Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Shewaram was a paying passenger on defendants aircraft from
Zamboanga City bound for Manila.
He checked in 3 pieces of baggages- a suitcase and 2 other
pieces. The suitcase was mistagged by defendants personnel in
Zamboanga as IGN (Iligan) instead of MNL (Manila).
Plaintiff made a claim with defendants personnel in Manila airport
and another suitcase similar to his own which was the only
baggage left for that flight was given to the plaintiff for him to take
delivery but he refused to take the delivery of the same because it
was not his, alleging that all his clothes were white and the
National transistor 7 and a Rollflex camera were not found inside
the suitcase, and moreover, it contained a pistol which he did not
have nor placed it inside the suitcase.
It was found out that the suitcase shown to and given to the
plaintiff belonged to a certain Del Rosario who was bound for Iligan
in the same flight with Shewaram.
Shewaram made demand for these 2 items or for the value thereof
but the same was not complied with by defendant.
The municipal trial court rendered decision in favor of plaintiff. The
said court had found that the suitcase of the appellee was
tampered and the transistor radio and the camera contained
therein were lost, and that the loss of those articles was due to the
negligence of the employees of the appellant.
HELD: No. Article 1750 of the NCC provides that the pecuniary liability of a
common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed amount. It is required,
however, that the contract must be reasonable and just under the
circumstances and has been fairly agreed upon. In the case at bar, the
requirements have not been met. It cannot be said that the appellee had
actually entered into a contract with the appellant, embodying the conditions
as printed at the back of the ticket stub that was issued by the appellant to
the appellee. The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the
tickets stub in letters so small that they are hard to read would not warrant
the presumption that the appellee was aware of those conditions such that
he had fairly and freely agreed to those conditions.
The liability of the appellant should be governed by the provisions of Article
1734 and 1735 of the NCC. It having been clearly found by the trial court
that the transistor radio and the camera of the appellee were lost as a result
ONG YIU V. CA AND PAL Petitioner asked for postponement of the hearing due to the loss of
G.R. No. L-40597, June 29, 1979 his documents, which was granted by the court. He returned to
Cebu. In a letter to PAL Cebu, he demanded that his luggage be
FACTS: produced intact, and that he be compensated for damages.
On August 26, 1967, petitioner, a practicing lawyer and Petitioner sent a letter to PAL Cebu inquiring the results of the
businessman, was a fare paying passenger of respondent PAL on investigation to pinpoint responsibility for the unauthorized opening
board a flight from Cebu bound for Butuan City. He was scheduled of the maleta. PAL Cebu failed to found the lost folder and failed to
to attend a trial in CFI Butuan on August 28-31, 1967.He checked pinpoint the personnel who allegedly pilfered the baggage.
in a blue maleta.Upon arrival in Butuan, petitioner claimed his Petitioner filed a complaint against PAL for damages for breach of
luggage but it could not be found. contract of transportation. The trial court found PAL to have acted
PAL Butuan sent a message to PAL Cebu inquiring about the in bad faith and with malice and declared petitioner entitled to
missing luggage. It was later on relayed to PAL Manila.PAL Manila damages. CA found that PAL was guilty only of simple negligence.
wired PAL Cebu advising that the luggage had been over carried to ISSUE: Whether or not PAL acted in bad faith.
Manila and it would be forwarded to Cebu. Instructions were also
given that the luggage be immediately forwarded to Butuan on the HELD:No. Bad faith means a breach of a known duty though some motive of
first available flight. At 5 PM, PAL Cebu sent a message to PAL interest or ill will. It was the duty of PAL to look for petitioners luggage which
Butuan that the luggage would be forwarded the following day, had been miscarried. PAL exerted due diligence in complying with such
August 27, 1967. However, this message was not received by PAL duty. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud or bad faith,
Butuan as all personnel had already left since there were no more petitioner is not entitled to moral damages. Petitioner is neither entitled to
incoming flights that afternoon. exemplary damages. It can be granted if the defendant acted in a wanton,
Petitioner was worried about the missing luggage because it fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, which has not been
contained vital documents needed for trial. Petitioner wired PAL proven in this case.
Cebu demanding the delivery of his baggage before noon the next
day otherwise he would hold PAL liable for damages. This telegram Petitioner further contends that respondent court committed grave error
was received by the PAL Cebu supervisor but the latter felt no need when it limited PALs carriage liability to the amount of P100 as stipulated at
to wire the petitioner that his luggage had already been forwarded the back of the ticket; and that there is nothing in the evidence to show that
on the assumption that by the time the message reached Butuan he actually entered into a contract with PAL limiting the latters liability for the
City, the luggage would have arrived. loss or delay of the baggage of its passengers.
On August 27, 1967, petitioner went to Bancasi Airport. He did not While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket, he is
wait for the morning flight which arrived at 10 AM. The porter paged nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. Such provisions have been
petitioner but the latter had already left. A certain Emilio Dagorro, a held to be part of the contract of carriage and valid and binding upon the
driver who used to drive the petitioner, volunteered to take the passenger regardless of the latters lack of knowledge or assent to the
luggage to petitioner. As Maximo Gomez knew Dagorro to be the regulation. It is what is known as contract of adhesion wherein one party
same driver used by petitioner whenever the latter was in Butuan imposes a readymade form of contract on the other. The one who adheres
City, Gomez took that luggage and placed it on the counter. to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his
Dagorro examined the lock, pressed it, and it opened. After calling consent.
the attention of Gomez, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did
not touch them.
Dagorro delivered the maleta to petitioner, informing him that the
lock was open. Upon inspection, petitioner found that the folder
containing documents in civil case were missing, aside from 2 gift
items for his parents-in-law. Petitioner refused to accept the
luggage. Dagorro returned it to the porter clerk who sealed it and
forwarded the same to PAL Cebu.
PanAm v IAC
FACTS:
Jose Rapaldas is on board a flight for Pan Am Flight 841 from Guam to
Manila. While standingin line to board the flight at the Guam airport,
Rapadas was ordered by Pan Am's handcarrycontrol agent to check-in his
Samsonite attache case. Rapadas protested pointed to the fact thatother co-
passengers were permitted to handcarry bulkier baggages. But for fear that
he wouldmiss the flight, he agreed to check it in. He gave his attache case to
his brother who happened tobe around without declaring its contents or the
value of its contents.Upon his arrival in Manila, he was given all his check-in
baggages except the attache case.Because Rapadas felt ill, he sent his son
to request for search of the missing luggage. Eventually,Rapadas received a
letter from Pan Am's counsel offering to settle the claim for the sum
of $160.00 representing Pan Am's alleged limit of liability for loss or damage
to a passenger'spersonal property under the contract of carriage between
Rapadas and Pan Am.
ISSUE:
Is Pan American Airways liable for the lost check-in baggage?
COURT RULING:
In this case, Rapadas actually manifested a disregard with the airline rules
insofar as hisbaggagesareconcerned. He failed to state the value
of the said check-in baggage and failed toremove whatever check-in
valuables he had in which should have been placed in his allowablehand-
carry baggage instead.
Cathay Pacific v. CA limitations. However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of
the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less
FACTS: Respondent Alcantara was a first class passenger of a Cathay exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of its
Pacific flight to Jakarta to attend a business conference with the Director passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if wilfull misconduct on
General of Trade of Indonesia. Upon his arrival in Jakarta, he discovered the part of the carrier's employees is found or established, as in this case.
that his luggage was missing. He was informed that his luggage was left
behind in Hongkong and was offered $20.00 as "inconvenience money" to
buy his immediate personal needs. He had to seek postponement of his pre-
arranged conference. And when his luggage finally reached Jakarta after a
day, it was required to be picked up by an official of the Philippine Embassy.
