicial costs. 34 Hence, to merit such an award, it is settled that the amount thereof must be proven. 35 Moreover, such must be

specifically prayed for as was not done in this caseand may not be deemed incorporated within a general prayer for "such other relief and remedy as this court may deem just and equitable." 36 Finally, it must be noted that aside from the following, the body of the respondent Court's decision was devoid of any statement regarding attorney's fees: Plaintiff-appellant was forced to litigate in order that he can claim moral and exemplary damages for the suffering he encurred [sic]. He is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code. It states: Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs cannot be recovered except: 1. When exemplary damages are awarded; 2. When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. This Court holds that the above does not satisfy the benchmark of "factual, legal and equitable justification" needed as basis for an award of attorney's fees. 37 In sum, for lack of factual and legal basis, the award of attorney's fees must be deleted. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39901 is AFFIRMED subject to the modification as to the award for attorney's fees which is hereby SET ASIDE. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-22491 January 27, 1967 DOMINGO ANG, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellee. Juan T. David and M.C. Ginigundo for plaintiff-appellant. Ross, Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito & Misa for defendant-appellee. BENGZON, J.P., J.: Yau Yue Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hongkong, referred to hereafter as Yau Yue agreed to sell 140 packages of galvanized steel durzinc sheets to one Herminio G. Teves (the date of said agreement is not shown in the record here) for the sum of $32,458.26 (US). Said agreement was subject to the following terms and arrangements: (a) the purchase price should be covered by a bank draft for the corresponding amount which should be paid by Herminio G. Teves in exchange for the delivery to him of the corresponding bill of lading to be deposited with a local bank, the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank of Manila (b) upon arrival of the articles in Manila, Teves would be notified and he would have to pay the amount called for in the corresponding demand draft, after which the bill of lading would be delivered to him; and (c) Teves would present said bill of lading to the carrier's agent, American Steamship Agencies, Inc. which would then issue the corresponding "Permit To Deliver Imported Articles" to be presented to the Bureau of Customs to obtain the release of the articles. Pursuant to said terms and arrangements, Yau Yue through Tokyo Boeki Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, shipped the articles at Yawata, Japan, on April 30, 1961 aboard the S.S. TENSAI MARU, Manila, belonging to the Nissho Shipping Co., Ltd. of Japan, of which the American Steamship Agencies, Inc. is the agent in the Philippines, under a shipping agreement, Bill of Lading No. WM-2 dated April 30, 1961, consigned "to order of the shipper with Herminio G. Teves as the party to be notified of the arrival of the 140 packages of galvanized steel durzinc sheets in Manila. The bill of lading was indorsed to the order of and delivered to Yau Yue by the shipper. Upon receipt thereof, Yau Yue drew a demand draft together with the bill of lading against Herminio G. Teves, through the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank. When the articles arrived in Manila on or about May 9, 1961, Hongkong & Shanghai Bank notified Teves, the "notify party" under the bill of lading, of the arrival of the goods and requested payment of the demand draft representing the purchase price of the articles. Teves, however, did not pay the demand draft, prompting the bank to make the corresponding protest. The bank likewise returned the bill of lading and demand draft to Yau Yue which indorsed the said bill of lading to Domingo Ang. Meanwhile, despite his non-payment of the purchase price of the articles, Teves was able to obtain a bank guaranty in favor of the American Steamship Agencies, Inc., as carrier's agent, to the effect that he would surrender the original and negotiable bill of lading duly indorsed by Yau Yue. On the strength of this guaranty, Teves succeeded in securing a "Permit To Deliver Imported Articles" from the carrier's agent, which he presented to the Bureau of Customs which in turn released to him the articles covered by the bill of lading. Subsequently, Domingo Ang claimed for the articles from American Steamship Agencies, Inc., by presenting the indorsed bill of lading, but he was informed by the latter that it had delivered the articles to Teves.

On October 30, 1963 Domingo Ang filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the American Steamship Agencies, Inc., for having allegedly wrongfully delivered and/or converted the goods covered by the bill of lading belonging to plaintiff Ang, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. On December 2, 1963, defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that plaintiff's cause of action has prescribed under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Commonwealth Act No. 65), more particularly Section 3 (6), paragraph 4, which provides: In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect to loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year, after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. It argued that the cargo should have been delivered to the person entitled to the delivery thereof (meaning the plaintiff) on May 9, 1961, the date of the vessel's arrival in Manila, and that even allowing a reasonable time (even one month) after such arrival within which to make delivery, still, the action commenced on October 30, 1963 was filed beyond the prescribed period of one year. By order dated December 21, 1963, copy of which was received by plaintiff on December 26, 1963, the lower court dismissed the action on the ground of prescription. His motion for reconsideration dated December 26, 1963 having been denied by the lower court in its order dated January 13, 1964, plaintiff appealed directly to this Court on a question of law: Has plaintiff-appellant's cause of action prescribed under Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act? The provision of law involved in this case speaks of "loss or damage". That there was no damage caused to the goods which were delivered intact to Herminio G. Teves who did not file any notice of damage, is admitted by both parties in this case. What is to be resolved in order to determine the applicability of the prescriptive period of one year to the case at bar is whether or not there was "loss" of the goods subject matter of the complaint. Nowhere is "loss" defined in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Therefore, recourse must be had to the Civil Code which provides in Article 18 thereof that, "In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code." Article 1189 of the Civil Code defines the word "loss" in cases where conditions have been imposed with the intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give. The contract of carriage under consideration entered into by and between American Steamship Agencies, Inc. and the Yau Yue (which later on endorsed the bill of lading covering the shipment to plaintiff herein Domingo Ang), is one involving an obligation to give or to deliver the goods "to the order of shipper", that is, upon the presentation and surrender of the bill of lading. This being so, said article can be applied to the present controversy, more specifically paragraph 2 thereof which provides that, "... it is understood that a thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence unknown or it cannot be recovered." As defined in the Civil Code and as applied to Section 3 (6) paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely a situation where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because the same had perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared that their existence is unknown or they cannot be recovered. It does not include a situation where there was indeed delivery but delivery to the wrong person, or a misdelivery, as alleged in the complaint in this case. The distinction between non-delivery and misdelivery has reference to bills of lading. As this Court shall in Tan Pho vs. Hassamal Dalamal, 67 Phil. 555, 557-558: Considering that the bill of lading covering the goods in question has been made to order, which means that said goods cannot be delivered without previous payment of the value thereof, it is evident that, the said goods having been delivered to Aldeguer without paying the price of the same, these facts constitute misdelivery and not nondelivery, because their was in fact delivery of merchandise. We do not believe it can be seriously and reasonably argued that what took place, as contended of by the petitioner, is a case of misdelivery with respect to Aldeguer and at the same time nondelivery with respect to the PNB who had the bill of lading, because the only thing to consider in this question is whether Enrique Aldeguer was entitled to get the merchandise or whether, on the contrary, the PNB is the one entitled thereto. Under the facts, the defendant petitioner should not have delivered the goods to Aldeguer but to the Philippine National Bank. Having made the delivery to Aldeguer, the delivery is a case of misdelivery. If the goods have been delivered, it cannot at the same time be said that they have not been delivered.

According to the bill of lading which was issued in the case at bar to the order of the shipper, the carrier was under a duty not to deliver the merchandise mentioned in the bill of lading except upon presentation of the bill of lading duly endorsed by the shipper. (10 C.J., 259) Hence, the defendant-petitioner Tan Pho having delivered the goods to Enrique Aldeguer without the presentation by the latter of the bill of lading duly endorsed to him by the shipper, the said defendant made a misdelivery and violated the bill of lading, because his duty was not only to transport the goods entrusted to him safely, but to deliver them to the person indicated in the bill of lading. (Emphasis supplied) Now, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that when a defendant files a motion to dismiss, he thereby hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations of fact contained in the complaint (Philippine National Bank v. Hipolito, et al., L16463, Jan. 30, 1965; Republic v. Ramos, L-15484, Jan. 31, 1963; Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications, L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960; Pangan v. Evening News Publishing Co., Inc., L-13308, Dec. 29, 1960). Thus, defendant-appellant having filed a motion to dismiss, it is deemed to have admitted, hypothetically, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint, and these alleges: 6. That, when the said articles arrived in Manila, the defendant authorized the delivery thereof to Herminio G. Teves, through the issuance of the corresponding Permit To Deliver Imported Articles, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, who is the holder in due course of said bill of lading, notwithstanding the fact that the said Herminio G. Teves could not surrender the corresponding bill of lading; . 7. That, without any evidence of the fact that Herminio G. Teves is the holder of the corresponding bill of lading in due course; without the surrender of the bill of lading without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, as holder thereof in due course, and in violation of the provision on the bill of lading which requires that the articles are only to be delivered to the person who is the holder in due course of the said bill of lading, or his order, the defendant issued the corresponding 'Permit To Deliver Imported Articles' in favor of the defendant, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff as holder in due course of said bill of lading, which, originally was Yau Yue subsequently, the plaintiff Domingo Ang; 8. That, as a result of the issuance by the defendant of said permit, Herminio G. Teves was able to secure the release of the articles from the Bureau of Customs, which is not legally possible without the presentation of said permit to the said Bureau; ... From the allegations of the complaint, therefore, the goods cannot be deemed "lost". They were delivered to Herminio G. Teves, so that there can only be either delivery, if Teves really was entitled to receive them, or misdelivery, if he was not so entitled. It is not for Us now to resolve whether or not delivery of the goods to Teves was proper, that is, whether or not there was rightful delivery or misdelivery. The point that matters here is that the situation is either delivery or misdelivery, but not nondelivery. Thus, the goods were either rightly delivered or misdelivered, but they were not lost. There being no loss or damage to the goods, the aforequoted provision of the Carriage of Good by Sea Act stating that "In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered," does not apply. The reason is not difficult to see. Said one-year period of limitation is designed to meet the exigencies of maritime hazards. In a case where the goods shipped were neither last nor damaged in transit but were, on the contrary, delivered in port to someone who claimed to be entitled thereto, the situation is different, and the special need for the short period of limitation in cases of loss or damage caused by maritime perils does not obtain. It follows that for suits predicated not upon loss or damage but on alleged misdelivery (or conversion) of the goods, the applicable rule on prescription is that found in the Civil Code, namely, either ten years for breach of a written contract or four years for quasi-delict. (Arts. 1144[1], 1146, Civil Code) In either case, plaintiff's cause of action has not vet prescribed, since his right of action would have accrued at the earliest on May 9, 1961 when the ship arrived in Manila and he filed suit on October 30, 1963. Wherefore, the dismissal order appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and this case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. No costs. So ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-54140 October 14, 1986 FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE ALEJANDRO, Presiding Judge of Branch XXVI of the Court of First Instance of Manila and FROTA OCEANICA BRASILIERA, respondents. G.R. No. L-62001 October 14, 1986 FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ALFREDO BENIPAYO, Presiding Judge of Branch XVI of the Court of First Instance of Manila and AUSTRALIA-WEST PACIFIC LINE, respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: These consolidated petitions raise the issue of whether or not the one-year period within which to file a suit against the carrier and theship, in case of damage or loss as provided for in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies to the insurer of the goods. On August 3, 1977, plaintiff Choa Tiek Seng filed a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 109911, against the petitioner before the then Court of First Instance of Manila for recovery of a sum of money under the marine insurance policy on cargo. Mr. Choa alleged that the goods he insured with the petitioner sustained loss and damage in the amount of P35,987.26. The vessel SS Frotario which was owned and operated by private respondent Frota Oceanica Brasiliera, (Frota) discharged the goods at the port of Manila on December 13, 1976. The said goods were delivered to the arrastre operator E. Razon, Inc., on December 17, 1976 and on the same date were received by the consignee-plaintiff. On December 19, 1977, the petitioner filed its amended answer disclaiming liability, imputing against the plaintiff the commission of fraud and counterclaiming for damages. On January 9, 1978, the petitioner filed a third-party complaint against the carrier, private respondent Frota and the arrastre contractor, E. Razon, Inc. for indemnity, subrogation, or reimbursement in the event that it is held liable to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, on August 10, 1977, Joseph Benzon Chua filed a similar complaint against the petitioner which was docketed as Civil Case No. 110061, for recovery under the marine insurance policy for cargo alleging that the goods insured with the petitioner sustained loss and damage in the sum of P55,996.49. The goods were delivered to the plaintiff-consignee on or about January 25-28, 1977. On May 31, 1978, the petitioner filed its answer. On September 28, 1978, it filed an amended third-party complaint against respondent carrier, the Australia-West Pacific Line (Australia-West). In both cases, the private respondents filed their respective answers and subsequently filed a motion for preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense of prescription. The private respondents alleged in their separate answers that the petitioner is already barred from filing a claim because under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the suit against the carrier must be filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered...

The petitioner contended that the provision relied upon by the respondents applies only to the shipper and not to the insurer of the goods. On April 30, 1980, the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 109911, upheld respondent Frota and dismissed the petitioner's third-party complaint. Likewise, on August 31, 1982, the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 110061 dismissed the petitioner's third-party complaint against respondent Australia-West on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescriptive period provide in Section 3 (6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1936. These both cases, the petitioner appealed to us on a pure question of law, raising the issue of whether or not the prescriptive period of one year under the said Act also applies to an insurer such as herein petitioner. The petitioner maintains that the one-year prescriptive period cannot cover an insurer which has not settled the claim of its insured because it cannot be considered as the person referred to in the applicable provision of the said Act that has the duty or right to give notice of loss or damage to the carrier or to sue such carrier within the period of one year and that where an insurer does not settle the claim of its insured it cannot be considered as subrogated to the rights of said insured that would then authorize it to sue the carrier within the time-bar of one year. The petitioner further contends that the period for the filing of a third-party complaint must be reckoned from the date when the principal action was filed, that is, from the time the insured filed a suit against the petitioner, because the third-party complaint is merely an incident of the main action. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the one-year prescriptive period within which to file a case against the carrier also applies to a claim filed by an insurer who stands as a subrogee to the insured and that the third-party complaint filed by the petitioner cannot be reckoned from the firing of the main action because such complaint is independent of, and separate and distinct from the insured's action against the petitioner. The lower courts did not err. Section 3(b) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides: (6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery. Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery thereof. The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection. In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, that if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring the suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods. (Emphasis supplied) Philippine Permanent and General Statutes (Revised Edition, Vol. 1, pp. 663-666). Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corporation (93 Phil 207, 213-214), expounds on the extent of the applicability of the aforequoted provision. We ruled: Neither do we find tenable the claim that the prescriptive period contained in said act can only be invoked by the shipper, excluding all other parties to the transaction. While apparently the proviso contained in the portion of section 3(6) of the act we have quoted gives the impression that the right to file suit within one year after delivery of the goods applies to the shipper alone, however, reading the proviso in conjunction with the rest of section 3(6), it at once becomes apparent that the conclusion drawn by petitioner is unwarranted. In the first place, said section provides that the notice of loss or damage for which a claim for indemnity may be made should be given in writing to the carrier at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods, and if the loss or damage is not apparent said notice should be given 'within three

days on delivery.' From the language of this section, it seems clear that the notice of loss or damage is required to be filed not necessarily by the shipper but also by the consignee or any legal holder of the bill of lading. In fact, said section requires that the notice be given at the port of discharge and the most logical party to file the notice is either the consignee or the endorsee of the bill of lading. In the second place, a study of the historical background of this particular provision will show that although the word shipper is used in the proviso referred to by the petitioner, the intention of the law was not to exclude the consignee or endorsee of the bill of lading from bringing the action but merely to limit the filing of the same within one year after the delivery of the goods at the port of discharge. [The Southern Cross, 1940, A. M. C. 59 (SDNY); Lindgren v. Farley, 1938 A. M. C. 805 (SDNY)]. Arnold W. Knauth, an eminent authority on admiralty, commenting on this proviso, says: xxx xxx xxx It seems evident that this language does not alter the sense of the text of the Hague Rules; it merely reiterates in another form the rule already laid down. Curiously, the proviso seems limited to the rights of shippers, and might strictly be construed not to give any rights to consignees, representatives, or subrogated parties; whereas the Hague Rules phraseology is broader. As the Act contains both phrases, it would seem to be as broad as the broader of the two forms of words. (Ocean Bills of Lading, by Knauth, p. 229). Clearly, the coverage of the Act includes the insurer of the goods. Otherwise, what the Act intends to prohibit after the lapse of the one-year prescriptive period can be done indirectly by the shipper or owner of the goods by simply filing a claim against the insurer even after the lapse of one year. This would be the result if we follow the petitioner's argument that the insurer can, at any time, proceed against the carrier and the ship since it is not bound by the time-bar provision. In this situation, the one-year limitation will be practically useless. This could not have been the intention of the law which has also for its purpose the protection of the carrier and the ship from fraudulent claims by having "matters affecting transportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as possible" and by avoiding incidents which would "unnecessarily extend the period and permit delays in the settlement of questions affecting the transportation." (See The Yek Tong Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., v. American President Lines, Inc., 103 Phil. 1125-1126). In the case of Aetna Insurance Co. v. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (62 SCRA 11, 15), we denied the appeal of an insurance company which filed a suit against the carrier after the lapse of one year. We ruled: There is no merit in the appeal. The trial court correctly held that the one-year statutory and contractual prescriptive period had already expired when appellant company filed on April 7, 1965 its action against Barber Line Far East Service. The one-year period commenced on February 25, 1964 when the damaged cargo was delivered to the consignee. (See Chua Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corporation, 93 Phil. 207; Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. American President Lines, Inc., 103 Phil. 1125). We likewise agree with the respondents that the third-party complaint of the petitioner cannot be considered to have been filed upon the filing of the main action because although it can be said that a third-party complaint is but ancilliary to the main action (Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Cui 105 SCRA 622), it cannot abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. It creates no substantive rights. Thus, unless there is some substantive basis for the third-party Plaintiff's claim, he cannot utilized the filing of such action to acquire any right of action against the third-party defendant. (See also Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. 1, 1973 Ed., p. 507). The petitioner can only rightfully file a third-party complaint against the respondents if, in the first place, it can still validly maintain an action against the latter. In the case at bar, the petitioner's action has prescribed under the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Hence, whether it files a third-party complaint or chooses to maintain an independent action against herein respondents is of no moment. Had the plaintiffs in the civil cases below filed an action against the petitioner after the one-year prescriptive period, then the latter could have successfully denied liability on the ground that by their own doing, the plaintiffs had prevented the petitioner from being subrogated to their respective rights against the herein respondents by filing a suit after the one-year prescriptive period. The situation, however, does not obtain in the present case. The plaintiffs in the civil cases below gave extra-judicial notice to their respective carriers and filed suit against the petitioner well within one year from their receipt of the goods. The petitioner had plenty of time within which to act. In Civil Case No. 109911, the petitioner had more than four months to file a third-party complaint while in Civil Case No. 110061, it had more than five months to do so. In

