SULPICIO LINES, INC.

,
petitioner, vs. FIRST LEPANTO-
TAISHO INSURANCE
CORPORATION, respondent.
VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 125
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

G.R. No. 140349. June 29, 2005.*

Remedial Law; Appeals; As a rule, the right to appeal is a statutory right and
one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the manner required by
the pertinent rules for the perfection of an appeal.—As a rule, the right to
appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must
comply with the manner required by the pertinent rules for the
perfection of an appeal. Nevertheless, this Court has allowed the filing
of an appeal upon subsequent compliance with the requirements
imposed by law, where a strict application of the technical rules will
impair the proper administration of justice.

Civil Law; Common Carriers; Negligence; A common carrier is bound to

transport its cargo and its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due
regard to all circumstances.—The falling of the crate during the unloading
is evidence of petitioner-carrier’s negligence in handling the cargo. As a
common carrier, it is expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the
handling of goods placed in its possession for transport. The standard
of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is
:
 considerably more demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence,
i.e., the diligence of a good paterfamilias established in respect of the
ordinary relations between members of society. A common carrier is
bound to transport its cargo and its passengers safely “as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, with due regard to all circumstances.” The extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires
the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for
avoiding the damage to, or destruction of, the goods entrusted to it for
safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service
with the greatest skill and foresight and “to use all reasonable means to
ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods ten-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

126

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

dered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.”

Same; Same; Same; To overcome the presumption of liability for loss,

destruction or deterioration of goods under Article 1735, the common carrier
must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article
1733 of the Civil Code.—When the shipment suffered damages as it was
being unloaded, petitioner-carrier is presumed to have been negligent
in the handling of the damaged cargo. Under Articles 1735 and 1752 of
the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or
:
 to have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost,
destroyed or had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability
for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods under Article 1735, the
common carrier must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as required in Article 1733 of the Civil Code.

Same; Same; Same; Insurance; Subrogation; Upon respondent-insurer’s

payment of the alleged amount of loss suffered by the insured (the owner of the
goods) the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action
which the insured may have against the common carrier whose negligence or
wrongful act caused the loss; The rights to which the subrogee succeeds are the
same as but not greater than those of the person for whom he is substituted,
that is, he cannot acquire any claim, security or remedy the subrogor did not
have.—Upon respondent-insurer’s payment of the alleged amount of
loss suffered by the insured (the owner of the goods), the insurer is
entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the
insured may have against the common carrier whose negligence or
wrongful act caused the loss. Subrogation is the substitution of one
person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right,
so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in
relation to a debt or claim, including its remedies or securities. The
rights to which the subrogee succeeds are the same as, but not greater
than, those of the person for whom he is substituted, that is, he cannot
acquire any claim, security or remedy the subrogor did not have. In
other words, a subrogee cannot succeed to a right not possessed by the
subrogor. A subrogee in effect steps into the shoes of the insured and
can recover only if the insured likewise could have recovered.

127

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 127

:
 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Arthur D. Lim Law Office for petitioner.

Fajardo Law Offices for First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of

the Court of Appeals reversing the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, Branch XIV, dismissing the complaint for damages for
failure of the plaintiff to prove its case with a preponderance of
evidence. Assailed as well is the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals
denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts
On 25 February 1992, Taiyo Yuden Philippines, Inc. (owner of the
goods) and Delbros, Inc. (shipper) entered into a contract, evidenced by
Bill of Lading No. CEB/SIN-008/92 issued by the latter in favor of the
owner of the goods, for Delbros, Inc. to transport a shipment of goods
consisting of three (3) wooden crates containing one hundred thirty-six
(136) cartons of inductors and LC compound on board the V Singapore
V20 from Cebu City to Singapore in favor of the consignee, Taiyo Yuden
Singapore Pte, Ltd.

For the carriage of said shipment from Cebu City to Manila, Delbros,
:
 Inc. engaged the services of the vessel M/V

_______________

1CA-G.R. CV No. 49977, dated 26 May 1999, penned by Associate

Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-
Hormachuelos and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring.

2 Civil Case No. 92-63337, dated 20 December 1994.

3 Dated 13 October 1999.

128

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

Philippine Princess, owned and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines,

Inc. (carrier). The vessel arrived at the North Harbor, Manila, on 24
February 1992.

During the unloading of the shipment, one crate containing forty-two

(42) cartons dropped from the cargo hatch to the pier apron. The owner
of the goods examined the dropped cargo, and upon an alleged finding
that the contents of the crate were no longer usable for their intended
purpose, they were rejected as a total loss and returned to Cebu City.

The owner of the goods filed a claim with herein petitioner-carrier for
the recovery of the value of the rejected cargo which was refused by the
latter. Thereafter, the owner of the goods sought payment from
respondent First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (insurer) under
a marine insurance policy issued to the former. Respondent-insurer
:
 paid the claim less thirty-five percent (35%) salvage value or
P194,220.31.

