Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 173594 February 6, 2008

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 173594             February 6, 2008

SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE, LTD., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Petitioner, Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Silkair), a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore which has a Philippine representative office, is an online international air carrier operating the Singapore-Cebu-Davao-Singapore, Singapore-Davao-Cebu-Singapore, and Singapore-Cebu-Singapore routes.

On December 19, 2001, Silkair filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a written application for the refund of P4,567,450.79 excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchases of jet fuel from Petron Corporation from January to June 2000.1

As the BIR had not yet acted on the application as of December 26, 2001, Silkair filed a Petition for Review2 before the CTA following Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., et al.3

Opposing the petition, respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue (CIR) alleged in his Answer that, among other things,

Petitioner failed to prove that the sale of the petroleum products was directly made from a domestic oil company to the international carrier. The excise tax on petroleum products is the direct liability of the manufacturer/producer, and when added to the cost of the goods sold to the buyer, it is no longer a tax but part of the price which the buyer has to pay to obtain the article.4 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By Decision of May 27, 2005, the Second Division of the CTA denied Silkair’s petition on the ground that as the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products, any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser, the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost of the goods purchased. Thus the CTA discoursed:

The liability for excise tax on petroleum products that are being removed from its refinery is imposed on the manufacturer/producer (Section 130 of the NIRC of 1997). x x x

x x x x

While it is true that in the case of excise tax imposed on petroleum products, the seller thereof may shift the tax burden to the buyer, the latter is the proper party to claim for the refund in the case of exemption from excise tax. Since the excise tax was imposed upon Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products, pursuant to Section 130(A)(2), and that the corresponding excise taxes were indeed, paid by it, . . . any claim for refund of the subject excise taxes should be filed by Petron Corporation as the taxpayer contemplated under the law. Petitioner cannot be considered as the taxpayer because it merely shouldered the burden of the excise tax and not the excise tax itself.

Therefore, the right to claim for the refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products lies with Petron Corporation who paid and remitted the excise tax to the BIR. Respondent, on the other hand, may only claim from Petron Corporation the reimbursement of the tax burden shifted to the former by the latter. The excise tax partaking the nature of an indirect tax, is clearly the liability of the manufacturer or seller who has the option whether or not to shift the burden of the tax to the purchaser. Where the burden of the tax is shifted to the [purchaser], the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost on the goods purchased which constitutes a part of the purchase price. The incidence of taxation or the person statutorily liable to pay the tax falls on Petron Corporation though the impact of taxation or the burden of taxation falls on another person, which in this case is petitioner Silkair.5 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Silkair filed a Motion for Reconsideration6 during the pendency of which or on September 12, 2005 the Bengzon Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel,7 without Silkair’s then-counsel of record (Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez or "JGLaw") having withdrawn as such.

By Resolution8 of September 22, 2005, the CTA Second Division denied Silkair’s motion for reconsideration. A copy of the Resolution was furnished Silkair’s counsel JGLaw which received it on October 3, 2005.9

On October 13, 2005, JGLaw, with the conformity of Silkair, filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance.10 On even date, Silkair, through the Bengzon Law Firm, filed a Manifestation/Motion11 stating:

Petitioner was formerly represented xxx by JIMENEZ GONZALES LIWANAG BELLO VALDEZ CALUYA & FERNANDEZ (JGLaw).

1. On 24 August 2005, petitioner served notice to JGLaw of its decision to cease all legal representation handled by the latter on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner also requested JGLaw to make arrangements for the transfer of all files relating to its legal representation on behalf of petitioner to the undersigned counsel. x x x

2. The undersigned counsel was engaged to act as counsel for the petitioner in the above-entitled case; and thus, filed its entry of appearance on 12 September 2005. x x x

3. The undersigned counsel, through petitioner, has received information that the Honorable Court promulgated a Resolution on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. To date, the undersigned counsel has yet to receive an official copy of the above-mentioned Resolution. In light of the foregoing, undersigned counsel hereby respectfully requests for an official copy of the Honorable Court’s Resolution on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration x x x.12 (Underscoring supplied)

On October 14, 2005, the Bengzon Law Firm received its requested copy of the September 22, 200513 CTA Second Division Resolution. Thirty-seven days later or on October 28, 2005, Silkair, through said counsel, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review14 before the CTA En Banc which gave it until November 14, 2005 to file a petition for review.

On November 11, 2005, Silkair filed another Motion for Extension of Time.15 On even date, the Bengzon Law Firm informed the CTA of its withdrawal of appearance as counsel for Silkair with the information, that Silkair would continue to be represented by Atty. Teodoro A. Pastrana, who used to be with the firm but who had become a partner of the Pastrana and Fallar Law Offices.16

The CTA En Banc granted Silkair’s second Motion for Extension of Time, giving Silkair until November 24, 2005 to file its petition for review. On November 17, 2005, Silkair filed its Petition for Review17 before the CTA En Banc.

