Sarkies Tours Philippines Inc. vs CA1. Thisisapetitionforreviewof thedecisionof CA denyingpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationforbeingamererehashof theargumentsraised in the appellants brief.. Privaterespondents!"lino# $arisol# and%atima$inervaall surnamed%ortades& filed a damage suit against petitioner for breach of contract ofcarriage allegedly attended by bad faith.'. (n August '1# 1)*+# %atima boarded petitioners ,e -u.e /us 0o. 1 in$anilaonherwayto-ega2pi City. 3erbrother4aul helpedherloadthree pieces of luggage containing allof her optometry review books#materials and e5uipment# trial lenses# trial contact lenses# passport andvisa# aswell asher mother $arisols6.S. immigration!green& card#among other important documents and personal belongings. 3erbelongings was kept in the baggage compartment of the bus# but duringa stopover at ,aet# it was discovered that all but one bag remained inthe open compartment. The others# including %atimas things# weremissing and could have dropped along the way. Some of thepassengerssuggestedretracingtheroutetotrytorecover thelostitems# but the driver ignored them and proceeded to -ega2pi City.%atima immediately reported the loss to her mother who# in turn# went topetitionersofficein-ega2pi Cityandlaterat itsheadofficein$anila. Thelatter# however# merely offered her P1#777.77 for each piece of luggage lost#which she turned down. After returning to /icol disappointed but not defeated#they asked assistance from the radio stations and even from Philtranco busdrivers who plied the same route on August '1st. The effort paid off when oneof %atimasbagswasrecovered. $arisol alsoreportedtheincident tothe0ational /ureau of Investigations field office in -ega2pi City# and to the localpolice.(n September 7# 1)*+# respondents# through counsel# formallydemandedsatisfactionof their complaint frompetitioner. Inaletter dated(ctober 1# 1)*+# the latter apologi2ed for the delay and said that !a& team hasbeen sent out to /icol for the purpose of recovering or at least getting the fulldetail819 of the incident.After more than nine months of fruitless waiting# respondents decided tofile the case below to recover the value of the remaining lost items# as well asmoral and e.emplary damages# attorneys fees and e.penses oflitigation. They claimed that the loss was due to petitioners failure to observee.traordinary diligence in the care of %atimas luggage and that petitioner dealtwith them in bad faith from the start. Petitioner# on the other hand# disownedany liability for the loss on the ground that %atima allegedly did not declareany e.cess baggage upon boarding its bus.(n :une 11# 1)**# after trial on the merits# the court a quo ad;udged thecase in favor of herein respondents# viz$agno also lost her chemical engineering review materials# while her brotherlost abaca products he was transporting to /icol.819Petitioners receipt of %atimas personal luggage having been thusestablished# it must nowbe determined if# as a common carrier# it isresponsible for their loss. 6nder the Civil Code# !c&ommon carriers# from thenature of their business and for reasons of public policy# are bound to observee.traordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceover thegoods. ..transportedbythem#8?9 andthis liabilitylasts fromthetimethegoods areunconditionallyplaced in the possession of# and received by the carrier for transportation untilthe same are delivered# actually or constructively# by the carrier fortransportation until the same are delivered# actually or constructively# by thecarrier to . . . the person who has a right to receive them#8@9 unless the loss isdue to any of the e.cepted causes under Article 1@'+ thereof.8*9The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioners negligence in notensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of its bus were securelyfastened. As a result of this lack of care# almost all of the luggage was lost# tothepre;udiceof thepayingpassengers. AstheCourt of Appealscorrectlyobserved