both instances, however, the petitioner failed to file the appropriate action. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions in G. R. No. 54140 and G. R. No. 62001 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

epublic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 MAYER STEEL PIPE CORPORATION and HONGKONG GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. and the CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. PUNO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated December 14, 1995 1 and its Resolution dated February 22, 1996 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45805 entitled Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation and Hongkong Government Supplies Department v. South Sea Surety Insurance Co., Inc. and The Charter Insurance Corporation. 3 In 1983, petitioner Hongkong Government Supplies Department (Hongkong) contracted petitioner Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation (Mayer) to manufacture and supply various steel pipes and fittings. From August to October, 1983, Mayer shipped the pipes and fittings to Hongkong as evidenced by Invoice Nos. MSPC-1014, MSPC1015, MSPC-1025, MSPC-1020, MSPC-1017 and MSPC-1022. 4 Prior to the shipping, petitioner Mayer insured the pipes and fittings against all risks with private respondents South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. (South Sea) and Charter Insurance Corp. (Charter). The pipes and fittings covered by Invoice Nos. MSPC-1014, 1015 and 1025 with a total amount of US$212,772.09 were insured with respondent South Sea, while those covered by Invoice Nos. 1020, 1017 and 1022 with a total amount of US$149,470.00 were insured with respondent Charter. Petitioners Mayer and Hongkong jointly appointed Industrial Inspection (International) Inc. as third-party inspector to examine whether the pipes and fittings are manufactured in accordance with the specifications in the contract. Industrial Inspection certified all the pipes and fittings to be in good order condition before they were loaded in the vessel. Nonetheless, when the goods reached Hongkong, it was discovered that a substantial portion thereof was damaged. Petitioners filed a claim against private respondents for indemnity under the insurance contract. Respondent Charter paid petitioner Hongkong the amount of HK$64,904.75. Petitioners demanded payment of the balance of HK$299,345.30 representing the cost of repair of the damaged pipes. Private respondents refused to pay because the insurance surveyor's report allegedly showed that the damage is a factory defect. On April 17, 1986, petitioners filed an action against private respondents to recover the sum of HK$299,345.30. For their defense, private respondents averred that they have no obligation to pay the amount claimed by petitioners because the damage to the goods is due to factory defects which are not covered by the insurance policies. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. It found that the damage to the goods is not due to manufacturing defects. It also noted that the insurance contracts executed by petitioner Mayer and private respondents are "all

risks" policies which insure against all causes of conceivable loss or damage. The only exceptions are those excluded in the policy, or those sustained due to fraud or intentional misconduct on the part of the insured. The dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the following: 1. the sum equivalent in Philippine currency of HK$299,345.30, with legal rate of interest as of the filing of the complaint; 2. P100,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and 3. costs of suit. SO ORDERED. 5 Private respondents elevated the case to respondent Court of Appeals. Respondent court affirmed the finding of the trial court that the damage is not due to factory defect and that it was covered by the "all risks" insurance policies issued by private respondents to petitioner Mayer. However, it set aside the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. It held that the action is barred under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act since it was filed only on April 17, 1986, more than two years from the time the goods were unloaded from the vessel. Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides that "the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered." Respondent court ruled that this provision applies not only to the carrier but also to the insurer, citing Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alejandro. 6 Hence this petition with the following assignments of error: 1. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed on the mistaken application of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the doctrine of Filipino Merchants Co., Inc. v. Alejandro (145 SCRA 42); and 2. The respondent Court of Appeals committed an error in dismissing the complaint. 7 The petition is impressed with merit. Respondent court erred in applying Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act states that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability for loss or damage to the goods if no suit is filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been delivered. Under this provision, only the carrier's liability is extinguished if no suit is brought within one year. But the liability of the insurer is not extinguished because the insurer's liability is based not on the contract of carriage but on the contract of insurance. A close reading of the law reveals that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governs the relationship between the carrier on the one hand and the shipper, the consignee and/or the insurer on the other hand. It defines the obligations of the carrier under the contract of carriage. It does not, however, affect the relationship between the shipper and the insurer. The latter case is governed by the Insurance Code. Our ruling in Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alejandro 8 and the other cases 9 cited therein does not support respondent court's view that the insurer's liability prescribes after one year if no action for indemnity is filed against the carrier or the insurer. In that case, the shipper filed a complaint against the insurer for recovery of a sum of money as indemnity for the loss and damage sustained by the insured goods. The insurer, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the carrier for reimbursement of the amount it paid to the shipper. The insurer filed the third-party complaint on January 9, 1978, more than one year after delivery of the goods on December 17, 1977. The court held that the insurer was already barred from filing a claim against the carrier because under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the suit against the carrier must be filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. The court said that "the coverage of the Act includes the insurer of the goods." 10 The Filipino Merchants case is different from the case at bar. In Filipino Merchants, it was the insurer which filed a claim against the carrier for reimbursement of the amount it paid to the shipper. In the case at bar, it was the shipper which filed a claim against the insurer. The basis of the shipper's claim is the "all risks" insurance policies

issued by private respondents to petitioner Mayer. The ruling in Filipino Merchants should apply only to suits against the carrier filed either by the shipper, the consignee or the insurer. When the court said in Filipino Merchants that Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies to the insurer, it meant that the insurer, like the shipper, may no longer file a claim against the carrier beyond the one-year period provided in the law. But it does not mean that the shipper may no longer file a claim against the insurer because the basis of the insurer's liability is the insurance contract. An insurance contract is a contract whereby one party, for a consideration known as the premium, agrees to indemnify another for loss or damage which he may suffer from a specified peril. 11 An "all risks" insurance policy covers all kinds of loss other than those due to willful and fraudulent act of the insured. 12 Thus, when private respondents issued the "all risks" policies to petitioner Mayer, they bound themselves to indemnify the latter in case of loss or damage to the goods insured. Such obligation prescribes in ten years, in accordance with Article 1144 of the New Civil Code. 13 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated December 14, 1995 and its Resolution dated February 22, 1996 are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-20099 July 7, 1966 PARMANAND SHEWARAM, plaintiff and appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant and appellant. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for defendant and appellant. Climaco and Associates for plaintiff and appellee. ZALDIVAR, J.: Before the municipal court of Zamboanga City, plaintiff-appellee Parmanand Shewaram instituted an action to recover damages suffered by him due to the alleged failure of defendant-appellant Philippines Air Lines, Inc. to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance and carriage of his luggage. After trial the municipal court of Zamboanga City rendered judgment ordering the appellant to pay appellee P373.00 as actual damages, P100.00 as exemplary damages, P150.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs of the action. Appellant Philippine Air Lines appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. After hearing the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City modified the judgment of the inferior court by ordering the appellant to pay the appellee only the sum of P373.00 as actual damages, with legal interest from May 6, 1960 and the sum of P150.00 as attorney's fees, eliminating the award of exemplary damages. From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, appellant appeals to this Court on a question of law, assigning two errors allegedly committed by the lower court a quo, to wit: 1. The lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff-appellee was bound by the provisions of the tariff regulations filed by defendant-appellant with the civil aeronautics board and the conditions of carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket stub. 2. The lower court erred in not dismissing this case or limiting the liability of the defendant-appellant to P100.00. The facts of this case, as found by the trial court, quoted from the decision appealed from, are as follows: That Parmanand Shewaram, the plaintiff herein, was on November 23, 1959, a paying passenger with ticket No. 4-30976, on defendant's aircraft flight No. 976/910 from Zamboanga City bound for Manila; that defendant is a common carrier engaged in air line transportation in the Philippines, offering its services to the public to carry and transport passengers and cargoes from and to different points in the Philippines; that on the above-mentioned date of November 23, 1959, he checked in three (3) pieces of baggages a suitcase and two (2) other pieces; that the suitcase was mistagged by defendant's personnel in Zamboanga City, as I.G.N. (for Iligan) with claim check No. B-3883, instead of MNL (for Manila). When plaintiff Parmanand Shewaram arrived in Manila on the date of November 23, 1959, his suitcase did not arrive with his flight because it was sent to Iligan. So, he made a claim with defendant's personnel in Manila airport and another suitcase similar to his own which was the only baggage left for that flight, the rest having been claimed and released to the other passengers of said flight, was given to

the plaintiff for him to take delivery but he did not and refused to take delivery of the same on the ground that it was not his, alleging that all his clothes were white and the National transistor 7 and a Rollflex camera were not found inside the suitcase, and moreover, it contained a pistol which he did not have nor placed inside his suitcase; that after inquiries made by defendant's personnel in Manila from different airports where the suitcase in question must have been sent, it was found to have reached Iligan and the station agent of the PAL in Iligan caused the same to be sent to Manila for delivery to Mr. Shewaram and which suitcase belonging to the plaintiff herein arrived in Manila airport on November 24, 1959; that it was also found out that the suitcase shown to and given to the plaintiff for delivery which he refused to take delivery belonged to a certain Del Rosario who was bound for Iligan in the same flight with Mr. Shewaram; that when the plaintiff's suitcase arrived in Manila as stated above on November 24, 1959, he was informed by Mr. Tomas Blanco, Jr., the acting station agent of the Manila airport of the arrival of his suitcase but of course minus his Transistor Radio 7 and the Rollflex Camera; that Shewaram made demand for these two (2) items or for the value thereof but the same was not complied with by defendant. xxx xxx xxx It is admitted by defendant that there was mistake in tagging the suitcase of plaintiff as IGN. The tampering of the suitcase is more apparent when on November 24, 1959, when the suitcase arrived in Manila, defendant's personnel could open the same in spite of the fact that plaintiff had it under key when he delivered the suitcase to defendant's personnel in Zamboanga City. Moreover, it was established during the hearing that there was space in the suitcase where the two items in question could have been placed. It was also shown that as early as November 24, 1959, when plaintiff was notified by phone of the arrival of the suitcase, plaintiff asked that check of the things inside his suitcase be made and defendant admitted that the two items could not be found inside the suitcase. There was no evidence on record sufficient to show that plaintiff's suitcase was never opened during the time it was placed in defendant's possession and prior to its recovery by the plaintiff. However, defendant had presented evidence that it had authority to open passengers' baggage to verify and find its ownership or identity. Exhibit "1" of the defendant would show that the baggage that was offered to plaintiff as his own was opened and the plaintiff denied ownership of the contents of the baggage. This proven fact that baggage may and could be opened without the necessary authorization and presence of its owner, applied too, to the suitcase of plaintiff which was mis-sent to Iligan City because of mistagging. The possibility of what happened in the baggage of Mr. Del Rosario at the Manila Airport in his absence could have also happened to plaintiffs suitcase at Iligan City in the absence of plaintiff. Hence, the Court believes that these two items were really in plaintiff's suitcase and defendant should be held liable for the same by virtue of its contract of carriage. It is clear from the above-quoted portions of the decision of the trial court that said court had found that the suitcase of the appellee was tampered, and the transistor radio and the camera contained therein were lost, and that the loss of those articles was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant. The evidence shows that the transistor radio cost P197.00 and the camera cost P176.00, so the total value of the two articles was P373.00. There is no question that the appellant is a common carrier.1 As such common carrier the appellant, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by it according to the circumstances of each case. 2 It having been shown that the loss of the transistor radio and the camera of the appellee, costing P373.00, was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant should be held liable for the payment of said loss.3 It is, however, contended by the appellant that its liability should be limited to the amount stated in the conditions of carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket stub which was issued to the appellee, which conditions are embodied in Domestic Tariff Regulations No. 2 which was filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board. One of those conditions, which is pertinent to the issue raised by the appellant in this case provides as follows: The liability, if any, for loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is limited to its value and, unless the passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge therefor, the value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed P100.00 for each ticket. The appellant maintains that in view of the failure of the appellee to declare a higher value for his luggage, and pay the freight on the basis of said declared value when he checked such luggage at the Zamboanga City

airport, pursuant to the abovequoted condition, appellee can not demand payment from the appellant of an amount in excess of P100.00. The law that may be invoked, in this connection is Article 1750 of the New Civil Code which provides as follows: A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. In accordance with the above-quoted provision of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code, the pecuniary liability of a common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed amount. It is required, however, that the contract must be "reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon." The requirements provided in Article 1750 of the New Civil Code must be complied with before a common carrier can claim a limitation of its pecuniary liability in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods it has undertaken to transport. In the case before us We believe that the requirements of said article have not been met. It can not be said that the appellee had actually entered into a contract with the appellant, embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket stub that was issued by the appellant to the appellee. The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that they are hard to read would not warrant the presumption that the appellee was aware of those conditions such that he had "fairly and freely agreed" to those conditions. The trial court has categorically stated in its decision that the "Defendant admits that passengers do not sign the ticket, much less did plaintiff herein sign his ticket when he made the flight on November 23, 1959." We hold, therefore, that the appellee is not, and can not be, bound by the conditions of carriage found at the back of the ticket stub issued to him when he made the flight on appellant's plane on November 23, 1959. The liability of the appellant in the present case should be governed by the provisions of Articles 1734 and 1735 of the New Civil Code, which We quote as follows: ART. 1734. Common carries 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, 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.1wph1.t ART. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 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. It having been clearly found by the trial court that the transistor radio and the camera of the appellee were lost as a result of the negligence of the appellant as a common carrier, the liability of the appellant is clear it must pay the appellee the value of those two articles. In the case of Ysmael and Co. vs. Barreto, 51 Phil. 90, cited by the trial court in support of its decision, this Court had laid down the rule that the carrier can not limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods shipped where such injury or loss was caused by its own negligence. Corpus Juris, volume 10, p. 154, says: "Par. 194, 6. Reasonableness of Limitations. The validity of stipulations limiting the carrier's liability is to be determined by their reasonableness and their conformity to the sound public policy, in accordance with which the obligations of the carrier to the public are settled. It cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability, unless such exemption is just and reasonable, and unless the contract is freely and fairly made. No contractual limitation is reasonable which is subversive of public policy. "Par. 195. 7. What Limitations of Liability Permissible. a. Negligence (1) Rule in America (a) In Absence of Organic or Statutory Provisions Regulating Subject aa. Majority Rule. In the absence of statute, it is settled by the weight of authority in the United States, that whatever limitations against its common-law liability are permissible to a carrier, it cannot limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods

shipped, where such injury or loss is caused by its own negligence. This is the common law doctrine and it makes no difference that there is no statutory prohibition against contracts of this character. "Par. 196. bb. Considerations on which Rule Based. The rule, it is said, rests on considerations of public policy. The undertaking is to carry the goods, and to relieve the shipper from all liability for loss or damage arising from negligence in performing its contract is to ignore the contract itself. The natural effect of a limitation of liability against negligence is to induce want of care on the part of the carrier in the performance of its duty. The shipper and the common carrier are not on equal terms; the shipper must send his freight by the common carrier, or not at all; he is therefore entirely at the mercy of the carrier unless protected by the higher power of the law against being forced into contracts limiting the carrier's liability. Such contracts are wanting in the element of voluntary assent. "Par. 197. cc. Application and Extent of Rule (aa) Negligence of Servants. The rule prohibiting limitation of liability for negligence is often stated as a prohibition of any contract relieving the carrier from loss or damage caused by its own negligence or misfeasance, or that of its servants; and it has been specifically decided in many cases that no contract limitation will relieve the carrier from responsibility for the negligence, unskillfulness, or carelessness of its employer." (Cited in Ysmael and Co. vs. Barreto, 51 Phil. 90, 98, 99). In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-40597 June 29, 1979 AGUSTINO B. ONG YIU, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: In this Petition for Review by Certiorari, petitioner, a practicing lawyer and businessman, seeks a reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 45005-R, which reduced his claim for damages for breach of contract of transportation. The facts are as follows: On August 26, 1967, petitioner was a fare paying passenger of respondent Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL), on board Flight No. 463-R, from Mactan Cebu, bound for Butuan City. He was scheduled to attend the trial of Civil Case No. 1005 and Spec. Procs. No. 1125 in the Court of First Instance, Branch II, thereat, set for hearing on August 28-31, 1967. As a passenger, he checked in one piece of luggage, a blue "maleta" for which he was issued Claim Check No. 2106-R (Exh. "A"). The plane left Mactan Airport, Cebu, at about 1:00 o'clock P.M., and arrived at Bancasi airport, Butuan City, at past 2:00 o'clock P.M., of the same day. Upon arrival, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found. According to petitioner, it was only after reacting indignantly to the loss that the matter was attended to by the porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, which, however, the latter denies, At about 3:00 o'clock P.M., PAL Butuan, sent a message to PAL, Cebu, inquiring about the missing luggage, which message was, in turn relayed in full to the Mactan Airport teletype operator at 3:45 P.M. (Exh. "2") that same afternoon. It must have been transmitted to Manila immediately, for at 3:59 that same afternoon, PAL Manila wired PAL Cebu advising that the luggage had been over carried to Manila aboard Flight No. 156 and that it would be forwarded to Cebu on Flight No. 345 of the same day. Instructions were also given that the luggage be immediately forwarded to Butuan City on the first available flight (Exh. "3"). At 5:00 P.M. of the same afternoon, PAL Cebu sent a message to PAL Butuan that the luggage would be forwarded on Fright No. 963 the following day, August 27, 196'(. However, this message was not received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had already left since there were no more incoming flights that afternoon. In the meantime, petitioner was worried about the missing luggage because it contained vital documents needed for trial the next day. At 10:00 o'clock that evening, petitioner wired PAL Cebu demanding the delivery of his baggage before noon the next day, otherwise, he would hold PAL liable for damages, and stating that PAL's gross negligence had caused him undue inconvenience, worry, anxiety and extreme embarrassment (Exh. "B"). This telegram was received by the Cebu PAL supervisor but the latter felt no need to wire petitioner that his luggage had already been forwarded on the assumption that by the time the message reached Butuan City, the luggage would have arrived. Early in the morning of the next day, August 27, 1967, petitioner went to the Bancasi Airport to inquire about his luggage. He did not wait, however, for the morning flight which arrived at 10:00 o'clock that morning. This flight