By Resolution of May 19,2006, the CTA En Banc dismissed18 Silkair’s petition for review for having been filed out of time in this wise:

A petitioner is given a period of fifteen (15) days from notice of award, judgment, final order or resolution, or denial of motion for new trial or reconsideration to appeal to the proper forum, in this case, the CTA En Banc. This is clear from both Section 11 and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9282 x x x.

x x x x

The petitioner, through its counsel of record Jimenez, Gonzalez, L[iwanag], Bello, Valdez, Caluya & Fernandez Law Offices, received the Resolution dated September 22, 2005 on October 3, 2005. At that time, the petitioner had two counsels of record, namely, Jimenez, Gonzales, L[iwanag], Bello, Valdez, Caluya & Fernandez Law Offices and The Bengzon Law Firm which filed its Entry of Appearance on September 12, 2005. However, as of said date, Atty. Mary Jane B. Austria-Delgado of Jimenez, Gonzales, L[iwanag], Bello, Valdez, Caluya & Fernandez Law Offices was still the counsel of record considering that the Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance signed by Atty. Mary Jane B. Austria-Delgado was filed only on October 13, 2005 or ten (10) days after receipt of the September 22, 2005 Resolution of the Court’s Second Division. This notwithstanding, Section 2 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that if any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the Court. Where a party is represented by more than one counsel of record, "notice to any one of the several counsel on record is equivalent to notice to all the counsel (Damasco vs. Arrieta, et. al., 7 SCRA 224)." Considering that petitioner, through its counsel of record, had received the September 22, 2005 Resolution as early as October 3, 2005, it had only until October 18, 2005 within which to file its Petition for Review. Petitioner only managed to file the Petition for Review with the Court En Banc on November 17, 2005 or [after] thirty (30) days had lapsed from the final date of October 18, 2005 to appeal.

The argument that it requested Motions for Extension of Time on October 28, 2005 or ten (10) days from the appeal period and the second Motion for Extension of Time to file its Petition for Review on November 11, 2005 and its allowance by the CTA En Banc notwithstanding, the questioned Decision is no longer appealable for failure to timely file the necessary Petition for Review.19 (Emphasis in the original)

In a Separate Concurring Opinion,20 CTA Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. posited that Silkair is not the proper party to claim the tax refund.

Silkair filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 which the CTA En Banc denied.22 Hence, the present Petition for Review23 which raises the following issues:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC WAS TIMELY FILED.

II. APPEAL BEING AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITY.

III. ASSUMING THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT WOULD HOLD THAT THE FILING OF THE PETITITON FOR REVIEW WITH THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC WAS TIMELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS THE PROPER PARTY TO CLAIM FOR REFUND OR TAX CREDIT.24 (Underscoring supplied)

Silkair posits that "the instant case does not involve a situation where the petitioner was represented by two (2) counsels on record, such that notice to the former counsel would be held binding on the petitioner, as in the case of Damasco v. Arrieta, etc., et al.25 x x x heavily relied upon by the respondent";26 and that "the case of Dolores De Mesa Abad v. Court of Appeals27 has more appropriate application to the present case."28

In Dolores De Mesa Abad, the trial court issued an order of November 19, 1974 granting the therein private respondents’ Motion for Annulment of documents and titles. The order was received by the therein petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Escolastico R. Viola, on November 22, 1974 prior to which or on July 17, 1974, Atty. Vicente Millora of the Millora, Tobias and Calimlim Law Office had filed an "Appearance and Manifestation." Atty. Millora received a copy of the trial court’s order on December 9, 1974. On January 4, 1975, the therein petitioners, through Atty. Ernesto D. Tobias also of the Millora, Tobias and Calimlim Law Office, filed their Notice of Appeal and Cash Appeal Bond as well as a Motion for Extension of the period to file a Record on Appeal. They filed the Record on Appeal on January 24, 1975. The trial court dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the period within which to appeal should be counted from November 22, 1974, the date Atty. Viola received a copy of the November 19, 1974 order. The appellate court held that Atty. Viola was still the counsel of record, he not having yet withdrawn his appearance as counsel for the therein petitioners. On petition for certiorari,29 this Court held

x x x [R]espondent Court reckoned the period of appeal from the time petitioners’ original counsel, Atty. Escolastico R. Viola, received the Order granting the Motion for Annulment of documents and titles on November 22, 1974. But as petitioners stress, Atty. Vicente Millora of the Millora, Tobias and Calimlim Law Office had filed an "Appearance and Manifestation" on July 16, 1974. Where there may have been no specific withdrawal by Atty. Escolastico R. Viola, for which he should be admonished, by the appearance of a new counsel, it can be said that Atty. Viola had ceased as counsel for petitioners. In fact, Orders subsequent to the aforesaid date were already sent by the trial Court to the Millora, Tobias and Calimlim Law Office and not to Atty. Viola.

Under the circumstances, December 9, 1974 is the controlling date of receipt by petitioners’ counsel and from which the period of appeal from the Order of November 19, 1974 should be reckoned. That being the case, petitioner’s x x x appeal filed on January 4, 1975 was timely filed.30 (Underscoring supplied)

The facts of Dolores De Mesa Abad are not on all fours with those of the present case. In any event, more recent jurisprudence holds that in case of failure to comply with the procedure established by Section 26, Rule 13831 of the Rules of Court re the withdrawal of a lawyer as a counsel in a case, the attorney of record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings.32 Thus, where no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel has been shown, notice to counsel of record is, for all purposes, notice to the client.33 The court cannot be expected to itself ascertain whether the counsel of record has been changed.34

In the case at bar, JGLaw filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance on October 13, 200535 after the Bengzon Law Firm had entered its appearance. While Silkair claims it dismissed JGLaw as its counsel as early as August 24, 2005, the same was communicated to the CTA only on October 13, 2005.36 Thus, JGLaw was still Silkair’s counsel of record as of October 3, 2005 when a copy of the September 22, 2005 resolution of the CTA Second Division was served on it. The service upon JGLaw on October 3, 2005 of the September 22, 2005 resolution of CTA Second Division was, therefore, for all legal intents and purposes, service to Silkair, and the CTA correctly reckoned the period of appeal from such date.