The payment of the insurance claim of the owner of the goods by the
respondent-insurer subrogated the latter to whatever right or legal
action the owner of the goods may have against Delbros, Inc. and
petitioner-carrier, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. Thus, respondent-insurer then
filed claims for reimbursement from Delbros, Inc. and petitioner-carrier
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. which were subsequently denied.

On 04 November 1992, respondent-insurer filed a suit for damages

docketed as Civil Case No. 92-63337 with the trial court against Delbros,
Inc. and herein petitioner-carrier. On 05 February 1993, petitioner-
carrier filed its Answer with Counterclaim. Delbros, Inc. filed on 15
April 1993 its Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim, alleging that
assuming the contents of the crate in question were truly in bad order,
fault is with herein petitioner-carrier which was responsible for the
unloading of the crates.

Petitioner-carrier filed its Answer to Delbros, Inc.’s cross-claim asserting

that it observed extraordinary diligence in the handling, storage and
general care of the shipment and that

129

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 129

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

subsequent inspection of the shipment by the Manila Adjusters and

Surveyors Company showed that the contents of the third crate that
had fallen were found to be in apparent sound condition, except that “2
cello bags each of 50 pieces ferri inductors No. LC FL 112270K-60 (c)
:
 were unaccounted for and missing as per packaging list.”

After hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint for damages as
well as the counterclaim filed by therein defendant Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
and the cross-claim filed by Delbros, Inc. According to the RTC:

“The plaintiff has failed to prove its case. The first witness for the
plaintiff merely testified about the payment of the claim based on the
documents accompanying the claim which were the Packing List,
Commercial Invoices, Bill of Lading, Claims Statement, Marine Policies,
Survey Report, Marine Risk Note, and the letter to Third Party carriers
and shipping lines (Exhibits “A-J”).

The check was paid and delivered to the assured as evidenced by the
check voucher and the subrogation receipt.

On cross-examination by counsel for the Sulpicio Lines, he said that

their company paid the claim less 35% salvage value based on the
adjuster report. This testimony is hearsay.

The second witness for the plaintiff, Arturo Valdez, testified, among
others, that he, together with a co-surveyor and a representative of
Sulpicio Lines had conducted a survey of the shipment at the
compound of Sulpicio Lines. He prepared a survey report (Exhibits “G”
and “G-1”) and took a picture of shipment (Exhibit “G-2”).

On cross-examination, he said that two cartons were torn at the sides

with top portion flaps opened and the 41 cartons were properly sealed
and in good order conditions. Two cartons were already opened and
slightly damaged. He merely looked at them but did not conduct an
inspection of the contents. What he was referring to as slightly damaged
were the cartons only and not the contents.
:
 From the foregoing evidence, it is apparent that the plaintiff had failed
to prove its case with a preponderance of evidence.

....

130

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is

hereby rendered dismissing the Complaint, defendant Sulpicio Lines’
counterclaim and defendant Delbros Inc.’s cross-claim.”4

A Motion for Reconsideration was then filed by herein respondent-

insurer and subsequently denied by the trial court in an Order dated 07
February 1995 on the ground that it did not raise any new issue. Thus,
respondent-insurer instituted an appeal with the Court of Appeals,
which reversed the dismissal of the complaint by the lower court, the
decretal portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The decision appealed from is

REVERSED. Defendants-appellees Delbros and Sulpicio Lines are
hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellant the sum
of P194,220.31 representing actual damages, plus legal interest counted
from the filing of the complaint until fully paid.”5

The appellate court disposed of the issues in the case in this wise:

Furthermore, the evidence shows that one of the three crates fell during
the unloading at the pier in Manila. The wooden crate which fell was
damaged such that this particular crate was not anymore sent to
:
 Singapore and was instead shipped back to Cebu from Manila. Upon
examination, it was found that two (2) cartons of the forty-two (42)
cartons contained in this crate were externally damaged. They were torn
at the sides and their top portions or flaps were open. These facts were
admitted by all the parties. Defendant-appellees, however, insist that it
was only the external packaging that was damaged, and that there was
no actual damage to the goods such that would make them liable to the
shipper. This theory is erroneous. When the goods are placed at a
common carrier’s possession for delivery to a specified consignee, they
are in good order and condition and are supposed to be transported and
delivered to the consignee in the same state. In the case herein, the
goods were

_______________

4
Rollo, pp. 66-67.

5
Rollo, p. 35.

131

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 131

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

received by defendant-appellee Delbros in Cebu properly packed in

cardboard cartons and then placed in wooden crates, for delivery to the
consignee in Singapore. However, before the shipment reached
Singapore (while it was in Manila) one crate and 2 cartons contained
therein were not anymore in their original state. They were no longer fit
to be sent to Singapore.