carried the missing luggage. The porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, paged petitioner, but the latter had already left. A certain Emilio Dagorro a driver of a "colorum" car, who also used to drive for petitioner, volunteered to take the luggage to petitioner. As Maximo Gomez knew Dagorro to be the same driver used by petitioner whenever the latter was in Butuan City, Gomez took the luggage and placed it on the counter. Dagorro examined the lock, pressed it, and it opened. After calling the attention of Maximo Gomez, the "maleta" was opened, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did not touch them. Dagorro then delivered the "maleta" to petitioner, with the information that the lock was open. Upon inspection, petitioner found that a folder containing certain exhibits, transcripts and private documents in Civil Case No. 1005 and Sp. Procs. No. 1126 were missing, aside from two gift items for his parents-in-law. Petitioner refused to accept the luggage. Dagorro returned it to the porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, who sealed it and forwarded the same to PAL Cebu. Meanwhile, petitioner asked for postponement of the hearing of Civil Case No. 1005 due to loss of his documents, which was granted by the Court (Exhs. "C" and "C-1"). Petitioner returned to Cebu City on August 28, 1967. In a letter dated August 29, 1967 addressed to PAL, Cebu, petitioner called attention to his telegram (Exh. "D"), demanded that his luggage be produced intact, and that he be compensated in the sum of P250,000,00 for actual and moral damages within five days from receipt of the letter, otherwise, he would be left with no alternative but to file suit (Exh. "D"). On August 31, 1967, Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi, and Agustin, all of PAL Cebu, went to petitioner's office to deliver the "maleta". In the presence of Mr. Jose Yap and Atty. Manuel Maranga the contents were listed and receipted for by petitioner (Exh. "E"). On September 5, 1967, petitioner sent a tracer letter to PAL Cebu inquiring about the results of the investigation which Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi, and Agustin had promised to conduct to pinpoint responsibility for the unauthorized opening of the "maleta" (Exh. "F"). The following day, September 6, 1967, PAL sent its reply hereinunder quoted verbatim: Dear Atty. Ong Yiu: This is with reference to your September 5, 1967, letter to Mr. Ricardo G. Paloma, Acting Manager, Southern Philippines. First of all, may we apologize for the delay in informing you of the result of our investigation since we visited you in your office last August 31, 1967. Since there are stations other than Cebu which are involved in your case, we have to communicate and await replies from them. We regret to inform you that to date we have not found the supposedly lost folder of papers nor have we been able to pinpoint the personnel who allegedly pilferred your baggage. You must realize that no inventory was taken of the cargo upon loading them on any plane. Consequently, we have no way of knowing the real contents of your baggage when same was loaded. We realized the inconvenience you encountered of this incident but we trust that you will give us another opportunity to be of better service to you. Very truly yours, PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. (Sgd) JEREMIAS S. AGUSTIN Branch Supervisor Cebu (Exhibit G, Folder of Exhibits) 1 On September 13, 1967, petitioner filed a Complaint against PAL for damages for breach of contract of transportation with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch V, docketed as Civil Case No. R-10188, which PAL traversed. After due trial, the lower Court found PAL to have acted in bad faith and with malice and declared petitioner entitled to moral damages in the sum of P80,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, attorney's fees of P5,000.00, and costs. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals petitioner in so far as he was awarded only the sum of P80,000.00 as moral damages; and defendant because of the unfavorable judgment rendered against it.

On August 22, 1974, the Court of Appeals,* finding that PAL was guilty only of simple negligence, reversed the judgment of the trial Court granting petitioner moral and exemplary damages, but ordered PAL to pay plaintiff the sum of P100.00, the baggage liability assumed by it under the condition of carriage printed at the back of the ticket. Hence, this Petition for Review by Certiorari, filed on May 2, 1975, with petitioner making the following Assignments of Error: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING RESPONDENT PAL GUILTY ONLY OF SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE AND NOT BAD FAITH IN THE BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION WITH PETITIONER. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AWARDING TO PETITIONER MORAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P80,000.00, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF P30,000.00, AND P5,000.00 REPRESENTING ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND ORDERED RESPONDENT PAL TO COMPENSATE PLAINTIFF THE SUM OF P100.00 ONLY, CONTRARY TO THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2220, 2229, 2232 AND 2234 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. On July 16, 1975, this Court gave due course to the Petition. There is no dispute that PAL incurred in delay in the delivery of petitioner's luggage. The question is the correctness of respondent Court's conclusion that there was no gross negligence on the part of PAL and that it had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith as to entitle petitioner to an award of moral and exemplary damages. From the facts of the case, we agree with respondent Court that PAL had not acted in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. 2 It was the duty of PAL to look for petitioner's luggage which had been miscarried. PAL exerted due diligence in complying with such duty. As aptly stated by the appellate Court: We do not find any evidence of bad faith in this. On the contrary, We find that the defendant had exerted diligent effort to locate plaintiff's baggage. The trial court saw evidence of bad faith because PAL sent the telegraphic message to Mactan only at 3:00 o'clock that same afternoon, despite plaintiff's indignation for the non-arrival of his baggage. The message was sent within less than one hour after plaintiff's luggage could not be located. Efforts had to be exerted to locate plaintiff's maleta. Then the Bancasi airport had to attend to other incoming passengers and to the outgoing passengers. Certainly, no evidence of bad faith can be inferred from these facts. Cebu office immediately wired Manila inquiring about the missing baggage of the plaintiff. At 3:59 P.M., Manila station agent at the domestic airport wired Cebu that the baggage was over carried to Manila. And this message was received in Cebu one minute thereafter, or at 4:00 P.M. The baggage was in fact sent back to Cebu City that same afternoon. His Honor stated that the fact that the message was sent at 3:59 P.M. from Manila and completely relayed to Mactan at 4:00 P.M., or within one minute, made the message appear spurious. This is a forced reasoning. A radio message of about 50 words can be completely transmitted in even less than one minute depending upon atmospheric conditions. Even if the message was sent from Manila or other distant places, the message can be received within a minute. that is a scientific fact which cannot be questioned. 3 Neither was the failure of PAL Cebu to reply to petitioner's rush telegram indicative of bad faith, The telegram (Exh. B) was dispatched by petitioner at around 10:00 P.M. of August 26, 1967. The PAL supervisor at Mactan Airport was notified of it only in the morning of the following day. At that time the luggage was already to be forwarded to Butuan City. There was no bad faith, therefore, in the assumption made by said supervisor that the plane carrying the bag would arrive at Butuan earlier than a reply telegram. Had petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the Bancasi airport for the arrival of the morning flight, he would have been able to retrieve his luggage sooner. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, petitioner is not entitled to moral damages. Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the

proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act of omission. Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Petitioner is neither entitled to exemplary damages. In contracts, as provided for in Article 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages can be granted if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, which has not been proven in this case. Petitioner further contends that respondent Court committed grave error when it limited PAL's carriage liability to the amount of P100.00 as stipulated at the back of the ticket. In this connection, respondent Court opined: As a general proposition, the plaintiff's maleta having been pilfered while in the custody of the defendant, it is presumed that the defendant had been negligent. The liability, however, of PAL for the loss, in accordance with the stipulation written on the back of the ticket, Exhibit 12, is limited to P100.00 per baggage, plaintiff not having declared a greater value, and not having called the attention of the defendant on its true value and paid the tariff therefor. The validity of this stipulation is not questioned by the plaintiff. They are printed in reasonably and fairly big letters, and are easily readable. Moreover, plaintiff had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back, and he, being a lawyer and businessman, must be fully aware of these conditions. 4 We agree with the foregoing finding. The pertinent Condition of Carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket reads: 8. BAGGAGE LIABILITY ... The total liability of the Carrier for lost or damaged baggage of the passenger is LIMITED TO P100.00 for each ticket unless a passenger declares a higher valuation in excess of P100.00, but not in excess, however, of a total valuation of P1,000.00 and additional charges are paid pursuant to Carrier's tariffs. There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for his luggage, much less did he pay any additional transportation charge. But petitioner argues that there is nothing in the evidence to show that he had actually entered into a contract with PAL limiting the latter's liability for loss or delay of the baggage of its passengers, and that Article 1750* of the Civil Code has not been complied with. While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket (Exh. "12"), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation". 5 It is what is known as a contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. 6 And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein vs. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence. Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00.Besides, passengers are advised not to place valuable items inside their baggage but "to avail of our V-cargo service " (Exh. "1"). I t is likewise to be noted that there is nothing in the evidence to show the actual value of the goods allegedly lost by petitioner. There is another matter involved, raised as an error by PAL the fact that on October 24, 1974 or two months after the promulgation of the Decision of the appellate Court, petitioner's widow filed a Motion for Substitution claiming that petitioner died on January 6, 1974 and that she only came to know of the adverse Decision on October 23, 1974 when petitioner's law partner informed her that he received copy of the Decision on August 28, 1974. Attached to her Motion was an Affidavit of petitioner's law partner reciting facts constitutive of excusable negligence. The appellate Court noting that all pleadings had been signed by petitioner himself allowed the widow "to take such steps as she or counsel may deem necessary." She then filed a Motion for Reconsideration over the opposition of PAL which alleged that the Court of Appeals Decision, promulgated on August 22, 1974, had already become final and executory since no appeal had been interposed therefrom within the reglementary period.

Under the circumstances, considering the demise of petitioner himself, who acted as his own counsel, it is best that technicality yields to the interests of substantial justice. Besides, in the 'last analysis, no serious prejudice has been caused respondent PAL. In fine, we hold that the conclusions drawn by respondent Court from the evidence on record are not erroneous. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Petition is hereby denied, and the judgment sought to be reviewed hereby affirmed in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 115381 December 23, 1994 KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER, petitioner, vs. HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., the LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD, and the PROVINCIAL BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Potenciano A. Flores for petitioner. Robert Anthony C. Sison, Cesar B. Brillantes and Jose Z. Galsim for private respondent. Jose F. Miravite for movants. KAPUNAN, J.: Public utilities are privately owned and operated businesses whose service are essential to the general public. They are enterprises which specially cater to the needs of the public and conduce to their comfort and convenience. As such, public utility services are impressed with public interest and concern. The same is true with respect to the business of common carrier which holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public regulation when private properties are affected with public interest, hence, they cease to be juris privati only. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to the control by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. 1 An abdication of the licensing and regulatory government agencies of their functions as the instant petition seeks to show, is indeed lamentable. Not only is it an unsound administrative policy but it is inimical to public trust and public interest as well. The instant petition for certiorari assails the constitutionality and validity of certain memoranda, circulars and/or orders of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board LTFRB) 2 which, among others, (a) authorize provincial bus and jeepney operators to increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without application therefor with the LTFRB and without hearing and approval thereof by said agency in violation of Sec. 16(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Service Act, and in derogation of LTFRB's duty to fix and determine just and reasonable fares by delegating that function to bus operators, and (b) establish a presumption of public need in favor of applicants for certificates of public convenience (CPC) and place on the oppositor the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service, in patent violation not only of Sec. 16(c) of CA 146, as amended, but also of Sec. 20(a) of the same Act mandating that fares should be "just and reasonable." It is, likewise, violative of the Rules of Court which places upon each party the burden to prove his own affirmative allegations. 3 The offending provisions contained in the questioned issuances pointed out by

petitioner, have resulted in the introduction into our highways and thoroughfares thousands of old and smokebelching buses, many of which are right-hand driven, and have exposed our consumers to the burden of spiraling costs of public transportation without hearing and due process. The following memoranda, circulars and/or orders are sought to be nullified by the instant petition, viz: (a) DOTC Memorandum Order 90-395, dated June 26, 1990 relative to the implementation of a fare range scheme for provincial bus services in the country; (b) DOTC Department Order No. 92-587, dated March 30, 1992, defining the policy framework on the regulation of transport services; (c) DOTC Memorandum dated October 8, 1992, laying down rules and procedures to implement Department Order No. 92587; (d) LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009, providing implementing guidelines on the DOTC Department Order No. 92-587; and (e) LTFRB Order dated March 24, 1994 in Case No. 94-3112. The relevant antecedents are as follows: On June 26, 1990; then Secretary of DOTC, Oscar M. Orbos, issued Memorandum Circular No. 90-395 to then LTFRB Chairman, Remedios A.S. Fernando allowing provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above and 15% below the LTFRB official rate for a period of one (1) year. The text of the memorandum order reads in full: One of the policy reforms and measures that is in line with the thrusts and the priorities set out in the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 1987 1992) is the liberalization of regulations in the transport sector. Along this line, the Government intends to move away gradually from regulatory policies and make progress towards greater reliance on free market forces. Based on several surveys and observations, bus companies are already charging passenger rates above and below the official fare declared by LTFRB on many provincial routes. It is in this context that some form of liberalization on public transport fares is to be tested on a pilot basis. In view thereof, the LTFRB is hereby directed to immediately publicize a fare range scheme for all provincial bus routes in country (except those operating within Metro Manila). Transport Operators shall be allowed to charge passengers within a range of fifteen percent (15%) above and fifteen percent (15%) below the LTFRB official rate for a period of one year. Guidelines and procedures for the said scheme shall be prepared by LTFRB in coordination with the DOTC Planning Service. The implementation of the said fare range scheme shall start on 6 August 1990. For compliance. (Emphasis ours.) Finding the implementation of the fare range scheme "not legally feasible," Remedios A.S. Fernando submitted the following memorandum to Oscar M. Orbos on July 24, 1990, to wit: With reference to DOTC Memorandum Order No. 90-395 dated 26 June 1990 which the LTFRB received on 19 July 1990, directing the Board "to immediately publicize a fare range scheme for all provincial bus routes in the country (except those operating within Metro Manila)" that will allow operators "to charge passengers within a range of fifteen percent (15%) above and fifteen percent (15%) below the LTFRB official rate for a period of one year" the undersigned is respectfully adverting the Secretary's attention to the following for his consideration: 1. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act prescribes the following for the fixing and determination of rates (a) the rates to be approved should be proposed by public service operators; (b) there should be a publication and notice to concerned or affected parties in the territory affected; (c) a public hearing should be held for the fixing of the rates; hence, implementation of the proposed fare range scheme on August 6 without complying with the requirements of the Public Service Act may not be legally feasible. 2. To allow bus operators in the country to charge fares fifteen (15%) above the present LTFRB fares in the wake of the devastation, death and suffering caused by the July 16 earthquake will not be socially warranted and will be politically unsound; most likely public criticism against the DOTC and the LTFRB will be triggered by the untimely motu propio implementation of the proposal by the mere expedient of publicizing the fare range scheme without calling a public

hearing, which scheme many as early as during the Secretary's predecessor know through newspaper reports and columnists' comments to be Asian Development Bank and World Bank inspired. 3. More than inducing a reduction in bus fares by fifteen percent (15%) the implementation of the proposal will instead trigger an upward adjustment in bus fares by fifteen percent (15%) at a time when hundreds of thousands of people in Central and Northern Luzon, particularly in Central Pangasinan, La Union, Baguio City, Nueva Ecija, and the Cagayan Valley are suffering from the devastation and havoc caused by the recent earthquake. 4. In lieu of the said proposal, the DOTC with its agencies involved in public transportation can consider measures and reforms in the industry that will be socially uplifting, especially for the people in the areas devastated by the recent earthquake. In view of the foregoing considerations, the undersigned respectfully suggests that the implementation of the proposed fare range scheme this year be further studied and evaluated. On December 5, 1990, private respondent Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PBOAP) filed an application for fare rate increase. An across-the-board increase of eight and a half centavos (P0.085) per kilometer for all types of provincial buses with a minimum-maximum fare range of fifteen (15%) percent over and below the proposed basic per kilometer fare rate, with the said minimum-maximum fare range applying only to ordinary, first class and premium class buses and a fifty-centavo (P0.50) minimum per kilometer fare for aircon buses, was sought. On December 6, 1990, private respondent PBOAP reduced its applied proposed fare to an across-the-board increase of six and a half (P0.065) centavos per kilometer for ordinary buses. The decrease was due to the drop in the expected price of diesel. The application was opposed by the Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. and Perla C. Bautista alleging that the proposed rates were exorbitant and unreasonable and that the application contained no allegation on the rate of return of the proposed increase in rates. On December 14, 1990, public respondent LTFRB rendered a decision granting the fare rate increase in accordance with the following schedule of fares on a straight computation method, viz: AUTHORIZED FARES LUZON MIN. OF 5 KMS. SUCCEEDING KM. REGULAR P1.50 P0.37 STUDENT P1.15 P0.28 VISAYAS/MINDANAO REGULAR P1.60 P0.375 STUDENT P1.20 P0.285 FIRST CLASS (PER KM.) LUZON P0.385 VISAYAS/ MINDANAO P0.395 PREMIERE CLASS (PER KM.) LUZON P0.395 VISAYAS/ MINDANAO P0.405 AIRCON (PER KM.) P0.415. 4 On March 30, 1992, then Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications Pete Nicomedes Prado issued Department Order No. 92-587 defining the policy framework on the regulation of transport services. The full text of the said order is reproduced below in view of the importance of the provisions contained therein:

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 125 as amended, designates the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as the primary policy, planning, regulating and implementing agency on transportation; WHEREAS, to achieve the objective of a viable, efficient, and dependable transportation system, the transportation regulatory agencies under or attached to the DOTC have to harmonize their decisions and adopt a common philosophy and direction; WHEREAS, the government proposes to build on the successful liberalization measures pursued over the last five years and bring the transport sector nearer to a balanced longer term regulatory framework; NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers granted by laws to the DOTC, the following policies and principles in the economic regulation of land, air, and water transportation services are hereby adopted: 1. Entry into and exit out of the industry. Following the Constitutional dictum against monopoly, no franchise holder shall be permitted to maintain a monopoly on any route. A minimum of two franchise holders shall be permitted to operate on any route. The requirements to grant a certificate to operate, or certificate of public convenience, shall be: proof of Filipino citizenship, financial capability, public need, and sufficient insurance cover to protect the riding public. In determining public need, the presumption of need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. The burden of proving that there is no need for a proposed service shall be with the oppositor(s). In the interest of providing efficient public transport services, the use of the "prior operator" and the "priority of filing" rules shall be discontinued. The route measured capacity test or other similar tests of demand for vehicle/vessel fleet on any route shall be used only as a guide in weighing the merits of each franchise application and not as a limit to the services offered. Where there are limitations in facilities, such as congested road space in urban areas, or at airports and ports, the use of demand management measures in conformity with market principles may be considered. The right of an operator to leave the industry is recognized as a business decision, subject only to the filing of appropriate notice and following a phase-out period, to inform the public and to minimize disruption of services. 2. Rate and Fare Setting. Freight rates shall be freed gradually from government controls. Passenger fares shall also be deregulated, except for the lowest class of passenger service (normally third class passenger transport) for which the government will fix indicative or reference fares. Operators of particular services may fix their own fares within a range 15% above and below the indicative or reference rate. Where there is lack of effective competition for services, or on specific routes, or for the transport of particular commodities, maximum mandatory freight rates or passenger fares shall be set temporarily by the government pending actions to increase the level of competition. For unserved or single operator routes, the government shall contract such services in the most advantageous terms to the public and the government, following public bids for the services. The advisability of bidding out the services or using other kinds of incentives on such routes shall be studied by the government. 3. Special Incentives and Financing for Fleet Acquisition. As a matter of policy, the government shall not engage in special financing and incentive programs, including direct subsidies for fleet acquisition and expansion. Only when the market situation warrants government intervention shall programs of this type be considered. Existing programs shall be phased out gradually. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Maritime Industry Authority are hereby directed to submit to the Office of the Secretary, within forty-five (45) days of this Order, the detailed rules and procedures for the Implementation of the policies herein set forth. In the formulation of such rules, the concerned agencies shall be guided

by the most recent studies on the subjects, such as the Provincial Road Passenger Transport Study, the Civil Aviation Master Plan, the Presidential Task Force on the Inter-island Shipping Industry, and the Inter-island Liner Shipping Rate Rationalization Study. For the compliance of all concerned. (Emphasis ours) On October 8, 1992, public respondent Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. issued a memorandum to the Acting Chairman of the LTFRB suggesting swift action on the adoption of rules and procedures to implement above-quoted Department Order No. 92-587 that laid down deregulation and other liberalization policies for the transport sector. Attached to the said memorandum was a revised draft of the required rules and procedures covering (i) Entry Into and Exit Out of the Industry and (ii) Rate and Fare Setting, with comments and suggestions from the World Bank incorporated therein. Likewise, resplendent from the said memorandum is the statement of the DOTC Secretary that the adoption of the rules and procedures is a pre-requisite to the approval of the Economic Integration Loan from the World Bank. 5 On February 17, 1993, the LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 promulgating the guidelines for the implementation of DOTC Department Order No. 92-587. The Circular provides, among others, the following challenged portions: xxx xxx xxx IV. Policy Guidelines on the Issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience. The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience is determined by public need. The presumption of public need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant, while burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service shall be the oppositor'(s). xxx xxx xxx V. Rate and Fare Setting The control in pricing shall be liberalized to introduce price competition complementary with the quality of service, subject to prior notice and public hearing. Fares shall not be provisionally authorized without public hearing. A. On the General Structure of Rates 1. The existing authorized fare range system of plus or minus 15 per cent for provincial buses and jeepneys shall be widened to 20% and -25% limit in 1994 with the authorized fare to be replaced by an indicative or reference rate as the basis for the expanded fare range. 2. Fare systems for aircon buses are liberalized to cover first class and premier services. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis ours). Sometime in March, 1994, private respondent PBOAP, availing itself of the deregulation policy of the DOTC allowing provincial bus operators to collect plus 20% and minus 25% of the prescribed fare without first having filed a petition for the purpose and without the benefit of a public hearing, announced a fare increase of twenty (20%) percent of the existing fares. Said increased fares were to be made effective on March 16, 1994. On March 16, 1994, petitioner KMU filed a petition before the LTFRB opposing the upward adjustment of bus fares. On March 24, 1994, the LTFRB issued one of the assailed orders dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The dispositive portion reads: PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Board after considering the arguments of the parties, hereby DISMISSES FOR LACK OF MERIT the petition filed in the above-entitled case. This petition in this case was resolved with dispatch at the request of petitioner to enable it to immediately avail of the legal remedies or options it is entitled under existing laws. SO ORDERED. 6 Hence, the instant petition for certiorari with an urgent prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order. The Court, on June 20, 1994, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining, prohibiting and preventing

respondents from implementing the bus fare rate increase as well as the questioned orders and memorandum circulars. This meant that provincial bus fares were rolled back to the levels duly authorized by the LTFRB prior to March 16, 1994. A moratorium was likewise enforced on the issuance of franchises for the operation of buses, jeepneys, and taxicabs. Petitioner KMU anchors its claim on two (2) grounds. First, the authority given by respondent LTFRB to provincial bus operators to set a fare range of plus or minus fifteen (15%) percent, later increased to plus twenty (20%) and minus twenty-five (-25%) percent, over and above the existing authorized fare without having to file a petition for the purpose, is unconstitutional, invalid and illegal. Second, the establishment of a presumption of public need in favor of an applicant for a proposed transport service without having to prove public necessity, is illegal for being violative of the Public Service Act and the Rules of Court. In its Comment, private respondent PBOAP, while not actually touching upon the issues raised by the petitioner, questions the wisdom and the manner by which the instant petition was filed. It asserts that the petitioner has no legal standing to sue or has no real interest in the case at bench and in obtaining the reliefs prayed for. In their Comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, public respondents DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. and the LTFRB asseverate that the petitioner does not have the standing to maintain the instant suit. They further claim that it is within DOTC and LTFRB's authority to set a fare range scheme and establish a presumption of public need in applications for certificates of public convenience. We find the instant petition impressed with merit. At the outset, the threshold issue of locus standi must be struck. Petitioner KMU has the standing to sue. The requirement of locus standi inheres from the definition of judicial power. Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides: xxx xxx xxx Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. In Lamb v. Phipps, 7 we ruled that judicial power is the power to hear and decide causes pending between parties who have the right to sue in the courts of law and equity. Corollary to this provision is the principle of locus standi of a party litigant. One who is directly affected by and whose interest is immediate and substantial in the controversy has the standing to sue. The rule therefore requires that a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. 8 In the case at bench, petitioner, whose members had suffered and continue to suffer grave and irreparable injury and damage from the implementation of the questioned memoranda, circulars and/or orders, has shown that it has a clear legal right that was violated and continues to be violated with the enforcement of the challenged memoranda, circulars and/or orders. KMU members, who avail of the use of buses, trains and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares. They are part of the millions of commuters who comprise the riding public. Certainly, their rights must be protected, not neglected nor ignored. Assuming arguendo that petitioner is not possessed of the standing to sue, this court is ready to brush aside this barren procedural infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the petitioner in view of the transcendental importance of the issues raised. And this act of liberality is not without judicial precedent. As early as the Emergency Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its discretion and waived the requirement of proper party. In the recent case of Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al., 9 we ruled in the same lines and enumerated some of the cases where the same policy was adopted, viz: . . . A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, [G.R. No. L-2044 (Araneta v. Dinglasan); G.R. No. L-2756 (Araneta v. Angeles); G.R. No. L-3054 (Rodriguez v. Tesorero de Filipinas); G.R. No. L-3055 (Guerrero v. Commissioner of Customs); and G.R. No. L-3056 (Barredo v. Commission on Elections), 84 Phil. 368 (1949)], this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the transcendental importance

to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure. (Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2621)." Insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned, this Court had declared that it "is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained," (Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677, 680 [1972]) or that it "enjoys an open discretion to entertain the same or not." [Sanidad v. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333 (1976)]. xxx xxx xxx In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities. Among such cases were those assailing the constitutionality of (a) R.A. No. 3836 insofar as it allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave to Senators and Representatives and to elective officials of both Houses of Congress (Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479 [1965]); (b) Executive Order No. 284, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on 25 July 1987, which allowed members of the cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 [1991]); (c) the automatic appropriation for debt service in the General Appropriations Act (Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 221 [1991]; (d) R.A. No. 7056 on the holding of desynchronized elections (Osmea v. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 750 [1991]); (e) P.D. No. 1869 (the charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation) on the ground that it is contrary to morals, public policy, and order (Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp., 197 SCRA 52 [1991]); and (f) R.A. No. 6975, establishing the Philippine National Police. (Carpio v. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 [1992]). Other cases where we have followed a liberal policy regarding locus standi include those attacking the validity or legality of (a) an order allowing the importation of rice in the light of the prohibition imposed by R.A. No. 3452 (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377 [1965]; (b) P.D. Nos. 991 and 1033 insofar as they proposed amendments to the Constitution and P.D. No. 1031 insofar as it directed the COMELEC to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the referendum-plebiscite on 16 October 1976 (Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, supra); (c) the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan (Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 [1990]); (d) the approval without hearing by the Board of Investments of the amended application of the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation to transfer the site of its plant from Bataan to Batangas and the validity of such transfer and the shift of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (Garcia v. Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374 [1989]; Garcia v. Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288 [1990]); (e) the decisions, orders, rulings, and resolutions of the Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, and the Fiscal Incentives Review Board exempting the National Power Corporation from indirect tax and duties (Maceda v. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771 [1991]); (f) the orders of the Energy Regulatory Board of 5 and 6 December 1990 on the ground that the hearings conducted on the second provisional increase in oil prices did not allow the petitioner substantial crossexamination; (Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board, 199 SCRA 454 [1991]); (g) Executive Order No. 478 which levied a special duty of P0.95 per liter of imported oil products (Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219 [1992]); (h) resolutions of the Commission on Elections concerning the apportionment, by district, of the number of elective members of Sanggunians (De Guia vs. Commission on Elections, 208 SCRA 420 [1992]); and (i) memorandum orders issued by a Mayor affecting the Chief of Police of Pasay City (Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. v. Cuneta, 101 SCRA 662 [1980]). In the 1975 case of Aquino v. Commission on Elections (62 SCRA 275 [1975]), this Court, despite its unequivocal ruling that the petitioners therein had no personality to file the petition, resolved nevertheless to pass upon the issues raised because of the far-reaching implications of the petition. We did no less in De Guia v. COMELEC (Supra) where, although we declared that De Guia "does not appear to have locus standi, a standing in law, a personal or substantial interest," we brushed aside the procedural infirmity "considering the importance of the issue

involved, concerning as it does the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment, and petitioner alleging abuse of discretion and violation of the Constitution by respondent." Now on the merits of the case. On the fare range scheme. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act, as amended, reads: Sec. 16. Proceedings of the Commission, upon notice and hearing. The Commission shall have power, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this Act, subject to the limitations and exceptions mentioned and saving provisions to the contrary: xxx xxx xxx (c) To fix and determine individual or joint rates, tolls, charges, classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as commutation, mileage kilometrage, and other special rates which shall be imposed, observed, and followed thereafter by any public service: Provided, That the Commission may, in its discretion, approve rates proposed by public services provisionally and without necessity of any hearing; but it shall call a hearing thereon within thirty days thereafter, upon publication and notice to the concerns operating in the territory affected: Provided, further, That in case the public service equipment of an operator is used principally or secondarily for the promotion of a private business, the net profits of said private business shall be considered in relation with the public service of such operator for the purpose of fixing the rates. (Emphasis ours). xxx xxx xxx Under the foregoing provision, the Legislature delegated to the defunct Public Service Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services. Respondent LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested with the same under Executive Order No. 202 dated June 19, 1987. Section 5(c) of the said executive order authorizes LTFRB "to determine, prescribe, approve and periodically review and adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other related charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles." Such delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency is permitted in order to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern life. As subjects for governmental regulation multiply, so does the difficulty of administering the laws. Hence, specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Given the task of determining sensitive and delicate matters as route-fixing and rate-making for the transport sector, the responsible regulatory body is entrusted with the power of subordinate legislation. With this authority, an administrative body and in this case, the LTFRB, may implement broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details which the Legislature may neither have time or competence to provide. However, nowhere under the aforesaid provisions of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB alike, authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, a transport operator, or other public service. In the case at bench, the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare, is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. 10 A further delegation of such power would indeed constitute a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate mandated to discharge it directly. 11 The policy of allowing the provincial bus operators to change and increase their fares at will would result not only to a chaotic situation but to an anarchic state of affairs. This would leave the riding public at the mercy of transport operators who may increase fares every hour, every day, every month or every year, whenever it pleases them or whenever they deem it "necessary" to do so. In Panay Autobus Co. v. Philippine Railway Co., 12 where respondent Philippine Railway Co. was granted by the Public Service Commission the authority to change its freight rates at will, this Court categorically declared that: In our opinion, the Public Service Commission was not authorized by law to delegate to the Philippine Railway Co. the power of altering its freight rates whenever it should find it necessary

to do so in order to meet the competition of road trucks and autobuses, or to change its freight rates at will, or to regard its present rates as maximum rates, and to fix lower rates whenever in the opinion of the Philippine Railway Co. it would be to its advantage to do so. The mere recital of the language of the application of the Philippine Railway Co. is enough to show that it is untenable. The Legislature has delegated to the Public Service Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services, but it has not authorized the Public Service Commission to delegate that power to a common carrier or other public service. The rates of public services like the Philippine Railway Co. have been approved or fixed by the Public Service Commission, and any change in such rates must be authorized or approved by the Public Service Commission after they have been shown to be just and reasonable. The public service may, of course, propose new rates, as the Philippine Railway Co. did in case No. 31827, but it cannot lawfully make said new rates effective without the approval of the Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission itself cannot authorize a public service to enforce new rates without the prior approval of said rates by the commission. The commission must approve new rates when they are submitted to it, if the evidence shows them to be just and reasonable, otherwise it must disapprove them. Clearly, the commission cannot determine in advance whether or not the new rates of the Philippine Railway Co. will be just and reasonable, because it does not know what those rates will be. In the present case the Philippine Railway Co. in effect asked for permission to change its freight rates at will. It may change them every day or every hour, whenever it deems it necessary to do so in order to meet competition or whenever in its opinion it would be to its advantage. Such a procedure would create a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and largely defeat the purposes of the public service law. 13 (Emphasis ours). One veritable consequence of the deregulation of transport fares is a compounded fare. If transport operators will be authorized to impose and collect an additional amount equivalent to 20% over and above the authorized fare over a period of time, this will unduly prejudice a commuter who will be made to pay a fare that has been computed in a manner similar to those of compounded bank interest rates. Picture this situation. On December 14, 1990, the LTFRB authorized provincial bus operators to collect a thirtyseven (P0.37) centavo per kilometer fare for ordinary buses. At the same time, they were allowed to impose and collect a fare range of plus or minus 15% over the authorized rate. Thus P0.37 centavo per kilometer authorized fare plus P0.05 centavos (which is 15% of P0.37 centavos) is equivalent to P0.42 centavos, the allowed rate in 1990. Supposing the LTFRB grants another five (P0.05) centavo increase per kilometer in 1994, then, the base or reference for computation would have to be P0.47 centavos (which is P0.42 + P0.05 centavos). If bus operators will exercise their authority to impose an additional 20% over and above the authorized fare, then the fare to be collected shall amount to P0.56 (that is, P0.47 authorized LTFRB rate plus 20% of P0.47 which is P0.29). In effect, commuters will be continuously subjected, not only to a double fare adjustment but to a compounding fare as well. On their part, transport operators shall enjoy a bigger chunk of the pie. Aside from fare increase applied for, they can still collect an additional amount by virtue of the authorized fare range. Mathematically, the situation translates into the following: Year** LTFRB authorized Fare Range Fare to be rate*** collected per kilometer 1990 P0.37 15% (P0.05) P0.42 1994 P0.42 + 0.05 = 0.47 20% (P0.09) P0.56 1998 P0.56 + 0.05 = 0.61 20% (P0.12) P0.73 2002 P0.73 + 0.05 = 0.78 20% (P0.16) P0.94 Moreover, rate making or rate fixing is not an easy task. It is a delicate and sensitive government function that requires dexterity of judgment and sound discretion with the settled goal of arriving at a just and reasonable rate acceptable to both the public utility and the public. Several factors, in fact, have to be taken into consideration before a balance could be achieved. A rate should not be confiscatory as would place an operator in a situation where he will continue to operate at a loss. Hence, the rate should enable public utilities to generate revenues sufficient to cover operational costs and provide reasonable return on the investments. On the other hand, a rate which is too high becomes discriminatory. It is contrary to public interest. A rate, therefore, must be reasonable and fair and must be affordable to the end user who will utilize the services.