TECHNICALITY ASIDE, on the merits, the petition just the same fails.

Silkair bases its claim for refund or tax credit on Section 135 (b) of the NIRC of 1997 which reads

Sec. 135. Petroleum Products sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities of Agencies. – Petroleum products sold to the following are exempt from excise tax:

x x x x

(b) Exempt entities or agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions, and other international agreements for their use and consumption: Provided, however, That the country of said foreign international carrier or exempt entities or agencies exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine carriers, entities or agencies; x x x

x x x x,

and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the Republic of Singapore (Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore) which reads

Fuel, lubricants, spare parts, regular equipment and aircraft stores introduced into, or taken on board aircraft in the territory of one Contracting party by, or on behalf of, a designated airline of the other Contracting Party and intended solely for use in the operation of the agreed services shall, with the exception of charges corresponding to the service performed, be exempt from the same customs duties, inspection fees and other duties or taxes imposed in the territories of the first Contracting Party , even when these supplies are to be used on the parts of the journey performed over the territory of the Contracting Party in which they are introduced into or taken on board. The materials referred to above may be required to be kept under customs supervision and control.

The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another.37 Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore.

Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser.38

Silkair nevertheless argues that it is exempt from indirect taxes because the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore grants exemption "from the same customs duties, inspection fees and other duties or taxes imposed in the territory of the first Contracting Party."39 It invokes Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.40 which upheld the claim for tax credit or refund by the National Power Corporation (NPC) on the ground that the NPC is exempt even from the payment of indirect taxes.

Silkairs’s argument does not persuade. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,41 this Court clarified the ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., viz:

It may be so that in Maceda vs. Macaraig, Jr., the Court held that an exemption from "all taxes" granted to the National Power Corporation (NPC) under its charter includes both direct and indirect taxes. But far from providing PLDT comfort, Maceda in fact supports the case of herein petitioner, the correct lesson of Maceda being that an exemption from "all taxes" excludes indirect taxes, unless the exempting statute, like NPC’s charter, is so couched as to include indirect tax from the exemption. Wrote the Court:

x x x However, the amendment under Republic Act No. 6395 enumerated the details covered by the exemption. Subsequently, P.D. 380, made even more specific the details of the exemption of NPC to cover, among others, both direct and indirect taxes on all petroleum products used in its operation. Presidential Decree No. 938 [NPC’s amended charter] amended the tax exemption by simplifying the same law in general terms. It succinctly exempts NPC from "all forms of taxes, duties[,] fees…"

The use of the phrase "all forms" of taxes demonstrates the intention of the law to give NPC all the tax exemptions it has been enjoying before…

x x x x

It is evident from the provisions of P.D. No. 938 that its purpose is to maintain the tax exemption of NPC from all forms of taxes including indirect taxes as provided under R.A. No. 6395 and P.D. 380 if it is to attain its goals. (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)42

The exemption granted under Section 135 (b) of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore cannot, without a clear showing of legislative intent, be construed as including indirect taxes. Statutes granting tax exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, 43 and if an exemption is found to exist, it must not be enlarged by construction.44

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing,Chairperson, Carpio, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Tax Case Digest: Silkair v. CIR (2008)

Silkair v. CIR
G.R. No. 173594 February 6, 2008
CARPIO MORALES, J.

Lessons Applicable: Tax exemption is personal and direct

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

• Petitioner Silkair (Singapore)  Pte. Ltd., a foreign corp. which has a Philippine representative office, is an outline international air carrier
• Dec 19, 2001: Silkair filed with the BIR a written application for the refund of excise tax it paid on its purchases or jet fuels from Petron Corp. from Jan - June 2000
• Dec 26, 2001: not having been acted upon by the BIR, it filed a petition for review before the CTA
• CTA: denied its petition on the ground that the excise tax is imposed on Petron are manufacturer
• When the burden is shifted to Silkair, it is no longer a tax but added cost of goods purchased
• After changing counsel to Atty. Pastrana CTA En Banc dismissed it for being filed out of time.  
• Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the SC

ISSUE: W/N Silkair can claim a refund for indirect excise tax

HELD: Petition is denied.
NO

• Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore. 
• Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser
• Unlike in Maceda v. Macaraig Jr. where it expressly includes indirect taxes.  Rule that tax exemptions are construed in strictissimi juris against taxpayer applies

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 145804.  February 6, 2003

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 April 2000 and 10 October 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60720, entitled “Marjorie Navidad and Heirs of the Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al.,” which has modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City, exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo  Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor Navidad.

On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token” (representing payment of the fare).  While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad.  A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight.  No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks.  At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in.  Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.

On 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband.  LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent.  Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards.

The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task.  On 11 August 1998, the trial court rendered its decision; it adjudged:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the following:

“a)     1)         Actual damages of P44,830.00;

2)         Compensatory damages of P443,520.00;

3)         Indemnity for the death of Nicanor Navidad in the sum of P50,000.00;

“b)     Moral damages of P50,000.00;

“c)     Attorney’s fees of P20,000;

“d)     Costs of suit.

“The complaint against defendants LRTA and Rodolfo Roman are dismissed for lack of merit.