....
:
 As We have already found, there is damage suffered by the goods of the
shipper. This consists in the destruction of one wooden crate and the
tearing of two of the cardboard boxes therein rendering then unfit to be
sent to Singapore. Defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines admits that this
crate fell while it was being unloaded at the Manila pier. Falling of the
crate was negligence on the part of defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines
under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant-appellee Sulpicio Lines
cannot exculpate itself from liability because it failed to prove that it
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees to prevent the damage.6

On 21 June 1999, herein petitioner-carrier filed its Motion for

Reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals which was
subsequently denied in a Resolution dated 13 October 1999. Hence, the
instant petition.

During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Delbros, Inc. filed
a manifestation stating that its appeal7 filed before this Court had been
dismissed for being filed out of time and thus the case as against it was
declared closed and terminated. As a consequence, it paid in full the
amount of the damages awarded by the appellate court to the
respondent-insurer. Before this Court, Delbros, Inc. prays for
reimbursement, contribution, or indemnity from its co-defendant,
herein petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for whatever it had paid to
respondent-insurer in consonance with the decision of the appellate
court declaring both Delbros, Inc. and

_______________

6 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

:
 7
G.R. No. 140467, First Division.

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. jointly and severally liable.

Issues
Petitioner-carrier raises the following issues in its petition:

1. 1. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court justly
and correctly dismissed the complaint against Sulpicio Lines, which
dismissal is already final.
2. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal for failure of
appellant to comply with the technical requirement of the Rules of Court.

Ruling of the Court

We shall first address the procedural issue raised by petitioner-carrier,
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the
appeal for failure of respondent-insurer to attach a copy of the decision
of the trial court to its appellant’s brief in violation of Rule 44, Section
13(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.8

A perusal of the records will show, however, that in a Resolution9 dated

13 August 1996, the Court of Appeals required herein respondent-
insurer to submit seven (7) copies of the questioned decision within five
(5) days from notice. Said Resolution was properly complied with.
:
 As a rule, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to
avail of that right must comply with the manner required by the
pertinent rules for the perfection of an appeal. Nevertheless, this Court
has allowed the filing of an appeal upon subsequent compliance with
the requirements imposed by law, where a strict application of the
technical rules will

_______________

8
Rule 44, Section 13(h). In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the
appellant’s brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment
or final order appealed from.

9 CA records, p. 37.

133

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 133

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

impair the proper administration of justice. As enunciated by the Court

in the case of Jaro v. Court of Appeals:10

There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and

substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the
rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz [336 SCRA 113] and
Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission [357 SCRA 640], we
ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with
the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The
reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to
comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized.11
:
 We see no error, therefore, on the part of the Court of Appeals when it
gave due course to the appeal after respondent-insurer had submitted
copies of the RTC decision, albeit belatedly.

We now come to the substantial issues alleged by petitioner-carrier. The

pivotal question to be considered in the resolution of this issue is
whether or not, based on the evidence presented during the trial, the
owner of the goods, respondent-insurer’s predecessor-in-interest, did
incur damages, and if so, whether or not petitioner-carrier is liable for
the same.

It cannot be denied that the shipment sustained damage while in the

custody of petitioner-carrier. It is not disputed that one of the three (3)
crates did fall from the cargo hatch to the pier apron while petitioner-
carrier was unloading the cargo from its vessel. Neither is it impugned
that upon inspection, it was found that two (2) cartons were torn on the
side and the top flaps were open and that two (2) cello bags, each of 50
pieces ferri inductors, were missing from the cargo.

Petitioner-carrier contends that its liability, if any, is only to the extent of

the cargo damage or loss and should not in-

_______________

10
G.R. No. 127536, 19 February 2002, 377 SCRA 282.

11
Id., p. 297.

134

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation
:
 clude the lack of fitness of the shipment for transport to Singapore due
to the damaged packing. This is erroneous. Petitioner-carrier seems to
belabor under the misapprehension that a distinction must be made
between the cargo packaging and the contents of the cargo. According
to it, damage to the packaging is not tantamount to damage to the
cargo. It must be stressed that in the case at bar, the damage sustained
by the packaging of the cargo while in petitioner-carrier’s custody
resulted in its unfitness to be transported to its consignee in Singapore.
Such failure to ship the cargo to its final destination because of the
ruined packaging, indeed, resulted in damages on the part of the owner
of the goods.