Given the complexity of the nature of the function of rate-fixing and its far-reaching effects on millions of commuters, government must not relinquish this important function in favor of those who would benefit and profit from the industry. Neither should the requisite notice and hearing be done away with. The people, represented by reputable oppositors, deserve to be given full opportunity to be heard in their opposition to any fare increase. The present administrative procedure, 14 to our mind, already mirrors an orderly and satisfactory arrangement for all parties involved. To do away with such a procedure and allow just one party, an interested party at that, to determine what the rate should be, will undermine the right of the other parties to due process. The purpose of a hearing is precisely to determine what a just and reasonable rate is. 15 Discarding such procedural and constitutional right is certainly inimical to our fundamental law and to public interest. On the presumption of public need. A certificate of public convenience (CPC) is an authorization granted by the LTFRB for the operation of land transportation services for public use as required by law. Pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the following requirements must be met before a CPC may be granted, to wit: (i) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least 60 per centum of its stock or paid-up capital must belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines; (ii) the applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operation; and (iii) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner. It is understood that there must be proper notice and hearing before the PSC can exercise its power to issue a CPC. While adopting in toto the foregoing requisites for the issuance of a CPC, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92009, Part IV, provides for yet incongruous and contradictory policy guideline on the issuance of a CPC. The guidelines states: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience is determined by public need. The presumption of public need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant, while the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service shall be the oppositor's. (Emphasis ours). The above-quoted provision is entirely incompatible and inconsistent with Section 16(c)(iii) of the Public Service Act which requires that before a CPC will be issued, the applicant must prove by proper notice and hearing that the operation of the public service proposed will promote public interest in a proper and suitable manner. On the contrary, the policy guideline states that the presumption of public need for a public service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail. By its terms, public convenience or necessity generally means something fitting or suited to the public need. 16 As one of the basic requirements for the grant of a CPC, public convenience and necessity exists when the proposed facility or service meets a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the existing facilities do not adequately supply. The existence or non-existence of public convenience and necessity is therefore a question of fact that must be established by evidence, real and/or testimonial; empirical data; statistics and such other means necessary, in a public hearing conducted for that purpose. The object and purpose of such procedure, among other things, is to look out for, and protect, the interests of both the public and the existing transport operators. Verily, the power of a regulatory body to issue a CPC is founded on the condition that after full-dress hearing and investigation, it shall find, as a fact, that the proposed operation is for the convenience of the public. 17 Basic convenience is the primary consideration for which a CPC is issued, and that fact alone must be consistently borne in mind. Also, existing operators in subject routes must be given an opportunity to offer proof and oppose the application. Therefore, an applicant must, at all times, be required to prove his capacity and capability to furnish the service which he has undertaken to 18 And all this will be possible only if a public hearing were conducted for that purpose. render. Otherwise stated, the establishment of public need in favor of an applicant reverses well-settled and institutionalized judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative procedures. It allows the party who initiates the proceedings to prove, by mere application, his affirmative allegations. Moreover, the offending provisions of the LTFRB memorandum circular in question would in effect amend the Rules of Court by adding another disputable presumption in the enumeration of 37 presumptions under Rule 131, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. Such

usurpation of this Court's authority cannot be countenanced as only this Court is mandated by law to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. 19 Deregulation, while it may be ideal in certain situations, may not be ideal at all in our country given the present circumstances. Advocacy of liberalized franchising and regulatory process is tantamount to an abdication by the government of its inherent right to exercise police power, that is, the right of government to regulate public utilities for protection of the public and the utilities themselves. While we recognize the authority of the DOTC and the LTFRB to issue administrative orders to regulate the transport sector, we find that they committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing DOTC Department Order No. 92-587 defining the policy framework on the regulation of transport services and LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 promulgating the implementing guidelines on DOTC Department Order No. 92-587, the said administrative issuances being amendatory and violative of the Public Service Act and the Rules of Court. Consequently, we rule that the twenty (20%) per centum fare increase imposed by respondent PBOAP on March 16, 1994 without the benefit of a petition and a public hearing is null and void and of no force and effect. No grave abuse of discretion however was committed in the issuance of DOTC Memorandum Order No. 90-395 and DOTC Memorandum dated October 8, 1992, the same being merely internal communications between administrative officers. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the challenged administrative issuances and orders, namely: DOTC Department Order No. 92-587, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009, and the order dated March 24, 1994 issued by respondent LTFRB are hereby DECLARED contrary to law and invalid insofar as they affect provisions therein (a) delegating to provincial bus and jeepney operators the authority to increase or decrease the duly prescribed transportation fares; and (b) creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the oppositor. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on June 20, 1994 is hereby MADE PERMANENT insofar as it enjoined the bus fare rate increase granted under the provisions of the aforementioned administrative circulars, memoranda and/or orders declared invalid. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

public of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC., respondents. TORRES, JR., J.: This Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to prohibit respondent Civil Aeronautics Board from exercising jurisdiction over private respondent's Application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and to annul and set aside a temporary operating permit issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board in favor of Grand International Airways (GrandAir, for brevity) allowing the same to engage in scheduled domestic air transportation services, particularly the Manila-Cebu, Manila-Davao, and converse routes. The main reason submitted by petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) to support its petition is the fact that GrandAir does not possess a legislative franchise authorizing it to engage in air transportation service within the Philippines or elsewhere. Such franchise is, allegedly, a requisite for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity by the respondent Board, as mandated under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution. Respondent GrandAir, on the other hand, posits that a legislative franchise is no longer a requirement for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or a Temporary Operating Permit, following the Court's pronouncements in the case of Albano vs. Reyes, 1 as restated by the Court of Appeals in Avia Filipinas International vs. Civil Aeronautics Board 2 and Silangan Airways, Inc. vs. Grand International Airways, Inc., and the Hon. Civil Aeronautics Board. 3 On November 24, 1994, private respondent GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Board, which application was docketed as CAB Case No. EP-12711. 4 Accordingly, the Chief Hearing Officer of the CAB issued a Notice of Hearing setting the application for initial hearing on December 16, 1994, and directing GrandAir to serve a copy of the application and corresponding notice to all scheduled Philippine Domestic operators. On December 14, 1994, GrandAir filed its Compliance, and requested for the issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit. Petitioner, itself the holder of a legislative franchise to operate air transport services, filed an Opposition to the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on

December 16, 1995 on the following grounds: A. The CAB has no jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's application until the latter has first obtained a franchise to operate from Congress. B. The petitioner's application is deficient in form and substance in that: 1. The application does not indicate a route structure including a computation of trunkline, secondary and rural available seat kilometers (ASK) which shall always be maintained at a monthly level at least 5% and 20% of the ASK offered into and out of the proposed base of operations for rural and secondary, respectively. 2. It does not contain a project/feasibility study, projected profit and loss statements, projected balance sheet, insurance coverage, list of personnel, list of spare parts inventory, tariff structure, documents supportive of financial capacity, route flight schedule, contracts on facilities (hangars, maintenance, lot) etc. C. Approval of petitioner's application would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. D. There is no urgent need and demand for the services applied for. E. To grant petitioner's application would only result in ruinous competition contrary to Section 4(d) of R.A. 776. 5 At the initial hearing for the application, petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application because GrandAir did not possess a legislative franchise. On December 20, 1994, the Chief Hearing Officer of CAB issued an Order denying petitioner's Opposition. Pertinent portions of the Order read: PAL alleges that the CAB has no jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's application until the latter has first obtained a franchise to operate from Congress. The Civil Aeronautics Board has jurisdiction to hear and resolve the application. In Avia Filipina vs. CAB, CA G.R. No. 23365, it has been ruled that under Section 10 (c) (I) of R.A. 776, the Board possesses this specific power and duty. In view thereof, the opposition of PAL on this ground is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. Meantime, on December 22, 1994, petitioner this time, opposed private respondent's application for a temporary permit maintaining that: 1. The applicant does not possess the required fitness and capability of operating the services applied for under RA 776; and, 2. Applicant has failed to prove that there is clear and urgent public need for the services applied for. 6 On December 23, 1994, the Board promulgated Resolution No. 119(92) approving the issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit in favor of Grand Air 7 for a period of three months, i.e., from December 22, 1994 to March 22, 1994. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the issuance of the Temporary Operating Permit on January 11, 1995, but the same was denied in CAB Resolution No. 02 (95) on February 2, 1995. 8 In the said Resolution, the Board justified its assumption of jurisdiction over GrandAir's application. WHEREAS , the CAB is specifically authorized under Section 10-C (1) of Republic Act No. 776 as follows: (c) The Board shall have the following specific powers and duties: (1) In accordance with the provision of Chapter IV of this Act, to issue, deny, amend revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, upon petitioner-complaint, or upon its own initiative, any temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity;

Provided, however; that in the case of foreign air carriers, the permit shall be issued with the approval of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. WHEREAS, such authority was affirmed in PAL vs. CAB, (23 SCRA 992), wherein the Supreme Court held that the CAB can even on its own initiative, grant a TOP even before the presentation of evidence; WHEREAS, more recently, Avia Filipinas vs. CAB, (CA-GR No. 23365), promulgated on October 30, 1991, held that in accordance with its mandate, the CAB can issue not only a TOP but also a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to a qualified applicant therefor in the absence of a legislative franchise, citing therein as basis the decision of Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264) which provides (inter alia) that: a) Franchises by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate when the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities; b) The Constitutional provision in Article XII, Section 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility does not necessarily imply that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization since our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 219 which took effect on 22 January 1995, provides in Section 2.1 that a minimum of two (2) operators in each route/link shall be encouraged and that routes/links presently serviced by only one (1) operator shall be open for entry to additional operators. RESOLVED, (T)HEREFORE, that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Philippine Airlines on January 05, 1995 on the Grant by this Board of a Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) to Grand International Airways, Inc. alleging among others that the CAB has no such jurisdiction, is hereby DENIED, as it hereby denied, in view of the foregoing and considering that the grounds relied upon by the movant are not indubitable. On March 21, 1995, upon motion by private respondent, the temporary permit was extended for a period of six (6) months or up to September 22, 1995. Hence this petition, filed on April 3, 1995. Petitioners argue that the respondent Board acted beyond its powers and jurisdiction in taking cognizance of GrandAir's application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and in issuing a temporary operating permit in the meantime, since GrandAir has not been granted and does not possess a legislative franchise to engage in scheduled domestic air transportation. A legislative franchise is necessary before anyone may engage in air transport services, and a franchise may only be granted by Congress. This is the meaning given by the petitioner upon a reading of Section 11, Article XII, 9 and Section 1, Article VI, 10 of the Constitution. To support its theory, PAL submits Opinion No. 163, S. 1989 of the Department of Justice, which reads: Dr. Arturo C. Corona Executive Director Civil Aeronautics Board PPL Building, 1000 U.N. Avenue Ermita, Manila Sir: This has reference to your request for opinion on the necessity of a legislative franchise before the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") may issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and/or permit to engage in air commerce or air transportation to an individual or entity. You state that during the hearing on the application of Cebu Air for a congressional franchise, the House Committee on Corporations and Franchises contended that under the present Constitution, the CAB may not issue the abovestated certificate or permit, unless the individual or entity concerned possesses a legislative franchise. You believe otherwise, however, for the

reason that under R.A. No. 776, as amended, the CAB is explicitly empowered to issue operating permits or certificates of public convenience and necessity and that this statutory provision is not inconsistent with the current charter. We concur with the view expressed by the House Committee on Corporations and Franchises. In an opinion rendered in favor of your predecessor-in-office, this Department observed that, . . . it is useful to note the distinction between the franchise to operate and a permit to commence operation. The former is sovereign and legislative in nature; it can be conferred only by the lawmaking authority (17 W and P, pp. 691-697). The latter is administrative and regulatory in character (In re Application of Fort Crook-Bellevue Boulevard Line, 283 NW 223); it is granted by an administrative agency, such as the Public Service Commission [now Board of Transportation], in the case of land transportation, and the Civil Aeronautics Board, in case of air services. While a legislative franchise is a pre-requisite to a grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an airline company, such franchise alone cannot constitute the authority to commence operations, inasmuch as there are still matters relevant to such operations which are not determined in the franchise, like rates, schedules and routes, and which matters are resolved in the process of issuance of permit by the administrative. (Secretary of Justice opn No. 45, s. 1981) Indeed, authorities are agreed that a certificate of public convenience and necessity is an authorization issued by the appropriate governmental agency for the operation of public services for which a franchise is required by law (Almario, Transportation and Public Service Law, 1977 Ed., p. 293; Agbayani, Commercial Law of the Phil., Vol. 4, 1979 Ed., pp. 380-381). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that a franchise is the legislative authorization to engage in a business activity or enterprise of a public nature, whereas a certificate of public convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure which constitutes the franchise's authority to commence operations. It is thus logical that the grant of the former should precede the latter. Please be guided accordingly. (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDONEZ Secretary of Justice Respondent GrandAir, on the other hand, relies on its interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act 776, which follows the pronouncements of the Court of Appeals in the cases of Avia Filipinas vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, and Silangan Airways, Inc. vs. Grand International Airways (supra). In both cases, the issue resolved was whether or not the Civil Aeronautics Board can issue the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or Temporary Operating Permit to a prospective domestic air transport operator who does not possess a legislative franchise to operate as such. Relying on the Court's pronouncement in Albano vs. Reyes (supra), the Court of Appeals upheld the authority of the Board to issue such authority, even in the absence of a legislative franchise, which authority is derived from Section 10 of Republic Act 776, as amended by P.D. 1462. 11 The Civil Aeronautics Board has jurisdiction over GrandAir's Application for a Temporary Operating Permit. This rule has been established in the case of Philippine Air Lines Inc., vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, promulgated on June 13, 1968. 12 The Board is expressly authorized by Republic Act 776 to issue a temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and nothing contained in the said law negates the power to issue said permit before the completion of the applicant's evidence and that of the oppositor thereto on the main petition. Indeed, the CAB's authority to grant a temporary permit "upon its own initiative" strongly suggests the power to exercise said authority, even before the presentation of said evidence has begun. Assuming arguendo that a legislative franchise is prerequisite to the issuance of a permit, the absence of the same does not affect the jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application, but tolls only upon the ultimate issuance of the requested permit. The power to authorize and control the operation of a public utility is admittedly a prerogative of the legislature, since Congress is that branch of government vested with plenary powers of legislation. The franchise is a legislative grant, whether made directly by the legislature itself, or by any one of its properly constituted instrumentalities. The grant, when made, binds the public, and is,

directly or indirectly, the act of the state. 13 The issue in this petition is whether or not Congress, in enacting Republic Act 776, has delegated the authority to authorize the operation of domestic air transport services to the respondent Board, such that Congressional mandate for the approval of such authority is no longer necessary. Congress has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for, or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts. 14 It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. 15 In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. 16 The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right. 17 It is this policy which was pursued by the Court in Albano vs. Reyes. Thus, a reading of the pertinent issuances governing the Philippine Ports Authority, 18 proves that the PPA is empowered to undertake by itself the operation and management of the Manila International Container Terminal, or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or other means, at its option. The latter power having been delegated to the to PPA, a franchise from Congress to authorize an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage the MICP becomes unnecessary. Given the foregoing postulates, we find that the Civil Aeronautics Board has the authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, or Temporary Operating Permit to a domestic air transport operator, who, though not possessing a legislative franchise, meets all the other requirements prescribed by the law. Such requirements were enumerated in Section 21 of R.A. 776. There is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution, which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator. Although Section 11 of Article XII recognizes Congress' control over any franchise, certificate or authority to operate a public utility, it does not mean Congress has exclusive authority to issue the same. Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. 19 In many instances, Congress has seen it fit to delegate this function to government agencies, specialized particularly in their respective areas of public service. A reading of Section 10 of the same reveals the clear intent of Congress to delegate the authority to regulate the issuance of a license to operate domestic air transport services: Sec. 10. Powers and Duties of the Board. (A) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Board shall have the power to regulate the economic aspect of air transportation, and shall have general supervision and regulation of, the jurisdiction and control over air carriers, general sales agents, cargo sales agents, and air freight forwarders as well as their property rights, equipment, facilities and franchise, insofar as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provision of this Act. In support of the Board's authority as stated above, it is given the following specific powers and duties: (C) The Board shall have the following specific powers and duties: (1) In accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Act, to issue, deny, amend, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke in whole or in part upon petition or complaint or upon its own initiative any Temporary Operating Permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity: Provided however, That in the case of foreign air carriers, the permit shall be issued with the approval of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner argues that since R.A. 776 gives the Board the authority to issue "Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity", this, according to petitioner, means that a legislative franchise is an absolute requirement. It cites a number of authorities supporting the view that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is

issued to a public service for which a franchise is required by law, as distinguished from a "Certificate of Public Convenience" which is an authorization issued for the operation of public services for which no franchise, either municipal or legislative, is required by law. 20 This submission relies on the premise that the authority to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure separate and distinct from the authority to grant a franchise for the operation of the public utility subject of this particular case, which is exclusively lodged by petitioner in Congress. We do not agree with the petitioner. Many and varied are the definitions of certificates of public convenience which courts and legal writers have drafted. Some statutes use the terms "convenience and necessity" while others use only the words "public convenience." The terms "convenience and necessity", if used together in a statute, are usually held not to be separable, but are construed together. Both words modify each other and must be construed together. The word 'necessity' is so connected, not as an additional requirement but to modify and qualify what might otherwise be taken as the strict significance of the word necessity. Public convenience and necessity exists when the proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the existing facilities do not adequately afford. It does not mean or require an actual physical necessity or an indispensable thing. 21 The terms "convenience" and "necessity" are to be construed together, although they are not synonymous, and effect must be given both. The convenience of the public must not be circumscribed by according to the word "necessity" its strict meaning or an essential requisites. 22 The use of the word "necessity", in conjunction with "public convenience" in a certificate of authorization to a public service entity to operate, does not in any way modify the nature of such certification, or the requirements for the issuance of the same. It is the law which determines the requisites for the issuance of such certification, and not the title indicating the certificate. Congress, by giving the respondent Board the power to issue permits for the operation of domestic transport services, has delegated to the said body the authority to determine the capability and competence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to engage in such venture. This is not an instance of transforming the respondent Board into a mini-legislative body, with unbridled authority to choose who should be given authority to operate domestic air transport services. To be valid, the delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative restrictions, not a "roving commission" that will give the delegate unlimited legislative authority. It must not be a delegation "running riot" and "not canalized with banks that keep it from overflowing." Otherwise, the delegation is in legal effect an abdication of legislative authority, a total surrender by the legislature of its prerogatives in favor of the delegate. 23 Congress, in this instance, has set specific limitations on how such authority should be exercised. Firstly, Section 4 of R.A. No. 776, as amended, sets out the following guidelines or policies: Sec. 4. Declaration of policies. In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties under this Act, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administrator shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest, and in accordance with the public convenience and necessity: (a) The development and utilization of the air potential of the Philippines; (b) The encouragement and development of an air transportation system properly adapted to the present and future of foreign and domestic commerce of the Philippines, of the Postal Service and of the National Defense; (c) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, assure the highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic condition in, such transportation, and to improve the relations between, and coordinate transportation by, air carriers; (d) The promotion of adequate, economical and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices;

(e) Competition between air carriers to the extent necessary to assure the sound development of an air transportation system properly adapted to the need of the foreign and domestic commerce of the Philippines, of the Postal Service, and of the National Defense; (f) To promote safety of flight in air commerce in the Philippines; and, (g) The encouragement and development of civil aeronautics. More importantly, the said law has enumerated the requirements to determine the competency of a prospective operator to engage in the public service of air transportation. Sec. 12. Citizenship requirement. Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution and existing treaty or treaties, a permit authorizing a person to engage in domestic air commerce and/or air transportation shall be issued only to citizens of the Philippines 24 Sec. 21. Issuance of permit. The Board shall issue a permit authorizing the whole or any part of the service covered by the application, if it finds: (1) that the applicant is fit, willing and able to perform such service properly in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations, and requirements issued thereunder; and (2) that such service is required by the public convenience and necessity; otherwise the application shall be denied. Furthermore, the procedure for the processing of the application of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity had been established to ensure the weeding out of those entities that are not deserving of public service. 25 In sum, respondent Board should now be allowed to continue hearing the application of GrandAir for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, there being no legal obstacle to the exercise of its jurisdiction. ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit. The respondent Civil Aeronautics Board is hereby DIRECTED to CONTINUE hearing the application of respondent Grand International Airways, Inc. for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 114222 April 6, 1995 FRANCISCO S. TATAD, JOHN H. OSMENA and RODOLFO G. BIAZON, petitioners, vs. HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications, and EDSA LRT CORPORATION, LTD., respondents. QUIASON, J.: This is a petition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to prohibit respondents from further implementing and enforcing the "Revised and Restated Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA" dated April 22, 1992, and the "Supplemental Agreement to the 22 April 1992 Revised and Restated Agreement To Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA" dated May 6, 1993. Petitioners Francisco S. Tatad, John H. Osmena and Rodolfo G. Biazon are members of the Philippine Senate and are suing in their capacities as Senators and as taxpayers. Respondent Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. is the incumbent Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), while private respondent EDSA LRT Corporation, Ltd. is a private corporation organized under the laws of Hongkong. I In 1989, DOTC planned to construct a light railway transit line along EDSA, a major thoroughfare in Metropolitan Manila, which shall traverse the cities of Pasay, Quezon, Mandaluyong and Makati. The plan, referred to as EDSA Light Rail Transit III (EDSA LRT III), was intended to provide a mass transit system along EDSA and alleviate the congestion and growing transportation problem in the metropolis. On March 3, 1990, a letter of intent was sent by the Eli Levin Enterprises, Inc., represented by Elijahu Levin to DOTC Secretary Oscar Orbos, proposing to construct the EDSA LRT III on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. On March 15, 1990, Secretary Orbos invited Levin to send a technical team to discuss the project with DOTC. On July 9, 1990, Republic Act No. 6957 entitled "An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and For Other Purposes," was signed by President Corazon C. Aquino. Referred to as the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law, it took effect on October 9, 1990.