“The compulsory counterclaim of LRTA and Roman are likewise dismissed.”[1]

Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals.  On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its now assailed decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable thusly:

“WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED, by exonerating the appellants from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad, Jr.  Instead, appellees Rodolfo Roman and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) are held liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs-appellees, the following amounts:

a)      P44,830.00 as actual damages;

b)      P50,000.00 as nominal damages;

c)      P50,000.00 as moral damages;

d)      P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the deceased; and

e)      P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.”[2]

The appellate court ratiocinated that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage theretofore had already existed when the victim entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor.  In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad.  It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and operated at the time by Roman.  The appellate court faulted petitioners for their failure to present expert evidence to establish the fact that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train.

The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its resolution of 10 October 2000.

In their present recourse, petitioners recite alleged errors on the part of the appellate court; viz:

“I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT

“II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF NICANOR NAVIDAD, JR.

“III.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RODOLFO ROMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LRTA.”[3]

Petitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome.  Petitioners would insist that Escartin’s assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented.  The LRTA would add that the appellate court’s conclusion on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA.

Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation, and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.[4]  The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of or injury to its passengers, provides:

“Article 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.

“Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.”

“Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

“This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.”

“Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.”

The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.[5]  Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.[6]  The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a)  through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.[7]  In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and[8] by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.[9]  In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,[10] an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.[11]

The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier.  In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task.  In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

Should Prudent be made likewise liable?  If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 2176[12] and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180,[13] of the Civil Code.  The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee.  Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees.  The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown.  Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described?  It would be solidary.  A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194[14] of the Civil Code can well apply.[15]  In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract.[16]  Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.[17]

Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that “there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x.”  This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case.

There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability.  Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable.  Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.[18]  It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.[19]

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Jurisprudence: G. R. No. 164317 February 6, 2006

FIRST DIVISION

G. R. No. 164317             February 6, 2006

ALFREDO CHING, Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR ECILYN BURGOS-VILLAVERT, JUDGE EDGARDO SUDIAM of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 52; RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 57169 dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by petitioner Alfredo Ching, and its Resolution2 dated June 28, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

Petitioner was the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PBMI). Sometime in September to October 1980, PBMI, through petitioner, applied with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (respondent bank) for the issuance of commercial letters of credit to finance its importation of assorted goods.3

Respondent bank approved the application, and irrevocable letters of credit were issued in favor of petitioner. The goods were purchased and delivered in trust to PBMI. Petitioner signed 13 trust receipts4 as surety, acknowledging delivery of the following goods:

T/R Nos.	Date Granted	Maturity Date	Principal	Description of Goods
1845	12-05-80	03-05-81	P1,596,470.05	79.9425 M/T "SDK" Brand Synthetic Graphite Electrode
1853	12-08-80	03-06-81	P198,150.67	3,000 pcs. (15 bundles) Calorized Lance Pipes
1824	11-28-80	02-26-81	P707,879.71	One Lot High Fired Refractory Tundish Bricks
1798	11-21-80	02-19-81	P835,526.25	5 cases spare parts for CCM
1808	11-21-80	02-19-81	P370,332.52	200 pcs. ingot moulds
2042	01-30-81	04-30-81	P469,669.29	High Fired Refractory Nozzle Bricks
1801	11-21-80	02-19-81	P2,001,715.17	Synthetic Graphite Electrode [with] tapered pitch filed nipples
1857	12-09-80	03-09-81	P197,843.61	3,000 pcs. (15 bundles calorized lance pipes [)]
1895	12-17-80	03-17-81	P67,652.04	Spare parts for Spectrophotometer
1911	12-22-80	03-20-81	P91,497.85	50 pcs. Ingot moulds
2041	01-30-81	04-30-81	P91,456.97	50 pcs. Ingot moulds
2099	02-10-81	05-11-81	P66,162.26	8 pcs. Kubota Rolls for rolling mills
2100	02-10-81	05-12-81	P210,748.00	Spare parts for Lacolaboratory Equipment5

Under the receipts, petitioner agreed to hold the goods in trust for the said bank, with authority to sell but not by way of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise; and in case such goods were sold, to turn over the proceeds thereof as soon as received, to apply against the relative acceptances and payment of other indebtedness to respondent bank. In case the goods remained unsold within the specified period, the goods were to be returned to respondent bank without any need of demand. Thus, said "goods, manufactured products or proceeds thereof, whether in the form of money or bills, receivables, or accounts separate and capable of identification" were respondent bank’s property.

When the trust receipts matured, petitioner failed to return the goods to respondent bank, or to return their value amounting to P6,940,280.66 despite demands. Thus, the bank filed a criminal complaint for estafa6 against petitioner in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.

After the requisite preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor found probable cause estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 115, otherwise known as the Trust Receipts Law. Thirteen (13) Informations were filed against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 86-42169 to 86-42181, raffled to Branch 31 of said court.

Petitioner appealed the resolution of the City Prosecutor to the then Minister of Justice. The appeal was dismissed in a Resolution7 dated March 17, 1987, and petitioner moved for its reconsideration. On December 23, 1987, the Minister of Justice granted the motion, thus reversing the previous resolution finding probable cause against petitioner.8 The City Prosecutor was ordered to move for the withdrawal of the Informations.