The trial court ordered Cathay to pay. The CA affirmed but increased the
award of damages. SC affirmed but modified the award of damages. Cathay
argues that the one-day delay was not made in bad faith because it had a
mechanical trouble wherein all pieces of luggage on board the first aircraft
bound for Jakarta were unloaded and transferred to the second aircraft
which departed an hour and a half later. Cathay also argues that he was not
treated rudely and arrogantly by its employees. Also, that the CA erred in
failing to apply the Warsaw Convention on the liability of a carrier to its
passengers.
ISSUE: W/N Cathay breached its contract of carriage with Alcantara and
acted in bad faith?
HELD: YES. Cathay failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and
time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and
their luggage safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay
their transportation. It was not even aware that the luggage was left behind
until its attention was called by the Hongkong Customs authorities. It also
refused to deliver the luggage at his hotel and required him to pick it up with
an official of the Philippine Embassy The Cathay employees were also
discourteous, rude, and insulting. He was simply advised to buy anything he
wanted with only $20.00 which was certainly not enough to purchase
comfortable clothing appropriate for an executive conference. Cathays
agents only replied, "What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do
anything . . . Anyhow, you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay
Pacific." Moral and exemplary damages are proper where in breaching the
contract of carriage bad faith or fraud is shown. In the absence of fraud or
bad faith, liability is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the
breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. Further, Cathay contends that the extent of its liability
should be limited absolutely to that set forth in the Warsaw Convention. The
said treaty does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances
for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The Warsaw Convention declares
the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain
Natl Development Co. v. CA and Development Insurance & Surety Art 1735: in all other than those mentioned is Article 1734 thereof, the
Corp. common carriershall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
G.R. No. L-49407 August 19, 1988 negligently, unless it proves thatit has observed the extraordinary diligence
Maritime Co. of the Philippines v. CA and Development Insurance & required by law
Surety Corp.
G.R. No. L-49469 August 19, 1988 collision not one of those enumerated under Art. 1734; hence, carrier is
Paras, J. presumed to beat fault or to have acted negligently
FACTS: 2. Art. 826 of the Code of Commerce: where collision is imputable to the
personnel of avessel, the owner of the vessel at fault, shall indemnify the
In accordance with a memorandum agreement entered into between losses and damages incurredafter an expert appraisal. But more in point
defendants NDC andMCP, NDC appointed MCP as its agent to manage and
operate Dona Nati vessel for and inits behalf and account Art. 827, ditto: if the collision is imputable to both vessels, each one shall
suffer its owndamages and both shall be
E. Philipp Corporation loaded on board the vessel 1200 bales of American solidarily
raw cottonconsigned to the order of Manila Banking Corporation, Manila and responsible for the losses and damages suffered bytheir cargoes
the Peoples Bank and Trust Company acting for and in behalf of the Pan
Asiatic Commercial Company, Inc., whorepresents Riverside Mills Art 826 to 839, ditto: the shipowner or carrier is not exempt from liability for
Corporatio; also loaded on the same vessel were the cargo of Kyokuto damagesarising from collision due to the fault or negligence of the captain;
Boekui, Kaisa, Ltd., consigned to the order of Manila Banking primary liability isimposed on the shipowner or carrier in because of the
Corporationconsisting of 200 cartons of sodium lauryl sulfate and 10 cases accepted doctrine that theshipmaster or captain is merely the representative
of aluminum foil of the owner who has the actual orconstructive control over the conduct of
the voyage
En route to Manila the vessel figured in a collision with a Japanese vessel as
a result of which 550 bales of aforesaid cargo of American raw cotton as well both the owner (NDC) and agent (MPC) of the offending vessel are liable for
as the cargo of KyokutoBoekui, Kaisa, Ltd were lost and/or destroyed the damagedone where both are impleaded; that in case of collision, both
the owner and the agent arecivillyjointly and severally responsible for
Development Insurance & Surety Corp. paid the insurance and filed an the acts of the captain since the obligation
action for recoveryof money against NDC and MCP
which is the subject of the action had its origin in a tortious act and did not
ISSUES: arise from contract
1. which laws govern loss or destruction of goods due to collision of vessels
outsidePhilippine waters; 2. what is the extent of liability as well as the rules
of prescriptionprovided thereunder
HELD:
1. [T]he law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs
theliability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or
deterioration (Art. 1753).Since the goods in question are transported from
San Francisco, California and Tokyo, Japanto the Philippines and that they
were lost or due to a collision which was found to have beencaused by the
negligence or fault of both captains of the colliding vessels the laws of
thePhilippines will apply.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC and Development Insurance & Lines to prove that it has exercised the extraordinarydiligence required by
Surety Corp. law.