Republic Act No. 6957 provides for two schemes for the financing, construction and operation of government projects through private initiative and investment: Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) or Build-Transfer (BT). In accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6957 and to set the EDSA LRT III project underway, DOTC, on January 22, 1991 and March 14, 1991, issued Department Orders Nos. 91-494 and 91-496, respectively creating the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and the Technical Committee. After its constitution, the PBAC issued guidelines for the prequalification of contractors for the financing and implementation of the project The notice, advertising the prequalification of bidders, was published in three newspapers of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks starting February 21, 1991. The deadline set for submission of prequalification documents was March 21, 1991, later extended to April 1, 1991. Five groups responded to the invitation namely, ABB Trazione of Italy, Hopewell Holdings Ltd. of Hongkong, Mansteel International of Mandaue, Cebu, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. of Japan, and EDSA LRT Consortium, composed of ten foreign and domestic corporations: namely, Kaiser Engineers International, Inc., ACER Consultants (Far East) Ltd. and Freeman Fox, Tradeinvest/CKD Tatra of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics, TCGI Engineering All Asia Capital and Leasing Corporation, The Salim Group of Jakarta, E. L. Enterprises, Inc., A.M. Oreta & Co. Capitol Industrial Construction Group, Inc, and F. F. Cruz & co., Inc. On the last day for submission of prequalification documents, the prequalification criteria proposed by the Technical Committee were adopted by the PBAC. The criteria totalling 100 percent, are as follows: (a) Legal aspects 10 percent; (b) Management/Organizational capability 30 percent; and (c) Financial capability 30 percent; and (d) Technical capability 30 percent (Rollo, p. 122). On April 3, 1991, the Committee, charged under the BOT Law with the formulation of the Implementation Rules and Regulations thereof, approved the same. After evaluating the prequalification, bids, the PBAC issued a Resolution on May 9, 1991 declaring that of the five applicants, only the EDSA LRT Consortium "met the requirements of garnering at least 21 points per criteria [sic], except for Legal Aspects, and obtaining an over-all passing mark of at least 82 points" (Rollo, p. 146). The Legal Aspects referred to provided that the BOT/BT contractor-applicant meet the requirements specified in the Constitution and other pertinent laws (Rollo, p. 114). Subsequently, Secretary Orbos was appointed Executive Secretary to the President of the Philippines and was replaced by Secretary Pete Nicomedes Prado. The latter sent to President Aquino two letters dated May 31, 1991 and June 14, 1991, respectively recommending the award of the EDSA LRT III project to the sole complying bidder, the EDSA LRT Consortium, and requesting for authority to negotiate with the said firm for the contract pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law (Rollo, pp. 298-302). In July 1991, Executive Secretary Orbos, acting on instructions of the President, issued a directive to the DOTC to proceed with the negotiations. On July 16, 1991, the EDSA LRT Consortium submitted its bid proposal to DOTC. Finding this proposal to be in compliance with the bid requirements, DOTC and respondent EDSA LRT Corporation, Ltd., in substitution of the EDSA LRT Consortium, entered into an "Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA" under the terms of the BOT Law (Rollo, pp. 147-177). Secretary Prado, thereafter, requested presidential approval of the contract. In a letter dated March 13, 1992, Executive Secretary Franklin Drilon, who replaced Executive Secretary Orbos, informed Secretary Prado that the President could not grant the requested approval for the following reasons: (1) that DOTC failed to conduct actual public bidding in compliance with Section 5 of the BOT Law; (2) that the law authorized public bidding as the only mode to award BOT projects, and the prequalification proceedings was not the public bidding contemplated under the law; (3) that Item 14 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law which authorized negotiated award of contract in addition to public bidding was of doubtful legality; and (4) that congressional approval of the list of priority projects under the BOT or BT Scheme provided in the law had not yet been granted at the time the contract was awarded (Rollo, pp. 178-179). In view of the comments of Executive Secretary Drilon, the DOTC and private respondents re-negotiated the agreement. On April 22, 1992, the parties entered into a "Revised and Restated Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA" (Rollo, pp. 47-78) inasmuch as "the parties [are] cognizant of the fact the DOTC has full authority to sign the Agreement without need of approval by the President pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. 380 and that certain events [had] supervened since November 7, 1991 which

necessitate[d] the revision of the Agreement" (Rollo, p. 51). On May 6, 1992, DOTC, represented by Secretary Jesus Garcia vice Secretary Prado, and private respondent entered into a "Supplemental Agreement to the 22 April 1992 Revised and Restated Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA" so as to "clarify their respective rights and responsibilities" and to submit [the] Supplemental Agreement to the President, of the Philippines for his approval" (Rollo, pp. 79-80). Secretary Garcia submitted the two Agreements to President Fidel V. Ramos for his consideration and approval. In a Memorandum to Secretary Garcia on May 6, 1993, approved the said Agreements, (Rollo, p. 194). According to the agreements, the EDSA LRT III will use light rail vehicles from the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics and will have a maximum carrying capacity of 450,000 passengers a day, or 150 million a year to be achieved-through 54 such vehicles operating simultaneously. The EDSA LRT III will run at grade, or street level, on the mid-section of EDSA for a distance of 17.8 kilometers from F.B. Harrison, Pasay City to North Avenue, Quezon City. The system will have its own power facility (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 2.3 (ii); Rollo p. 55). It will also have thirteen (13) passenger stations and one depot in 16-hectare government property at North Avenue (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 11; Rollo, pp. 91-92). Private respondents shall undertake and finance the entire project required for a complete operational light rail transit system (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 4.1; Rollo, p. 58). Target completion date is 1,080 days or approximately three years from the implementation date of the contract inclusive of mobilization, site works, initial and final testing of the system (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 5; Rollo, p. 83). Upon full or partial completion and viability thereof, private respondent shall deliver the use and possession of the completed portion to DOTC which shall operate the same (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 5; Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 5.1; Rollo, pp. 61-62, 84). DOTC shall pay private respondent rentals on a monthly basis through an Irrevocable Letter of Credit. The rentals shall be determined by an independent and internationally accredited inspection firm to be appointed by the parties (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 6; Rollo, pp. 85-86) As agreed upon, private respondent's capital shall be recovered from the rentals to be paid by the DOTC which, in turn, shall come from the earnings of the EDSA LRT III (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 1, p. 5; Rollo, p. 54). After 25 years and DOTC shall have completed payment of the rentals, ownership of the project shall be transferred to the latter for a consideration of only U.S. $1.00 (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 11.1; Rollo, p. 67). On May 5, 1994, R.A. No. 7718, an "Act Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 6957, Entitled "An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and for Other Purposes" was signed into law by the President. The law was published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 12, 1994, and took effect 15 days thereafter or on May 28, 1994. The law expressly recognizes BLT scheme and allows direct negotiation of BLT contracts. II In their petition, petitioners argued that: (1) THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 22, 1992, AS AMENDED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF MAY 6, 1993, INSOFAR AS IT GRANTS EDSA LRT CORPORATION, LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, THE OWNERSHIP OF EDSA LRT III, A PUBLIC UTILITY, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND, HENCE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; (2) THE BUILD-LEASE-TRANSFER SCHEME PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENTS IS NOT DEFINED NOR RECOGNIZED IN R.A. NO. 6957 OR ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND, HENCE, IS ILLEGAL; (3) THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT ON A NEGOTIATED BASIS VIOLATES R; A. NO. 6957 AND, HENCE, IS UNLAWFUL; (4) THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT EDSA LRT CORPORATION, LTD. VIOLATES THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED IN THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOT LAW AND, HENCE, IS ILLEGAL; (5) THE AGREEMENTS VIOLATE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO 380 FOR THEIR FAILURE TO BEAR PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL AND, HENCE, ARE ILLEGAL AND INEFFECTIVE; AND (6) THE AGREEMENTS ARE GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT (Rollo, pp. 15-16). Secretary Garcia and private respondent filed their comments separately and claimed that:

(1) Petitioners are not the real parties-in-interest and have no legal standing to institute the present petition; (2) The writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy and the petition requires ascertainment of facts; (3) The scheme adopted in the Agreements is actually a build-transfer scheme allowed by the BOT Law; (4) The nationality requirement for public utilities mandated by the Constitution does not apply to private respondent; (5) The Agreements executed by and between respondents have been approved by President Ramos and are not disadvantageous to the government; (6) The award of the contract to private respondent through negotiation and not public bidding is allowed by the BOT Law; and (7) Granting that the BOT Law requires public bidding, this has been amended by R.A No. 7718 passed by the Legislature On May 12, 1994, which provides for direct negotiation as a mode of award of infrastructure projects. III Respondents claimed that petitioners had no legal standing to initiate the instant action. Petitioners, however, countered that the action was filed by them in their capacity as Senators and as taxpayers. The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the national government or government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly in contravention of the law (Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 [1994]) and to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved (Bugnay Construction and Development Corporation v. Laron, 176 SCRA. 240 [1989]). For as long as the ruling in Kilosbayan on locus standi is not reversed, we have no choice but to follow it and uphold the legal standing of petitioners as taxpayers to institute the present action. IV In the main, petitioners asserted that the Revised and Restated Agreement of April 22, 1992 and the Supplemental Agreement of May 6, 1993 are unconstitutional and invalid for the following reasons: (1) the EDSA LRT III is a public utility, and the ownership and operation thereof is limited by the Constitution to Filipino citizens and domestic corporations, not foreign corporations like private respondent; (2) the Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT) scheme provided in the agreements is not the BOT or BT Scheme under the law; (3) the contract to construct the EDSA LRT III was awarded to private respondent not through public bidding which is the only mode of awarding infrastructure projects under the BOT law; and (4) the agreements are grossly disadvantageous to the government. 1. Private respondent EDSA LRT Corporation, Ltd. to whom the contract to construct the EDSA LRT III was awarded by public respondent, is admittedly a foreign corporation "duly incorporated and existing under the laws of Hongkong" (Rollo, pp. 50, 79). There is also no dispute that once the EDSA LRT III is constructed, private respondent, as lessor, will turn it over to DOTC, as lessee, for the latter to operate the system and pay rentals for said use. The question posed by petitioners is: Can respondent EDSA LRT Corporation, Ltd., a foreign corporation own EDSA LRT III; a public utility? (Rollo, p. 17). The phrasing of the question is erroneous; it is loaded. What private respondent owns are the rail tracks, rolling stocks like the coaches, rail stations, terminals and the power plant, not a public utility. While a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the public, they do not by themselves constitute a public utility. What constitutes a public utility is not their ownership but their use to serve the public (Iloilo Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Public Service Board, 44 Phil. 551, 557 558 [1923]). The Constitution, in no uncertain terms, requires a franchise for the operation of a public utility. However, it does not require a franchise before one can own the facilities needed to operate a public utility so long as it does not operate them to serve the public.

Section 11 of Article XII of the Constitution provides: No franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive character or for a longer period than fifty years . . . (Emphasis supplied). In law, there is a clear distinction between the "operation" of a public utility and the ownership of the facilities and equipment used to serve the public. Ownership is defined as a relation in law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by law or the concurrence with the rights of another (Tolentino, II Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 45 [1992]). The exercise of the rights encompassed in ownership is limited by law so that a property cannot be operated and used to serve the public as a public utility unless the operator has a franchise. The operation of a rail system as a public utility includes the transportation of passengers from one point to another point, their loading and unloading at designated places and the movement of the trains at pre-scheduled times (cf. Arizona Eastern R.R. Co. v. J.A.. Matthews, 20 Ariz 282, 180 P.159, 7 A.L.R. 1149 [1919] ;United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Northern P.R. Co., 30 Wash 2d. 722, 193 P. 2d 868, 2 A.L.R. 2d 1065 [1948]). The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of the facilities thereof. One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility, or conversely, one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public. The devotion of property to serve the public may be done by the owner or by the person in control thereof who may not necessarily be the owner thereof. This dichotomy between the operation of a public utility and the ownership of the facilities used to serve the public can be very well appreciated when we consider the transportation industry. Enfranchised airline and shipping companies may lease their aircraft and vessels instead of owning them themselves. While private respondent is the owner of the facilities necessary to operate the EDSA. LRT III, it admits that it is not enfranchised to operate a public utility (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 3.2; Rollo, p. 57). In view of this incapacity, private respondent and DOTC agreed that on completion date, private respondent will immediately deliver possession of the LRT system by way of lease for 25 years, during which period DOTC shall operate the same as a common carrier and private respondent shall provide technical maintenance and repair services to DOTC (Revised and Restated Agreement, Secs. 3.2, 5.1 and 5.2; Rollo, pp. 57-58, 61-62). Technical maintenance consists of providing (1) repair and maintenance facilities for the depot and rail lines, services for routine clearing and security; and (2) producing and distributing maintenance manuals and drawings for the entire system (Revised and Restated Agreement, Annex F). Private respondent shall also train DOTC personnel for familiarization with the operation, use, maintenance and repair of the rolling stock, power plant, substations, electrical, signaling, communications and all other equipment as supplied in the agreement (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 10; Rollo, pp. 66-67). Training consists of theoretical and live training of DOTC operational personnel which includes actual driving of light rail vehicles under simulated operating conditions, control of operations, dealing with emergencies, collection, counting and securing cash from the fare collection system (Revised and Restated Agreement, Annex E, Secs. 2-3). Personnel of DOTC will work under the direction and control of private respondent only during training (Revised and Restated Agreement, Annex E, Sec. 3.1). The training objectives, however, shall be such that upon completion of the EDSA LRT III and upon opening of normal revenue operation, DOTC shall have in their employ personnel capable of undertaking training of all new and replacement personnel (Revised and Restated Agreement, Annex E Sec. 5.1). In other words, by the end of the three-year construction period and upon commencement of normal revenue operation, DOTC shall be able to operate the EDSA LRT III on its own and train all new personnel by itself. Fees for private respondent' s services shall be included in the rent, which likewise includes the project cost, cost of replacement of plant equipment and spare parts, investment and financing cost, plus a reasonable rate of return thereon (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 1; Rollo, p. 54). Since DOTC shall operate the EDSA LRT III, it shall assume all the obligations and liabilities of a common carrier. For this purpose, DOTC shall indemnify and hold harmless private respondent from any losses, damages, injuries or death which may be claimed in the operation or implementation of the system, except losses, damages, injury or death due to defects in the EDSA LRT III on account of the defective condition of

equipment or facilities or the defective maintenance of such equipment facilities (Revised and Restated Agreement, Secs. 12.1 and 12.2; Rollo, p. 68). In sum, private respondent will not run the light rail vehicles and collect fees from the riding public. It will have no dealings with the public and the public will have no right to demand any services from it. It is well to point out that the role of private respondent as lessor during the lease period must be distinguished from the role of the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) in the case of Kilosbayan Inc. v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994). Therein, the Contract of Lease between PGMC and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) was actually a collaboration or joint venture agreement prescribed under the charter of the PCSO. In the Contract of Lease; PGMC, the lessor obligated itself to build, at its own expense, all the facilities necessary to operate and maintain a nationwide on-line lottery system from whom PCSO was to lease the facilities and operate the same. Upon due examination of the contract, the Court found that PGMC's participation was not confined to the construction and setting up of the on-line lottery system. It spilled over to the actual operation thereof, becoming indispensable to the pursuit, conduct, administration and control of the highly technical and sophisticated lottery system. In effect, the PCSO leased out its franchise to PGMC which actually operated and managed the same. Indeed, a mere owner and lessor of the facilities used by a public utility is not a public utility (Providence and W.R. Co. v. United States, 46 F. 2d 149, 152 [1930]; Chippewa Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 205 N.W. 900, 903, 188 Wis. 246 [1925]; Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Ill 35 S. Ct. 645, 646, 237 U.S. 434, 59 L. Ed. 1036 [1914]). Neither are owners of tank, refrigerator, wine, poultry and beer cars who supply cars under contract to railroad companies considered as public utilities (Crystal Car Line v. State Tax Commission, 174 p. 2d 984, 987 [1946]). Even the mere formation of a public utility corporation does not ipso facto characterize the corporation as one operating a public utility. The moment for determining the requisite Filipino nationality is when the entity applies for a franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for that purpose (People v. Quasha, 93 Phil. 333 [1953]). 2. Petitioners further assert that the BLT scheme under the Agreements in question is not recognized in the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 2 of the BOT Law defines the BOT and BT schemes as follows: (a) Build-operate-and-transfer scheme A contractual arrangement whereby the contractor undertakes the construction including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and the operation and maintenance thereof. The contractor operates the facility over a fixed term during which it is allowed to charge facility users appropriate tolls, fees, rentals and charges sufficient to enable the contractor to recover its operating and maintenance expenses and its investment in the project plus a reasonable rate of return thereon. The contractor transfers the facility to the government agency or local government unit concerned at the end of the fixed term which shall not exceed fifty (50) years. For the construction stage, the contractor may obtain financing from foreign and/or domestic sources and/or engage the services of a foreign and/or Filipino constructor [sic]: Provided, That the ownership structure of the contractor of an infrastructure facility whose operation requires a public utility franchise must be in accordance with the Constitution: Provided, however, That in the case of corporate investors in the build-operate-andtransfer corporation, the citizenship of each stockholder in the corporate investors shall be the basis for the computation of Filipino equity in the said corporation: Provided, further, That, in the case of foreign constructors [sic], Filipino labor shall be employed or hired in the different phases of the construction where Filipino skills are available: Provided, furthermore, that the financing of a foreign or foreign-controlled contractor from Philippine government financing institutions shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total cost of the infrastructure facility or project: Provided, finally, That financing from foreign sources shall not require a guarantee by the Government or by government-owned or controlled corporations. The build-operate-and-transfer scheme shall include a supply-and-operate situation which is a contractual agreement whereby the supplier of equipment and machinery for a given infrastructure facility, if the interest of the Government so requires, operates the facility providing in the process technology transfer and training to Filipino nationals. (b) Build-and-transfer scheme "A contractual arrangement whereby the contractor undertakes the construction including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and its turnover after