This time, respondent bank filed a motion for reconsideration, which, however, was denied on February 24, 1988.9 The RTC, for its part, granted the Motion to Quash the Informations filed by petitioner on the ground that the material allegations therein did not amount to estafa.10

In the meantime, the Court rendered judgment in Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordoñez,11 holding that the penal provision of P.D. No. 115 encompasses any act violative of an obligation covered by the trust receipt; it is not limited to transactions involving goods which are to be sold (retailed), reshipped, stored or processed as a component of a product ultimately sold. The Court also ruled that "the non-payment of the amount covered by a trust receipt is an act violative of the obligation of the entrustee to pay."12

On February 27, 1995, respondent bank re-filed the criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 95B-07614.

Preliminary investigation ensued. On December 8, 1995, the City Prosecutor ruled that there was no probable cause to charge petitioner with violating P.D. No. 115, as petitioner’s liability was only civil, not criminal, having signed the trust receipts as surety.13 Respondent bank appealed the resolution to the Department of Justice (DOJ) via petition for review, alleging that the City Prosecutor erred in ruling:

1. That there is no evidence to show that respondent participated in the misappropriation of the goods subject of the trust receipts;

2. That the respondent is a mere surety of the trust receipts; and

3. That the liability of the respondent is only civil in nature.14

On July 13, 1999, the Secretary of Justice issued Resolution No. 25015 granting the petition and reversing the assailed resolution of the City Prosecutor. According to the Justice Secretary, the petitioner, as Senior Vice-President of PBMI, executed the 13 trust receipts and as such, was the one responsible for the offense. Thus, the execution of said receipts is enough to indict the petitioner as the official responsible for violation of P.D. No. 115. The Justice Secretary also declared that petitioner could not contend that P.D. No. 115 covers only goods ultimately destined for sale, as this issue had already been settled in Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordoñez,16 where the Court ruled that P.D. No. 115 is "not limited to transactions in goods which are to be sold (retailed), reshipped, stored or processed as a component of a product ultimately sold but covers failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of entrusted goods, or to return said goods if unsold or not otherwise disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts."

The Justice Secretary further stated that the respondent bound himself under the terms of the trust receipts not only as a corporate official of PBMI but also as its surety; hence, he could be proceeded against in two (2) ways: first, as surety as determined by the Supreme Court in its decision in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals;17 and second, as the corporate official responsible for the offense under P.D. No. 115, via criminal prosecution. Moreover, P.D. No. 115 explicitly allows the prosecution of corporate officers "without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense." Thus, according to the Justice Secretary, following Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, the civil liability imposed is clearly separate and distinct from the criminal liability of the accused under P.D. No. 115.

Conformably with the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the City Prosecutor filed 13 Informations against petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 115 before the RTC of Manila. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 99-178596 to 99-178608 and consolidated for trial before Branch 52 of said court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Secretary of Justice denied in a Resolution18 dated January 17, 2000.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the CA, assailing the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice on the following grounds:

1. THE RESPONDENTS ARE ACTING WITH AN UNEVEN HAND AND IN FACT, ARE ACTING OPPRESSIVELY AGAINST ALFREDO CHING WHEN THEY ALLOWED HIS PROSECUTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO PROVE HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS.

2. THE RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE COMMITTED AN ACT IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION WHEN THEY CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE LENGTH OF TIME INCURRED IN THE TERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION THAT SHOULD JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF THE INSTANT CASE.

3. THE RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO AN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY CONTINUED THE PROSECUTION OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE LACK OF SUFFICIENT BASIS.19

In his petition, petitioner incorporated a certification stating that "as far as this Petition is concerned, no action or proceeding in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any tribunal or agency. It is finally certified that if the affiant should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, of any other tribunal or agency, it hereby undertakes to notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such notice."20

In its Comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General alleged that -

A.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CORRECTLY RULED THAT PETITIONER ALFREDO CHING IS THE OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED AND THAT THE ACTS OF PETITIONER FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF VIOLATION OF P.D. [No.] 115 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 315, PAR. 1(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

B.

THERE IS NO MERIT IN PETITIONER’S CONTENTION THAT EXCESSIVE DELAY HAS MARRED THE CONDUCT OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE, JUSTIFYING ITS DISMISSAL.

C.

THE PRESENT SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS IS NOT THE PROPER MODE OF REVIEW FROM THE RESOLUTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE PRESENT PETITION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED.21

On April 22, 2004, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition for lack of merit, and on procedural grounds. On the procedural issue, it ruled that (a) the certification of non-forum shopping executed by petitioner and incorporated in the petition was defective for failure to comply with the first two of the three-fold undertakings prescribed in Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure; and (b) the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was not the proper remedy of the petitioner.

On the merits of the petition, the CA ruled that the assailed resolutions of the Secretary of Justice were correctly issued for the following reasons: (a) petitioner, being the Senior Vice-President of PBMI and the signatory to the trust receipts, is criminally liable for violation of P.D. No. 115; (b) the issue raised by the petitioner, on whether he violated P.D. No. 115 by his actuations, had already been resolved and laid to rest in Allied Bank Corporation v. Ordoñez;22 and (c) petitioner was estopped from raising the

City Prosecutor’s delay in the final disposition of the preliminary investigation because he failed to do so in the DOJ.

Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition, alleging that:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING INCORPORATED THEREIN WAS DEFECTIVE.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WAS COMMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE IN COMING OUT WITH THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS.23

The Court will delve into and resolve the issues seriatim.

The petitioner avers that the CA erred in dismissing his petition on a mere technicality. He claims that the rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, substantial justice. He insists that the Rules of Court should be construed liberally especially when, as in this case, his substantial rights are adversely affected; hence, the deficiency in his certification of non-forum shopping should not result in the dismissal of his petition.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) takes the opposite view, and asserts that indubitably, the certificate of non-forum shopping incorporated in the petition before the CA is defective because it failed to disclose essential facts about pending actions concerning similar issues and parties. It asserts that petitioner’s failure to comply with the Rules of Court is fatal to his petition. The OSG cited Section 2, Rule 42, as well as the ruling of this Court in Melo v. Court of Appeals.24

We agree with the ruling of the CA that the certification of non-forum shopping petitioner incorporated in his petition before the appellate court is defective. The certification reads:

It is further certified that as far as this Petition is concerned, no action or proceeding in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any tribunal or agency.

It is finally certified that if the affiant should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, of any other tribunal or agency, it hereby undertakes to notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such notice.25

Under Section 1, second paragraph of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition should be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping, as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 of said Rules. The latter provision reads in part:

SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.

xxx

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. xxx

Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of forum shopping itself. The requirement is mandatory. The failure of the petitioner to comply with the foregoing requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition without prejudice, unless otherwise provided.26

Indubitably, the first paragraph of petitioner’s certification is incomplete and unintelligible. Petitioner failed to certify that he "had not heretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or the different divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency" as required by paragraph 4, Section 3, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court.

We agree with petitioner’s contention that the certification is designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, and therefore, should not be interpreted with absolute literalness. In his works on the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, former Supreme Court Justice Florenz Regalado states that, with respect to the contents of the certification which the pleader may prepare, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of.27 However, there must be a special circumstance or compelling reason which makes the strict application of the requirement clearly unjustified. The instant petition has not alleged any such extraneous circumstance. Moreover, as worded, the certification cannot even be regarded as substantial compliance with the procedural requirement. Thus, the CA was not informed whether, aside from the petition before it, petitioner had commenced any other action involving the same issues in other tribunals.

On the merits of the petition, the CA ruled that the petitioner failed to establish that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioner for violation of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to P.D. No. 115. Thus, the appellate court ratiocinated:

Be that as it may, even on the merits, the arguments advanced in support of the petition are not persuasive enough to justify the desired conclusion that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused its discretion in coming out with his assailed Resolutions. Petitioner posits that, except for his being the Senior Vice-President of the PBMI, there is no iota of evidence that he was a participes crimines in violating the trust receipts sued upon; and that his liability, if at all, is purely civil because he signed the said trust receipts merely as a xxx surety and not as the entrustee. These assertions are, however, too dull that they cannot even just dent the findings of the respondent Secretary, viz:

"x x x it is apropos to quote section 13 of PD 115 which states in part, viz:

‘xxx If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other judicial entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense.’

"There is no dispute that it was the respondent, who as senior vice-president of PBM, executed the thirteen (13) trust receipts. As such, the law points to him as the official responsible for the offense. Since a corporation cannot be proceeded against criminally because it cannot commit crime in which personal violence or malicious intent is required, criminal action is limited to the corporate agents guilty of an act amounting to a crime and never against the corporation itself (West Coast Life Ins. Co. vs. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401; Times, [I]nc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303). Thus, the execution by respondent of said receipts is enough to indict him as the official responsible for violation of PD 115.

"Parenthetically, respondent is estopped to still contend that PD 115 covers only goods which are ultimately destined for sale and not goods, like those imported by PBM, for use in manufacture. This issue has already been settled in the Allied Banking Corporation case, supra, where he was also a party, when the Supreme Court ruled that PD 115 is ‘not limited to transactions in goods which are to be sold (retailed), reshipped, stored or processed as a component or a product ultimately sold’ but ‘covers failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of entrusted goods, or to return said goods if unsold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts.’

"In regard to the other assigned errors, we note that the respondent bound himself under the terms of the trust receipts not only as a corporate official of PBM but also as its surety. It is evident that these are two (2) capacities which do not exclude the other. Logically, he can be proceeded against in two (2) ways: first, as surety as determined by the Supreme Court in its decision in RCBC vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 739; and, secondly, as the corporate official responsible for the offense under PD 115, the present case is an appropriate remedy under our penal law.

"Moreover, PD 115 explicitly allows the prosecution of corporate officers ‘without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense’ thus, the civil liability imposed on respondent in RCBC vs. Court of Appeals case is clearly separate and distinct from his criminal liability under PD 115.’"28

Petitioner asserts that the appellate court’s ruling is erroneous because (a) the transaction between PBMI and respondent bank is not a trust receipt transaction; (b) he entered into the transaction and was sued in his capacity as PBMI Senior Vice-President; (c) he never received the goods as an entrustee for PBMI, hence, could not have committed any dishonesty or abused the confidence of respondent bank; and (d) PBMI acquired the goods and used the same in operating its machineries and equipment and not for resale.

The OSG, for its part, submits a contrary view, to wit:

34. Petitioner further claims that he is not a person responsible for the offense allegedly because "[b]eing charged as the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM), petitioner cannot be held criminally liable as the transactions sued upon were clearly entered into in his capacity as an officer of the corporation" and that [h]e never received the goods as an entrustee for PBM as he never had or took possession of the goods nor did he commit dishonesty nor "abuse of confidence in transacting with RCBC." Such argument is bereft of merit.