G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. The Nisshin Fire and Marine Insurance Note: fire not considered a natural disaster or calamity within the
Co., andDowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. contemplation of Art.1734 for it arises almost invariably from some act of
G.R. No. 71478 May 29, 1987 man or by human means; it does notfall within the category of an act of God
Melencio-Herrera, J. unless caused by lightning or by other naturaldisaster or calamity
FACTS: having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the
extraordinarydiligence required by law, Eastern Shipping Lines cannot
(G.R. No. L-69044): a vessel operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, escape liability for the loss of thecargo
Inc., loaded atKobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5000 pieces of
calorized lance pipes in 28packages consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills As it was at fault, it cannot seek the protective mantle of Sec. 4(2) of
Co., Inc., and 7 cases of spare partsconsigned to Central Textile Mills, Inc.; Carriage of Goods bySea Act which provides: Neither the carrier nor the
both sets of goods were insured with DevelopmentInsurance and Surety ship shall be responsible for loss ordamage arising or resulting from x x x (b)
Corp. Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.
(G.R. No. 71478): the same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment there was actual fault of the carrier shown by lack of diligence in that when
fabrics andaccessories, in 2 containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel the smoke wasnoticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have
Corporation, and two cases of surveying instruments consigned to Aman started 24 hours before the samewas noticed; and that after the cargoes
Enterprises and General Merchandise were stored in the hatches, no regular inspectionwas made as to their
condition during the voyage.
the vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo
3. See Art. 1749.G.R. No. 69044: no stipulation in the Bills of Lading limiting
ISSUES: the carriers liability for the lossor destruction of the goods; no declaration of
1. which law should govern the Civil Code provisions on Common carriers a higher value of the goods; Hence, Eastern
or theCarriage of Goods by Sea Act?; 2. who has the burden of proof to
show negligence of thecarrier? 3. what is the extent of the carriers liability? Shipping Lines liability should not exceed US $500 per package (as
provided in 4(5) of theCOGSA), or its peso equivalent, at the time of
HELD: payment of the value of the goods lost, but inno case more than the amount
1. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs of damage actually sustained.
theliability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or
deterioration. As thecargoes were transported from Japan to the Philippines,
the liability of Petitioner Carrier isgoverned primarily by the Civil Code.
However, in all matters not regulated by said Code,the rights and obligations
of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerceand by
special laws. Thus, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a special law, is
suppletory tothe provisions of the Civil Code.
2. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention
in Article 1734,the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently,unless it proves that it has observed the
extraordinary diligence required by law. Theburden is upon Eastern Shipping
Lufthansa vs. IAC
Held: Yes.
The SC found no congent reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial
court and the appellate court. Hence, even if the RP is a party to the Warsaw
Convention, Lufthansa waived the applicability of the Warsaw Convention to
the case when it offered spouses Alcantara a higher amount than that which
is provided in the said law and failed to raise timely objections during the trial
when questions and answers were brought out regarding the actual claims
and damages sustained by the spouses Alcantara which were even
subjected to a lengthy cross examination by Lufthansas counsel.