completion to the government agency or local government unit concerned which shall pay the contractor its total investment expended on the project, plus a reasonable rate of return thereon. This arrangement may be employed in the construction of any infrastructure project including critical facilities which for security or strategic reasons, must be operated directly by the government (Emphasis supplied). The BOT scheme is expressly defined as one where the contractor undertakes the construction and financing in infrastructure facility, and operates and maintains the same. The contractor operates the facility for a fixed period during which it may recover its expenses and investment in the project plus a reasonable rate of return thereon. After the expiration of the agreed term, the contractor transfers the ownership and operation of the project to the government. In the BT scheme, the contractor undertakes the construction and financing of the facility, but after completion, the ownership and operation thereof are turned over to the government. The government, in turn, shall pay the contractor its total investment on the project in addition to a reasonable rate of return. If payment is to be effected through amortization payments by the government infrastructure agency or local government unit concerned, this shall be made in accordance with a scheme proposed in the bid and incorporated in the contract (R.A. No. 6957, Sec. 6). Emphasis must be made that under the BOT scheme, the owner of the infrastructure facility must comply with the citizenship requirement of the Constitution on the operation of a public utility. No such a requirement is imposed in the BT scheme. There is no mention in the BOT Law that the BOT and BT schemes bar any other arrangement for the payment by the government of the project cost. The law must not be read in such a way as to rule out or unduly restrict any variation within the context of the two schemes. Indeed, no statute can be enacted to anticipate and provide all the fine points and details for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law (Director of Forestry v. Munoz, 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]; People v. Exconde, 101 Phil. 1125 [1957]; United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]). The BLT scheme in the challenged agreements is but a variation of the BT scheme under the law. As a matter of fact, the burden on the government in raising funds to pay for the project is made lighter by allowing it to amortize payments out of the income from the operation of the LRT System. In form and substance, the challenged agreements provide that rentals are to be paid on a monthly basis according to a schedule of rates through and under the terms of a confirmed Irrevocable Revolving Letter of Credit (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 6; Rollo, p. 85). At the end of 25 years and when full payment shall have been made to and received by private respondent, it shall transfer to DOTC, free from any lien or encumbrances, all its title to, rights and interest in, the project for only U.S. $1.00 (Revised and Restated Agreement, Sec. 11.1; Supplemental Agreement, Sec; 7; Rollo, pp. 67, .87). A lease is a contract where one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a certain price and for a period which may be definite or indefinite but not longer than 99 years (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1643). There is no transfer of ownership at the end of the lease period. But if the parties stipulate that title to the leased premises shall be transferred to the lessee at the end of the lease period upon the payment of an agreed sum, the lease becomes a lease-purchase agreement. Furthermore, it is of no significance that the rents shall be paid in United States currency, not Philippine pesos. The EDSA LRT III Project is a high priority project certified by Congress and the National Economic and Development Authority as falling under the Investment Priorities Plan of Government (Rollo, pp. 310-311). It is, therefore, outside the application of the Uniform Currency Act (R.A. No. 529), which reads as follows: Sec. 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any domestic obligation to wit, any obligation contracted in the Philippines which provisions purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines measured thereby, be as it is hereby declared against public policy, and null, void, and of no effect, and no such provision shall be contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation hereafter incurred. The above prohibition shall not apply to (a) . . .; (b) transactions affecting high-priority economic projects for agricultural, industrial and power development as may be determined by the National Economic Council which are financed by or through foreign funds; . . . . 3. The fact that the contract for the construction of the EDSA LRT III was awarded through negotiation and

before congressional approval on January 22 and 23, 1992 of the List of National Projects to be undertaken by the private sector pursuant to the BOT Law (Rollo, pp. 309-312) does not suffice to invalidate the award. Subsequent congressional approval of the list including "rail-based projects packaged with commercial development opportunities" (Rollo, p. 310) under which the EDSA LRT III projects falls, amounts to a ratification of the prior award of the EDSA LRT III contract under the BOT Law. Petitioners insist that the prequalifications process which led to the negotiated award of the contract appears to have been rigged from the very beginning to do away with the usual open international public bidding where qualified internationally known applicants could fairly participate. The records show that only one applicant passed the prequalification process. Since only one was left, to conduct a public bidding in accordance with Section 5 of the BOT Law for that lone participant will be an absurb and pointless exercise (cf. Deloso v. Sandiganbayan, 217 SCRA 49, 61 [1993]). Contrary to the comments of the Executive Secretary Drilon, Section 5 of the BOT Law in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1594 allows the negotiated award of government infrastructure projects. Presidential Decree No. 1594, "Prescribing Policies, Guidelines, Rules and Regulations for Government Infrastructure Contracts," allows the negotiated award of government projects in exceptional cases. Sections 4 of the said law reads as follows: Bidding. Construction projects shall generally be undertaken by contract after competitive public bidding. Projects may be undertaken by administration or force account or by negotiated contract only in exceptional cases where time is of the essence, or where there is lack of qualified bidders or contractors, or where there is conclusive evidence that greater economy and efficiency would be achieved through this arrangement, and in accordance with provision of laws and acts on the matter, subject to the approval of the Minister of Public Works and Transportation and Communications, the Minister of Public Highways, or the Minister of Energy, as the case may be, if the project cost is less than P1 Million, and the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Minister, if the project cost is P1 Million or more (Emphasis supplied). xxx xxx xxx Indeed, where there is a lack of qualified bidders or contractors, the award of government infrastructure contracts may he made by negotiation. Presidential Decree No. 1594 is the general law on government infrastructure contracts while the BOT Law governs particular arrangements or schemes aimed at encouraging private sector participation in government infrastructure projects. The two laws are not inconsistent with each other but are in pari materia and should be read together accordingly. In the instant case, if the prequalification process was actually tainted by foul play, one wonders why none of the competing firms ever brought the matter before the PBAC, or intervened in this case before us (cf. Malayan Integrated Industries Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 213 SCRA 640 [1992]; Bureau Veritas v. Office of the President, 205 SCRA 705 [1992]). The challenged agreements have been approved by President Ramos himself. Although then Executive Secretary Drilon may have disapproved the "Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA," there is nothing in our laws that prohibits parties to a contract from renegotiating and modifying in good faith the terms and conditions thereof so as to meet legal, statutory and constitutional requirements. Under the circumstances, to require the parties to go back to step one of the prequalification process would just be an idle ceremony. Useless bureaucratic "red tape" should be eschewed because it discourages private sector participation, the "main engine" for national growth and development (R.A. No. 6957, Sec. 1), and renders the BOT Law nugatory. Republic Act No. 7718 recognizes and defines a BLT scheme in Section 2 thereof as: (e) Build-lease-and-transfer A contractual arrangement whereby a project proponent is authorized to finance and construct an infrastructure or development facility and upon its completion turns it over to the government agency or local government unit concerned on a lease arrangement for a fixed period after which ownership of the facility is automatically transferred to the government unit concerned. Section 5-A of the law, which expressly allows direct negotiation of contracts, provides:

Direct Negotiation of Contracts. Direct negotiation shall be resorted to when there is only one complying bidder left as defined hereunder. (a) If, after advertisement, only one contractor applies for prequalification and it meets the prequalification requirements, after which it is required to submit a bid proposal which is subsequently found by the agency/local government unit (LGU) to be complying. (b) If, after advertisement, more than one contractor applied for prequalification but only one meets the prequalification requirements, after which it submits bid/proposal which is found by the agency/local government unit (LGU) to be complying. (c) If, after prequalification of more than one contractor only one submits a bid which is found by the agency/LGU to be complying. (d) If, after prequalification, more than one contractor submit bids but only one is found by the agency/LGU to be complying. Provided, That, any of the disqualified prospective bidder [sic] may appeal the decision of the implementing agency, agency/LGUs prequalification bids and awards committee within fifteen (15) working days to the head of the agency, in case of national projects or to the Department of the Interior and Local Government, in case of local projects from the date the disqualification was made known to the disqualified bidder: Provided, furthermore, That the implementing agency/LGUs concerned should act on the appeal within forty-five (45) working days from receipt thereof. Petitioners' claim that the BLT scheme and direct negotiation of contracts are not contemplated by the BOT Law has now been rendered moot and academic by R.A. No. 7718. Section 3 of this law authorizes all government infrastructure agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations and local government units to enter into contract with any duly prequalified proponent for the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any financially viable infrastructure or development facility through a BOT, BT, BLT, BOO (Build-own-and-operate), CAO (Contract-add-operate), DOT (Develop-operate-and-transfer), ROT (Rehabilitate-operate-and-transfer), and ROO (Rehabilitate-own-operate) (R.A. No. 7718, Sec. 2 [b-j]). From the law itself, once and applicant has prequalified, it can enter into any of the schemes enumerated in Section 2 thereof, including a BLT arrangement, enumerated and defined therein (Sec. 3). Republic Act No. 7718 is a curative statute. It is intended to provide financial incentives and "a climate of minimum government regulations and procedures and specific government undertakings in support of the private sector" (Sec. 1). A curative statute makes valid that which before enactment of the statute was invalid. Thus, whatever doubts and alleged procedural lapses private respondent and DOTC may have engendered and committed in entering into the questioned contracts, these have now been cured by R.A. No. 7718 (cf. Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 96 SCRA 342 [1980]; Santos V. Duata, 14 SCRA 1041 [1965]; Adong V. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 [1922]. 4. Lastly, petitioners claim that the agreements are grossly disadvantageous to the government because the rental rates are excessive and private respondent's development rights over the 13 stations and the depot will rob DOTC of the best terms during the most productive years of the project. It must be noted that as part of the EDSA LRT III project, private respondent has been granted, for a period of 25 years, exclusive rights over the depot and the air space above the stations for development into commercial premises for lease, sublease, transfer, or advertising (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 11; Rollo, pp. 91-92). For and in consideration of these development rights, private respondent shall pay DOTC in Philippine currency guaranteed revenues generated therefrom in the amounts set forth in the Supplemental Agreement (Sec. 11; Rollo, p. 93). In the event that DOTC shall be unable to collect the guaranteed revenues, DOTC shall be allowed to deduct any shortfalls from the monthly rent due private respondent for the construction of the EDSA LRT III (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 11; Rollo, pp. 93-94). All rights, titles, interests and income over all contracts on the commercial spaces shall revert to DOTC upon expiration of the 25-year period. (Supplemental Agreement, Sec. 11; Rollo, pp. 91-92). The terms of the agreements were arrived at after a painstaking study by DOTC. The determination by the proper administrative agencies and officials who have acquired expertise, specialized skills and knowledge in the performance of their functions should be accorded respect absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion (Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673 [1990]; Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso, 176 SCRA 304 [1989]). Government officials are presumed to perform their functions with regularity and strong evidence is necessary to

rebut this presumption. Petitioners have not presented evidence on the reasonable rentals to be paid by the parties to each other. The matter of valuation is an esoteric field which is better left to the experts and which this Court is not eager to undertake. That the grantee of a government contract will profit therefrom and to that extent the government is deprived of the profits if it engages in the business itself, is not worthy of being raised as an issue. In all cases where a party enters into a contract with the government, he does so, not out of charity and not to lose money, but to gain pecuniarily. 5. Definitely, the agreements in question have been entered into by DOTC in the exercise of its governmental function. DOTC is the primary policy, planning, programming, regulating and administrative entity of the Executive branch of government in the promotion, development and regulation of dependable and coordinated networks of transportation and communications systems as well as in the fast, safe, efficient and reliable postal, transportation and communications services (Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title XV, Sec. 2). It is the Executive department, DOTC in particular that has the power, authority and technical expertise determine whether or not a specific transportation or communication project is necessary, viable and beneficial to the people. The discretion to award a contract is vested in the government agencies entrusted with that function (Bureau Veritas v. Office of the President, 205 SCRA 705 [1992]). WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concurs in the result. Romero, J., is on leave.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 83551 July 11, 1989 RODOLFO B. ALBANO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAINERIO O. REYES, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., E. RAZON, INC., ANSCOR CONTAINER CORPORATION, and SEALAND SERVICES. LTD., respondents. Vicente Abad Santos for petitioner. Bautista, Picazo, Buyco & Tan for private respondents. PARAS, J.: This is a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order seeking to restrain the respondents Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications Rainerio O. Reyes from awarding to the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) the contract for the development, management and operation of the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT). On April 20, 1987, the PPA Board adopted its Resolution No. 850 directing PPA management to prepare the Invitation to Bid and all relevant bidding documents and technical requirements necessary for the public bidding of the development, management and operation of the MICT at the Port of Manila, and authorizing the Board Chairman, Secretary Rainerio O. Reyes, to oversee the preparation of the technical and the documentation requirements for the MICT leasing as well as to implement this project. Accordingly, respondent Secretary Reyes, by DOTC Special Order 87-346, created a seven (7) man "Special MICT Bidding Committee" charged with evaluating all bid proposals, recommending to the Board the best bid, and preparing the corresponding contract between the PPA and the winning bidder or contractor. The Bidding Committee consisted of three (3) PPA representatives, two (2) Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) representatives, one (1) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) representative and one (1) private sector representative. The PPA management prepared the terms of reference, bid documents and draft contract which materials were approved by the PPA Board. The PPA published the Invitation to Bid several times in a newspaper of general circulation which publication included the reservation by the PPA of "the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality in the bids or to accept such bids which may be considered most advantageous to the government."

Seven (7) consortia of companies actually submitted bids, which bids were opened on July 17, 1987 at the PPA Head Office. After evaluation of the several bids, the Bidding Committee recommended the award of the contract to develop, manage and operate the MICT to respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) as having offered the best Technical and Financial Proposal. Accordingly, respondent Secretary declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder. Before the corresponding MICT contract could be signed, two successive cases were filed against the respondents which assailed the legality or regularity of the MICT bidding. The first was Special Civil Action 55489 for "Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction" filed with the RTC of Pasig by Basilio H. Alo, an alleged "concerned taxpayer", and, the second was Civil Case 88-43616 for "Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)" filed with the RTC of Manila by C.F. Sharp Co., Inc., a member of the nine (9) firm consortium "Manila Container Terminals, Inc." which had actively participated in the MICT Bidding. Restraining Orders were issued in Civil Case 88-43616 but these were subsequently lifted by this Court in Resolutions dated March 17, 1988 (in G.R. No. 82218 captioned "Hon. Rainerio O. Reyes etc., et al. vs. Hon. Doroteo N. Caneba, etc., et al.) and April 14, 1988 (in G.R. No. 81947 captioned "Hon. Rainerio O. Reyes etc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.") On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the proposed MICT Contract, with directives that "the responsibility for planning, detailed engineering, construction, expansion, rehabilitation and capital dredging of the port, as well as the determination of how the revenues of the port system shall be allocated for future port works, shall remain with the PPA; and the contractor shall not collect taxes and duties except that in the case of wharfage or tonnage dues and harbor and berthing fees, payment to the Government may be made through the contractor who shall issue provisional receipts and turn over the payments to the Government which will issue the official receipts." (Annex "I"). The next day, the PPA and the ICTSI perfected the MICT Contract (Annex "3") incorporating therein by "clarificatory guidelines" the aforementioned presidential directives. (Annex "4"). Meanwhile, the petitioner, Rodolfo A. Albano filed the present petition as citizen and taxpayer and as a member of the House of Representatives, assailing the award of the MICT contract to the ICTSI by the PPA. The petitioner claims that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility, pursuant to Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The petition is devoid of merit. A review of the applicable provisions of law indicates that a franchise specially granted by Congress is not necessary for the operation of the Manila International Container Port (MICP) by a private entity, a contract entered into by the PPA and such entity constituting substantial compliance with the law. 1. Executive Order No. 30, dated July 16, 1986, provides: WHEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the law, do hereby order the immediate recall of the franchise granted to the Manila International Port Terminals, Inc. (MIPTI) and authorize the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex at North Harbor, Manila and undertake the provision of cargo handling and port related services thereat, in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations. Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 857 (the Revised Charter of the Philippine Ports Authority) states: a) The corporate duties of the Authority shall be: xxx xxx xxx (ii) To supervise, control, regulate, construct, maintain, operate, and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belonging to the Authority. xxx xxx xxx (v) To provide services (whether on its own, by contract, or otherwise) within the Port Districts and the approaches thereof, including but not limited to berthing, towing, mooring, moving, slipping, or docking of any vessel; loading or discharging any vessel;

 sorting, weighing, measuring, storing, warehousing, or otherwise handling goods. xxx xxx xxx b) The corporate powers of the Authority shall be as follows: xxx xxx xxx (vi) To make or enter into contracts of any kind or nature to enable it to discharge its functions under this Decree. xxx xxx xxx [Emphasis supplied.] Thus, while the PPA has been tasked, under E.O. No. 30, with the management and operation of the Manila International Port Complex and to undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat, the law provides that such shall be "in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations." On the other hand, P.D. No. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts "whether on its own, by contract, or otherwise" [See. 6(a) (v)]. Therefore, under the terms of E.O. No. 30 and P.D. No. 857, the PPA may contract with the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) for the management, operation and development of the MICP. 2. Even if the MICP be considered a public utility, 1 or a public service 2 on the theory that it is a "wharf' or a "dock" 3 as contemplated under the Public Service Act, its operation would not necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch. Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202) That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily, imply, as petitioner posits that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. 4 As stated earlier, E.O. No. 30 has tasked the PPA with the operation and management of the MICP, in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations. However, P.D. 857 itself authorizes the PPA to perform the service by itself, by contracting it out, or through other means. Reading E.O. No. 30 and P.D. No. 857 together, the inescapable conclusion is that the lawmaker has empowered the PPA to undertake by itself the operation and management of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or other means, at its option. The latter power having been delegated to the PPA, a franchise from Congress to authorize an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage the MICP becomes unnecessary. In the instant case, the PPA, in the exercise of the option granted it by P.D. No. 857, chose to contract out the operation and management of the MICP to a private corporation. This is clearly within its power to do. Thus, PPA's acts of privatizing the MICT and awarding the MICT contract to ICTSI are wholly within the jurisdiction of the PPA under its Charter which empowers the PPA to "supervise, control, regulate, construct, maintain, operate and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belonging to the PPA." (Section 6(a) ii, P.D. 857) The contract between the PPA and ICTSI, coupled with the President's written approval, constitute the necessary authorization for ICTSI's operation and management of the MICP. The award of the MICT contract approved by no less than the President of the Philippines herself enjoys the legal presumption of validity and regularity of official action. In the case at bar, there is no evidence which clearly shows the constitutional infirmity of the questioned act of government. For these reasons the contention that the contract between the PPA and ICTSI is illegal in the absence of a franchise from Congress appears bereft of any legal basis. 3. On the peripheral issues raised by the party, the following observations may be made: A. That petitioner herein is suing as a citizen and taxpayer and as a Member of the House of Representatives, sufficiently clothes him with the standing to institute the instant suit questioning the validity of the assailed contract. While the expenditure of public funds may not be involved under the contract, public interest is

definitely involved considering the important role of the MICP in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved. Consequently, the disclosure provision in the Constitution 5 would constitute sufficient authority for upholding petitioner's standing. [Cf. Taada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985,136 SCRA 27, citing Severino v. Governor General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910), where the Court considered the petitioners with sufficient standing to institute an action where a public right is sought to be enforced.] B. That certain committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives have, in their respective reports, and the latter in a resolution as well, declared their opinion that a franchise from Congress is necessary for the operation of the MICP by a private individual or entity, does not necessarily create a conflict between the Executive and the Legislative Branches needing the intervention of the Judicial Branch. The court is not faced with a situation where the Executive Branch has contravened an enactment of Congress. As discussed earlier, neither is the Court confronted with a case of one branch usurping a power pertaining to another. C. Petitioner's contention that what was bid out, i.e., the development, management and operation of the MICP, was not what was subsequently contracted, considering the conditions imposed by the President in her letter of approval, thus rendering the bids and projections immaterial and the procedure taken ineffectual, is not supported by the established facts. The conditions imposed by the President did not materially alter the substance of the contract, but merely dealt on the details of its implementation. D. The determination of whether or not the winning bidder is qualified to undertake the contracted service should be left to the sound judgment of the PPA. The PPA, having been tasked with the formulation of a plan for the development of port facilities and its implementation [Sec. 6(a) (i)], is the agency in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of the projections of the bidders and to decide which bid is compatible with the development plan. Neither the Court, nor Congress, has the time and the technical expertise to look into this matter. Thus, the Court in Manuel v. Villena (G.R. No. L-28218, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 745] stated: [C]ourts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors, such as government policy on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions. [at p. 750.] In conclusion, it is evident that petitioner has failed to show a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to warrant the issuance of the writ of prohibition. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Gancayco, Bidin, Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., concurs in the result. Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-17041-42 TOMAS LITIMCO, petitioner, vs. LA MALLORCA, respondent. Duea and Simpao for petitioner. Manuel O. Chan and Vicente Ampil for respondent. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Tomas Litimco filed a petition before the Public Service Commission praying for authority to operate a TPU service on the line Manila-Malolos via Sta. Isabel with the use of 10 units. To the petition several operators filed written oppositions. On the date set for hearing, petitioner adduced evidence in support of his petition, but none of the oppositors submitted evidence in support of their oppositions. Thereafter, the petition was submitted for decision. On November 7, 1958, before the Public Service Commission could render its decision, La Mallorca, another operator, moved to reopen the case stating that if the petition to operate the line proposed be granted it would work to its prejudice and so it requested a reopening in order that it may file its opposition and present evidence in support thereof. The motion was granted and, accordingly, the case was set for hearing on January 12, 1959. However, instead of presenting evidence in support of its opposition, La Mallorca moved for postponement, only to announce days later that instead of merely objecting to the petition, it decided to file an application under a separate number (Case No. 63120) requesting for authority to operate the same line applied for by petitioner by rerouting 4 of its 10 round trip units of the line Malolos-Manila via Guiguinto. To this application several oppositions were presented, including petitioner himself, although only the latter presented evidence in support of his opposition. Because of the identity of the issues involved, the two applications were heard jointly. After a protracted hearing, the Public Service Commission rendered decision denying petitioner's application but granting that of respondent on the ground that the latter has a better right to render the service applied for. Petitioner interposed the present petition for review. Petitioner contends that the Public Service Commission erred in giving preference to the application of respondent in disregard of his own because (a) his application was filed much ahead than that of respondent and as such it is entitled to preference under the well-settled doctrines of this Court; (b) in awarding the line to respondent it in effect gave recognition to the unfair attitude of respondent which only awoke out of its slumber when petitioner applied for the service on the line in question; and (c) to grant the service in favor of respondent will work to the prejudice of the riding public for it would be allowing respondent to abandon a portion of its May 18, 1962

service on its original line Manila-Malolos via Guiguinto, a service which was previously found to promote the need and convenience of the people in said territory.1wph1.t Respondent, meeting these arguments, advanced the following reasons: (a) respondent's application for rerouting will not involve any increase of trips or units nor will involve the purchase of new trucks, while that of petitioner would call for the use of 10 new trucks, which means a further depletion of the already depleted dollar reserve of our government; (b) respondent's application for re-routing will not involve the acquisition of an operating right over the national highway from Malolos railroad crossing up to Guiguinto, while, on the other hand, petitioner's application will involve the acquisition of a new operating right; and (c) in view of the fact that the line, in question covers only 7 kilometers of new territory which traverses three sparsely populated barrios, the Public Service Commission was justified in granting to respondent the authority to re-route its already authorized trips to serve a few available passengers in the new route. There is no doubt that petitioner was the first to apply for the service in the territory in question. Through his amended application, petitioner applied for the new service as early as October 24, 1958, while respondent only was awakened and followed suit when it filed its application on January 21, 1959, after petitioner's application was already submitted for decision. Since it is admitted that petitioner is financially competent and able to operate the line proposed, for it is a matter of record that he is also an operator of a bus line from Manila to Malolos via Bulacan, we see no plausible reason why he should not be given preference to operate the service applied for considering that he is the first one to apply for such line. This is in accord with the policy constantly adopted by this Court in analogous cases, which we find to be sound, to stave off any act of discrimination or partiality against any application for operation of a new line. 1 While there may be cases where an applicant, even if ahead in time, was not given the service, it is because it was proven that he was financially incompetent, or otherwise disqualified, to render the service, If an applicant is qualified financially, and is able to undertake the service, he should be given the preference as a matter of fairness and justice. Indeed, this Court has postulated that "priority in the filing of the application for a certificate of public convenience is, other conditions being equal, an important factor in determining the right of the public service companies." 2 Considering that petitioner has filed his application much ahead in point of time than respondent, and is financially competent, the action of the Public service Commission in giving preference to respondent is not justified. The argument that the application of petitioner for the operation of the new line calls for the purchase of 10 new trucks which would result in further depletion of the dollar reserve of our government, while the application for rerouting of respondent will not entail any further expenditure, is of no consequence, if the operation will redound to the benefit of the riding public. The operation of a new line as a general proposition always involves a new investment which may happen even with old operators. In the course of operation, and with the passing of time, new equipment and facilities may be found necessary to maintain an efficient service, which additional expenditure cannot certainly be considered as a cause for disruption of the service. This is a matter of finance which concerns exclusively the one who desires to operate the new line. At any rate, the new line merely covers 7 kilometers of new territory which traverses three sparsely populated barrios, and considering that respondent did not deem it necessary to cover said territory except after the passing of many years, and only thought of giving the service when petitioner filed his application, fairness requires that preference be given to petitioner. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. It is ordered that petitioner be extended the certificate of convenience applied for by him in his petition. Costs against respondent. Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-21061 June 27, 1968 FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs. RUPERTO CRUZ, respondent. Amado A. Amador for petitioner. Benjamin S. Somera for respondent. ZALDIVAR, J.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Public Service Commission, in its Case No. 61-6113, granting to respondent-appellee Ruperto Cruz a certificate of public convenience to operate a transportation service for passengers and freight, with authority to operate ten units on the line he applied for. Herein respondent filed, on September 19, 1961, with the Public Service Commission an application, praying for the grant of a certificate of public convenience to operate, under PUB denomination, ten buses between Norzagaray (Bulacan) and Piers (Manila), via Novaliches Road, A. Bonifacio Road, Blumentritt Street, Rizal Avenue, MacArthur Bridge, Aduana and 13th Streets; and on the return trip, via Boston Street, MacArthur Bridge, Rizal Avenue, Blumentritt Street, A. Bonifacio Road, and Novaliches Road. The application was opposed by De Dios Transportation Co., Inc., Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc., PDP Transit Inc., Villa Rey Transit, Inc., and by herein petitioner-appellant Fortunato F. Halili who was the operator of the transportation service known as "Halili Transit." Petitioner, in his opposition alleged, substantially, that he was an operator of a bus service on the line applied for, enumerating at the same time the other lines he operated which were traversed by the route mentioned in respondent's application; that his service, as well as that of other bus operators on the route, was more than adequate to meet the demands of the traveling public; that the grant of the application would merely result in wasteful and ruinous competition, and that the respondent was not financially capable of operating and maintaining the service proposed by him. After several hearings in which the parties presented their evidence, oral and documentary, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision, on February 13, 1963, granting a certificate of public convenience to respondent Ruperto Cruz to operate ten buses under PUB denomination on the line Norzagaray (Bulacan) Piers (Manila) passing through the routes applied for. The decision states, among others, as follows: After a careful study of the evidence presented by the contesting parties, we find the following facts established; that applicant is applying for a service from Norzagaray to Piers and vice-versa; that not one of the oppositors herein operate a service up to Piers most of them go up to Divisoria and the rest up to Folgueras; that there are commuters starting from Norzagaray up to Piers; that applicant has the

experience in the operation of a PUB service and that applicant has the means with which to operate and maintain the service herein applied for. From the facts in evidence, this Commission is of the belief that the weight of evidence tips in favor of the applicant. It appearing, therefore, that applicant is a Filipino citizen, that he is financially capable to operate and maintain the service herein applied for, and that public convenience and necessity will be promoted by the approval of this application, and furthermore, that the oppositions of the oppositors herein are without merit, the same are overruled and the instant application APPROVED. It is the above-mentioned decision of the Public Service Commission that is now sought to be reviewed by this Court. Petitioner contends that: 1. "The finding of the Public Service Commission that there was a public need for the operation by respondent of ten buses on the line of Norzagaray (Bulacan) - Piers (Manila) is not supported by the evidence; 2. "The Public Service Commission erred when it did not recognize the fact that petitioner-appellant was rendering sufficient and adequate service on the line in question; and 3. "The Public Service Commission erred in failing to give petitioner-appellant the right of protection to investment to which petitioner-appellant is entitled." In support of his first two contentions petitioner argues that the 500 passengers found by the Commission as commuting daily from Norzagaray to Manila could easily be accommodated in the buses of existing operators; that the existing operators were authorized to operate 31 buses which made around 100 round trips a day; that since a bus could accommodate about 50 passengers, the existing authorized services could easily accommodate not only the 500 but even 5000 passengers a day. Petitioner also asserted that the Commission failed to consider that 200 of the 500 commuters worked in the Republic Cement Factory located at Norzagaray and so there were really only 300 commuters daily traveling on the Norzagaray Manila line. Petitioner further claimed that the new terminal proposed in the application was not based on actual need, because there were no importing firms, or business establishments, or manufacturing concerns, in Norzagaray, whose employees had to make trips to the piers at the south harbor in a Manila. On the question of public necessity, petitioner pointed out that the evidence presented by the respondent consisted only of the testimony of two witnesses who did not make any formal or systematic study of the movement and frequency of public utility buses, so that their testimonies were based only on casual observations. On the other hand, as petitioner pointed out, the oppositors presented five witnesses, two of whom made meticulous, systematic and daily observations on the line applied for. Petitioner urged that according to Exhibits "1", "1-A" to "1-R", consisting of different pages of entries in a checkbook at the various PSC checkpoints in the proposed line, buses passing the checkpoints were carrying only from 1 to 5 passengers which fact proved that the existing operators more than adequately served the needs of the public. Petitioner likewise asserted that public necessity did not require the operation of the ten buses applied for by the respondent because of the fact that on December 20, 1961, the Public Service Commission granted to herein petitioner, in Case No. 61-5807, authority to operate only 10 buses on the line Norzagaray Manila, even if he had applied for 20 buses; and that out of the many application to operate buses from Paradise Farms (Bulacan) to Manila, only 10 buses were authorized. The first two contentions of petitioner raise questions of fact. This Court has repeatedly held that where the Public Service Commission has reached a finding, after weighing the conflicting evidence, that public necessity and convenience warrant the operation of additional public utility service, the finding must not be disturbed as long as there is evidence reasonably supporting such finding.1 In reviewing the decision of the Commission, this Court is not even required to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies the decision. The only function of this Court is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might reasonably be based.2 The Commission stated in its decision that "after a careful study of the evidence presented by the contesting parties ... the Commission is of the belief that the weight of evidence tips in favor of the application." There is evidence on record that there are numerous students, professionals, merchants, and employees in both government and private concerns, that commute daily between Norzagaray and Manila and the intermediate

points along the line;3 that along the same line have emerged numerous centers of population, residential subdivisions and housing projects, industrial projects like the Republic Cement Factory, Angat River Dam Hydroelectric Power Project, and hollow blocks manufacturing establishments;4 that commuters experienced difficulties in getting accommodated on buses traveling between Norzagaray and Manila; that the Villa Rey Transit used to make two trips from Angat to Manila via Norzagaray, the La Mallorca Pambusco also two trips from Norzagaray to Manila via Sta. Maria, and the Halili Transit likewise two trips from Norzagaray to Manila via the Novaliches Road; that said trips were fully loaded at Norzagaray such that many commuters from Norzagaray had to take jeeps which brought them only up to Sta. Maria and Bocaue and there waited for other means of transportation to bring them to Manila;5 and that commuters from Manila to Norzagaray also had to resort to broken trips for lack of direct trips.6 We are persuaded that the evidence in the record support the decision appealed from. Petitioner claims that the Public Service Commission did not consider the checker's reports (Exhs. 1, 1-A, to 1R), on the face of which it appears that there was no overcrowding in the buses checked at the various checkpoints. The Commission, however, states in its decision that it had arrived at the finding "after a careful study of the evidence presented by the contesting parties," and necessarily the evidence thus studied included the checker's reports. But assuming, gratia argumenti, that said reports were not considered the failure of the Commission to consider the reports would not constitute a reversible error, because we find that the reports refer to trips of buses from Manila to Ipo, Sapang Palay, San Jose and back, and from upland to lowland and back, and none of the buses checked had trips along Norzagaray-Manila or Manila-Norzagaray line. The relative weight of these checker's reports as evidence must have been considered by the Commission before making its decision. As we have stated, the finding of fact of the Public Service Commission is conclusive on this Court. Thus, in a case, this Court said: It appearing that the main issues raised by petitioner merely affect questions of fact which by their very nature involve an evaluation of the relative weight of the evidence of both parties, or the credibility of witnesses who testified before the Commission, following the law and jurisprudence applicable to the matter in this jurisdiction, said questions are now conclusive upon this Court, and cannot be looked into, it appearing that there is sufficient evidence to support its findings.7 The claim of petitioner, that he was rendering adequate services on the line in question as would preclude the necessity of another operator, is untenable. In the first place, as shown in the record, petitioner does not have a direct line from Norzagaray to the Piers the line that is applied for by respondent. In the second place, there is evidence to the effect that oppositor Halili was authorized 48 trips between Norzagaray and Folgueras, 8 but it was making two trips only.9 This circumstance indicated that there was shortage of transportation units or facilities, and that the line was not adequately serviced by the petitioner. Thus, in a case concerning the nonoperation of authorized units, this Court said: Apart from the existence of competent evidence in support of these findings, certain undisputed facts therein contained reveal that the assignment of error under consideration is manifestly untenable. We refer to the circumstance that, of the 75 buses that the Raytranco is authorized to operate in all its lines, its right with respect to 30 has been leased, 14 to Rizman and 16 to Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company. Again, though still entitled to operate 45 units in its remaining lines, the Raytranco has registered only 17 buses, aside from the circumstance that such buses are not in continuous operation. These facts lead to the conclusion that there must be a shortage of transportation facilities in the lines aforementioned and that the Raytranco is unable to meet fully the demands of public convenience therein.10 Petitioner claims, in his third contention, that the Public Service Commission failed to give him the protection that he is entitled to, being an old and established public service operator. As a general principle public utility operators must be protected from ruinous competition, such that before permitting a new operator to serve in a territory already served by another operator, the latter should first be given opportunity to improve his equipment and service. This principle, however, is subject to justifiable exceptions. The primary consideration in the grant of a certificate of public convenience must always be public convenience. Thus, this Court said: While it is the duty of the government as far as possible to protect public utility operators against unfair and unjustified competition, it is nevertheless obvious that public convenience must have the first consideration....11 The public convenience is properly served if passengers who take buses at points in one part of a line are able

to proceed beyond those points without having to change buses. On this point this Court said: It is the convenience of the public that must be taken into account, other things being equal, and that convenience would be effectuated by passengers who take buses at points in one part of a line being able to proceed beyond those points without having to change buses and to wait the arrival of buses of a competitive operator. We can perceive how under such conditions one public utility could gain business at the expense of a rival.12 In the instant case, public convenience would be properly served if commuters from Norzagaray going to the Piers in Manila could go to their destination without the need of changing buses. Certainly the Public Service Commission has power to grant a certificate of public convenience to a new operator, and the old operator cannot with reason complain that it had not been given opportunity to improve its equipment and service, if it is shown that the old operator has not placed in the service all the units of equipment that it had been authorized to operate, and also when the old operator has violated, or has not complied with, important conditions in its certificate. 13 In the instant case, it has been shown that petitioner had not operated all the units that it was authorized to operate. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Public Service Commission, sought to be reviewed, is affirmed; with costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.