35. Petitioner’s being a Senior Vice-President of the Philippine Blooming Mills does not exculpate him from any liability. Petitioner’s responsibility as the corporate official of PBM who received the goods in trust is premised on Section 13 of P.D. No. 115, which provides:

Section 13. Penalty Clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense. (Emphasis supplied)

36. Petitioner having participated in the negotiations for the trust receipts and having received the goods for PBM, it was inevitable that the petitioner is the proper corporate officer to be proceeded against by virtue of the PBM’s violation of P.D. No. 115.29

The ruling of the CA is correct.

In Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),30 this Court held that the acts of a quasi-judicial officer may be assailed by the aggrieved party via a petition for certiorari and enjoined (a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice; (c) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (e) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused.31 The Court also declared that, if the officer conducting a preliminary investigation (in that case, the Office of the Ombudsman) acts without or in excess of his authority and resolves to file an Information despite the absence of probable cause, such act may be nullified by a writ of certiorari.32

Indeed, under Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,33 the Information shall be prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor against the respondent only if he or she finds probable cause to hold such respondent for trial. The Investigating Prosecutor acts without or in excess of his authority under the Rule if the Information is filed against the respondent despite absence of evidence showing probable cause therefor.34 If the Secretary of Justice reverses the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor who found no probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, and orders such prosecutor to file the Information despite the absence of probable cause, the Secretary of Justice acts contrary to law, without authority and/or in excess of authority. Such resolution may likewise be nullified in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.35

A preliminary investigation, designed to secure the respondent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, is an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering the person or persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon probable cause of reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.36

However, while probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play37 and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.38

In this case, petitioner failed to establish that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions. Indeed, he acted in accord with law and the evidence.

Section 4 of P.D. No. 115 defines a trust receipt transaction, thus:

Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following:

1. In case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or (b) to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale; Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title over the goods whether in its original or processed form until the entrustee has complied fully with his obligation under the trust receipt; or (c) to load, unload, ship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale; or

2. In the case of instruments a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or b) to deliver them to a principal; or c) to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or register; or d) to effect their presentation, collection or renewal.

The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods, documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the purview and coverage of this Decree.

An entrustee is one having or taking possession of goods, documents or instruments under a trust receipt transaction, and any successor in interest of such person for the purpose of payment specified in the trust receipt agreement.39 The entrustee is obliged to: (1) hold the goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and shall dispose of them strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust receipt; (2) receive the proceeds in trust for the entruster and turn over the same to the entruster to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears on the trust receipt; (3) insure the goods for their total value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties; (4) keep said goods or proceeds thereof whether in money or whatever form, separate and capable of identification as property of the entruster; (5) return the goods, documents or instruments in the event of non-sale or upon demand of the entruster; and (6) observe all other terms and conditions of the trust receipt not contrary to the provisions of the decree.40

The entruster shall be entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the goods, documents or instruments released under a trust receipt to the entrustee to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt, or to the return of the goods, documents or instruments in case of non-sale, and to the enforcement of all other rights conferred on him in the trust receipt; provided, such are not contrary to the provisions of the document.41

In the case at bar, the transaction between petitioner and respondent bank falls under the trust receipt transactions envisaged in P.D. No. 115. Respondent bank imported the goods and entrusted the same to PBMI under the trust receipts signed by petitioner, as entrustee, with the bank as entruster. The agreement was as follows:

And in consideration thereof, I/we hereby agree to hold said goods in trust for the said BANK as its property with liberty to sell the same within ____days from the date of the execution of this Trust Receipt and for the Bank’s account, but without authority to make any other disposition whatsoever of the said goods or any part thereof (or the proceeds) either by way of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise.

I/we agree to keep the said goods insured to their full value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties as directed by the BANK, the sum insured to be payable in case of loss to the BANK, with the understanding that the BANK is, not to be chargeable with the storage premium or insurance or any other expenses incurred on said goods.

In case of sale, I/we further agree to turn over the proceeds thereof as soon as received to the BANK, to apply against the relative acceptances (as described above) and for the payment of any other indebtedness of mine/ours to the BANK. In case of non-sale within the period specified herein, I/we agree to return the goods under this Trust Receipt to the BANK without any need of demand.

I/we agree to keep the said goods, manufactured products or proceeds thereof, whether in the form of money or bills, receivables, or accounts separate and capable of identification as property of the BANK.42

It must be stressed that P.D. No. 115 is a declaration by legislative authority that, as a matter of public policy, the failure of person to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.43

The Court likewise rules that the issue of whether P.D. No. 115 encompasses transactions involving goods procured as a component of a product ultimately sold has been resolved in the affirmative in Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordoñez.44 The law applies to goods used by the entrustee in the operation of its machineries and equipment. The non-payment of the amount covered by the trust receipts or the non-return of the goods covered by the receipts, if not sold or otherwise not disposed of, violate the entrustee’s obligation to pay the amount or to return the goods to the entruster.

In Colinares v. Court of Appeals,45 the Court declared that there are two possible situations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by the provision which refers to money received under the obligation involving the duty to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold. The second is covered by the provision which refers to merchandise received under the obligation to return it (devolvera) to the owner.46 Thus, failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by the trust receipts to the entruster or to return said goods if they were not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt is a crime under P.D. No. 115, without need of proving intent to defraud. The law punishes dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of the entruster, regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. A mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale of the goods, if not sold, constitutes a criminal offense that causes prejudice, not only to another, but more to the public interest.47

The Court rules that although petitioner signed the trust receipts merely as Senior Vice-President of PBMI and had no physical possession of the goods, he cannot avoid prosecution for violation of P.D. No. 115.

The penalty clause of the law, Section 13 of P.D. No. 115 reads:

Section 13. Penalty Clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.1âwphi1 If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense.

The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified as estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, or estafa with abuse of confidence. It may be committed by a corporation or other juridical entity or by natural persons. However, the penalty for the crime is imprisonment for the periods provided in said Article 315, which reads:

ARTICLE 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;

2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means; xxx

Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law specifically makes the officers, employees or other officers or persons responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities of such corporation and/or board of directors, officers, or other officials or employees responsible for the offense. The rationale is that such officers or employees are vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a responsible share in the violations of the law.48

If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers, employees or other officers thereof responsible for the offense shall be charged and penalized for the crime, precisely because of the nature of the crime and the penalty therefor. A corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a crime punishable by imprisonment.49 However, a corporation may be charged and prosecuted for a crime if the imposable penalty is fine. Even if the statute prescribes both fine and imprisonment as penalty, a corporation may be prosecuted and, if found guilty, may be fined.50

A crime is the doing of that which the penal code forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands. A necessary part of the definition of every crime is the designation of the author of the crime upon whom the penalty is to be inflicted. When a criminal statute designates an act of a corporation or a crime and prescribes punishment therefor, it creates a criminal offense which, otherwise, would not exist and such can be committed only by the corporation. But when a penal statute does not expressly apply to corporations, it does not create an offense for which a corporation may be punished. On the other hand, if the State, by statute, defines a crime that may be committed by a corporation but prescribes the penalty therefor to be suffered by the officers, directors, or employees of such corporation or other persons responsible for the offense, only such individuals will suffer such penalty.51 Corporate officers or employees, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, are themselves individually guilty of the crime.52

The principle applies whether or not the crime requires the consciousness of wrongdoing. It applies to those corporate agents who themselves commit the crime and to those, who, by virtue of their managerial positions or other similar relation to the corporation, could be deemed responsible for its commission, if by virtue of their relationship to the corporation, they had the power to prevent the act.53 Moreover, all parties active in promoting a crime, whether agents or not, are principals.54 Whether such officers or employees are benefited by their delictual acts is not a touchstone of their criminal liability. Benefit is not an operative fact.

In this case, petitioner signed the trust receipts in question. He cannot, thus, hide behind the cloak of the separate corporate personality of PBMI. In the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, a corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor.55

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 145804

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 145804             February 6, 2003

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners,

vs.

MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 April 2000 and 10 October 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60720, entitled "Marjorie Navidad and Heirs of the Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al.," which has modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City, exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor Navidad.

On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a "token" (representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.

On 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards.

The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task. On 11 August 1998, the trial court rendered its decision; it adjudged:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the following:

"a) 1) Actual damages of P44,830.00;

2) Compensatory damages of P443,520.00;

3) Indemnity for the death of Nicanor Navidad in the sum of P50,000.00;

"b) Moral damages of P50,000.00;

"c) Attorney’s fees of P20,000;

"d) Costs of suit.

"The complaint against defendants LRTA and Rodolfo Roman are dismissed for lack of merit.

"The compulsory counterclaim of LRTA and Roman are likewise dismissed."1

Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its now assailed decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable thusly:

"WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED, by exonerating the appellants from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad, Jr. Instead, appellees Rodolfo Roman and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) are held liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs-appellees, the following amounts:

a) P44,830.00 as actual damages;

b) P50,000.00 as nominal damages;

c) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

d) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the deceased; and

e) P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees."2

The appellate court ratiocinated that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage theretofore had already existed when the victim entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor. In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and operated at the time by Roman. The appellate court faulted petitioners for their failure to present expert evidence to establish the fact that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train.

The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its resolution of 10 October 2000.

In their present recourse, petitioners recite alleged errors on the part of the appellate court; viz:

"I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT

"II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF NICANOR NAVIDAD, JR.

"III.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RODOLFO ROMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LRTA."3

Petitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome. Petitioners would insist that Escartin’s assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented. The LRTA would add that the appellate court’s conclusion on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA.

Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation, and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.4 The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of or injury to its passengers, provides:

"Article 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.

"Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755."

"Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

"This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees."

"Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission."

The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.5 Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.6 The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.7 In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and8 by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.9 In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,10 an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.11

The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 217612 and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180,13 of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 219414 of the Civil Code can well apply.15 In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract.16 Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.17

Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that "there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x." This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case.

There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.18 It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.19

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 16.

2 Rollo, pp. 46-47.

3 Rollo, pp. 18-19.

4 Arada vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 624.

5 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423.

6 Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 202 SCRA 575.

7 Article 1763, Civil Code.

8 Gatchalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126; Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 1; Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co., 33 SCRA 284.

9 Mercado vs. Lira, 3 SCRA 124.

10 Article 1756, Civil Code.

11 Vda. De Abeto vs. Phil. Air Lines, Inc., 30 July 1982.

12 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

13 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

14 Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.

15 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 124 Phil. 722.

16 PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729.

17 Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768; Manila Railroad vs. Compania Transatlantica, 38 Phil. 875.

18 Article 2221, Civil Code.

19 Medina, et al. vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil. 506.