Case Digest - Civil Law, Torts

TORTS

Sarkies Tours vs. CA, Fortades et al.

GRN 108897 October 2, 1997

Romero, J.;

FACTS:

Private respondent Fortades boarded Sarkies Bus No. 5 with 3 luggages containing important things including documents. All were kept in the baggage compartment of the bus but during stopover, only one bag was recovered by Fortades and a case to recover the value of the other bags as well as moral and exemplary damages for litigation. Lower court decided favorably to Fortades but CA eliminated moral exemplary damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent was entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

RULING:

The court agrees with the CA in awarding 30,000 for the lost items and 30,000 for the deletion of award of moral and exemplary damages which, in view of the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith, on the fault of petitioner having been established, should be granted to respondents.

TORTS

Sarkies Tours vs. IAC

Melencio-Herrera, J.;

FACTS:

Petitioner Sarkies advertised for a Corregidor tour for Independence Day, Dizon and 4 children availed of the promo and were issued receipt under the Sarkies letterhead. Part of the trip was a boat-ride going to Corregidor. Mendoza, owner of a motorized was not authorized to operate a watercraft. The boat capsized and one of the children of Dizons died. Dizons filed a complaint against Sarkies and Mendoza. The lower court exonerated Sarkies from liability and attributed sole responsibility to Mendoza. CA reversed the decision and held both Sarkies and Mendoza liable, for the reason that the relationship between Sarkies and the excursionists was “a single operation which in effect guaranteed them safe passage all throughout. Exemplary damages was awarded.

ISSUE:

Whether or not exemplary damages was awarded in accordance with law.

RULING:

The award of exemplary damages should be elimiminated. In Munsayac vs. De Lara 23 SCRA 1086 (1968) it was said:

“it is not enough to say that an example should be made, or corrective measures be employed, for the public especially in accident cases where public carriers are involved. The causative negligence in such cases is personal to the employees actually in charged of the vehicles, and it is they who should be made to pay this kind of damages by way of example or correction, unless by the demonstrative tolerance or approval of the owners, they themselves can be held at fault and their fault is in the character described in 2232 CC.”

In the present case, there is no showing that Sarkies acted “in a negligent... or malevolent manner.”