The falling of the crate during the unloading is evidence of petitioner-

carrier’s negligence in handling the cargo. As a common carrier, it is
expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the handling of goods
placed in its possession for transport.12 The standard of extraordinary
diligence imposed upon common carriers is considerably more
demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence, i.e., the diligence of
a good paterfamilias established in respect of the ordinary relations
between members of society.13 A common carrier is bound to transport
its cargo and its passengers safely “as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due
regard to all circumstances.”14 The extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common
carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding the
damage to, or destruction of, the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage
and delivery.15 It requires common carriers to render service with the
greatest skill and foresight and “to use all

_______________
:
 12 Philippine Civil Code, Article 1733.

13
Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487, 21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 126,
134.

14 Ibid.

15
Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31379, 29 August
1988, 164 SCRA 685, 692.

135

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 135

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods

tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.”16

Thus, when the shipment suffered damages as it was being unloaded,

petitioner-carrier is presumed to have been negligent in the handling of
the damaged cargo. Under Articles 173517 and 175218 of the Civil Code,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or
had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability for loss,
destruction or deterioration of goods under Article 1735, the common
carrier must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required in Article 173319 of the Civil Code.20

Petitioner-carrier miserably failed to adduce any shred of evidence of

the required extraordinary diligence to overcome the presumption that
it was negligent in transporting the cargo.
:
 _______________

16
Ibid., citing The Ensley City DC, Ma; 71 F. Suppl. 444, citing Schnell v.
The Vallascura, 293 U.S. 296, 55 Sct. 194, 79 L. Ed. 373; The Nichiyo Maru,
4 Cri, 89 F. 2d 593; Bank Line v. Porter, 4 Cir., 25 F. 2d. 843.

17
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.

18
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of
the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier
is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of loss,
destruction or deterioration.

19 Art. 1733. 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 the passengers
transported by them, according to all circumstances of each case.

20
Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 5.

136

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

Coming now to the issue of the extent of petitioner-carrier’s liability, it

is undisputed that respondent-insurer paid the owner of the goods
under the insurance policy the amount of P194,220.31 for the alleged
:
 damages the latter has incurred. Neither is there dispute as to the fact
that Delbros, Inc. paid P194,220.31 to respondent-insurer in satisfaction
of the whole amount of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals.
The question then is: To what extent is Sulpicio Lines, Inc., as common
carrier, liable for the damages suffered by the owner of the goods?

Upon respondent-insurer’s payment of the alleged amount of loss

suffered by the insured (the owner of the goods), the insurer is entitled
to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the insured may
have against the common carrier whose negligence or wrongful act
caused the loss.21 Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the
place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who
is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or
claim, including its remedies or securities.22 The rights to which the
subrogee succeeds are the same as, but not greater than, those of the
person for whom he is substituted, that is, he cannot acquire any claim,
security or remedy the subrogor did not have.23 In other words, a
subrogee cannot succeed to a right not possessed by the subrogor.24 A
subrogee in effect steps into the shoes of the insured and can recover
only if the insured likewise could have recovered.25

_______________

21See Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36413, 26
September 1988, 165 SCRA 536, 545.

22
Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Chubb and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 147724, 08 June
2004, 431 SCRA 266, 275.

23
Ibid., citing Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 184 Wis. 2d
247, 516 N.W. 2d 8 (Ct. App. 1994).
:
 24
Id., pp. 275-276, citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 110318, 28 August 1996, 261 SCRA 144.

25
Ibid.

137

VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005 137

Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation

As found by the Court of Appeals, there was damage suffered by the

goods which consisted in the destruction of one wooden crate and the
tearing of two (2) cardboard boxes therein which rendered them unfit to
be sent to Singapore.26 The falling of the crate was negligence on the
part of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for which it cannot exculpate itself from
liability because it failed to prove that it exercised extraordinary
diligence.27

Hence, we uphold the ruling of the appellate court that herein

petitioner-carrier is liable to pay the amount paid by respondent-insurer
for the damages sustained by the owner of the goods.

As stated in the manifestation filed by Delbros, Inc., however,

respondent-insurer had already been paid the full amount granted by
the Court of Appeals, hence, it will be tantamount to unjust enrichment
for respondent-insurer to again recover damages from herein petitioner-
carrier.

With respect to Delbros, Inc.’s prayer contained in its manifestation that,

in case the decision in the instant case be adverse to petitioner-carrier, a
pronouncement as to the matter of reimbursement, indemnification or
contribution in favor of Delbros, Inc. be included in the decision, this
:
 Court will not pass upon said issue since Delbros, Inc. has no
personality before this Court, it not being a party to the instant case.
Notwithstanding, this shall not bar any action Delbros, Inc. may
institute against petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. with respect to the
damages the latter is liable to pay.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Court

of Appeals dated 26 May 1999 and its Resolution dated 13 October 1999
are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

_______________

26
CA Decision, p. 9.

27
Ibid.

138

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sasot vs. People

SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—Upon happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence

at once arises and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that
he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.
(Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 356 [2000])

——o0o——
:
: