has the right to object. However, such right is a mere privilege which can b waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity to speak may operate a a waiver of objections. BA has precisely failed in this regard. To compound matters for BA, its counsel failed, not only to interpose a timely objection, but even conducted his own cross-examination as well. 6. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT. — Needless to say, factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect. Since the actual value of the luggage involved appreciation of evidence, a task within the competence of the Court of Appeals, its ruling regarding the amount is assuredly a question of fact, thus, a finding not reviewable by this Court. 7. ID.; ACTIONS; THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, NATURE. — In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempengko , we expounded on the nature of a third-party complaint thus: "The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a 'third party' who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff may be brought into the case with leave of court, by the defendant who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Were it not for this provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third- party. But the Rules permit defendant to bring in a third-party defendant o so to speak, to litigate his separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff's claim against a third party in the original and principal case with the object of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular set of facts. 8. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIERS; AIRLINE'S CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; CARRIAGE PERFORMED BY SUCCESSIVE CARRIER, REGARDED AS SINGLE
OPERATION; CARRIER ISSUING TICKET CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPAL WHILE THE OTHERS ARE SUB-CONTRACTORS OR AGENTS. — The contract of air transportation was exclusively between Mahtani and BA, the latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hongkong leg of the former's journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. In fact, the fourth paragraph of the "Conditions of Contracts" of the ticket issued by BA to Mahtani confirms that the contract was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay. "4 . . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is regarded as a single operation." Prescinding from the above discussion, it is undisputed that PAL, in transporting Mahtani from Manila to Hongkong, acted as the agent of BA.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 20 pages?