Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
Facts: Crispina Galdo Saludo, mother of the petitioners, died in Chicago, waterproof wherein was contained the remains of
Illinois. Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of Chicago, made the necessary Crispina Galdo Saludo.
preparations and arrangements for the shipment of the remains from iii. On the same date, 26 October 1976, Pomierski brought the
Chicago to the Philippines. Pomierski brought the remains to Continental remains to C.M.A.S. (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at the
Mortuary Air Services (CMAS) at the Chicago Airport which made the airport (Chicago) which made the necessary arrangements
necessary arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc. CMAS booked the such as flights, transfers, etc.; C.M.A.S. is a national service
shipment with PAL thru the carrier's agent Air Care International. PAL
used by undertakers throughout the nation (U.S.A.), they
Airway Bill Ordinary was issued wherein the requested routing was from
Chicago to San Francisco on board Trans World Airline (TWA) and from San furnish the air pouch which the casket is enclosed in, and they
Francisco to Manila on board PAL. see that the remains are taken to the proper air freight
terminal. C.M.A.S. booked the shipment with PAL thru the
Salvacion (one of the petitioners), upon arrival at San Francisco, went to carrier's agent Air Care International, with Pomierski F.H. as the
the TWA to inquire about her mother's remains. But she was told they did
shipper and Mario (Maria) Saludo as the consignee.
not know anything about it. She then called Pomierski that her mother's
remains were not at the West Coast terminal. Pomierski immediately called PAL Airway Bill 079 01180454 Ordinary was issued
CMAS which informed that the remains were on a plane to Mexico City, that wherein the requested routing was from Chicago to San
there were two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were switched. Francisco on board TWA Flight 131 of 27 October 1976, and
CMAS called and told Pomierski that they were sending the remains back to from San Francisco to Manila on board PAL Flight 107 of the
California via Texas.
same date, and from Manila to Cebu on board PAL Flight 149 of
Petitioners filed a complaint against TWA and PAL fir the misshipment and 29 October 1976.
delay in the delay of the cargo containing the remains of the late Crispina In the meantime, Maria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino
Saludo. Petitioners alleged that private respondents received the casketed Saludo, thru a travel agent, were booked with United Airlines
remains of Crispina on October 26, 1976, as evidenced by the issuance of
PAL Airway Bill by Air Care and from said date, private respondents were from Chicago to California, and with PAL from California to
charged with the responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence so Manila.
much so that the alleged switching of the caskets on October 27, 1976, i. She then went to the funeral director of Pomierski Funeral
or one day after the private respondents received the cargo, the latter Home who had her mother's remains and she told the director
must necessarily be liable. that they were booked with United Airlines. But the director
told her that the remains were booked with TWA flight
to California.
4 After the death of Crispina Galdo Saludo, mother of ii. This upset her, and she and her brother had to change
Aniceto G. Saludo Jr., Maria Salvacion Saludo, Leopoldo G. reservations from UA to the TWA flight after she
Saludo, and Satumino G. Saludo, in Chicago, Illinois, on 23 confirmed by phone that her mother's remains would be
on that TWA flight.
October 1976, Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of
They went to the airport and watched from the look-out area.
Chicago, made the necessary preparations and She saw no body being brought. So, she went to the TWA counter again,
arrangements for the shipment of the remains from and she was told there was no body on that flight.
Chicago to the Philippines. iii. Reluctantly, they took the TWA flight upon assurance of her
i. The funeral home had the remains embalmed and cousin, Ani Bantug, that he would look into the matter and
secured a permit for the disposition of dead human inform her about it on the plane or have it radioed to her. But
body on 25 October 1976. no confirmation from her cousin reached her that her
ii. Philippine Vice Consul in Chicago, Illinois, Bienvenido M. mother was on the West Coast.
Llaneta, at 3:00 p.m. on 26 October 1976 at the Pomierski & iv. Upon arrival at San Francisco at about 5:00 p.m., she went to
the TWA counter there to inquire about her mother's remains.
Son Funeral Home, sealed the shipping case
She was told they did not know anything about it.
containing a hermetically sealed casket that is
airtight and
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
vi. She then called Pomierski that her mother's remains were not remains of the late Crispina Saludo, and of the discourtesy of its
at the West Coast terminal, and Pomierski immediately called employees to Maria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino Saludo.
C.M.A.S., which in a matter of 10 minutes informed him that In a separate letter on 10 June 1977 addressed to
the remains were on a place to Mexico City, that there were
two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were switched;
C.M.A.S.
he relayedcalled and told him
this information to they
Miss were sending
Saludo the remains
in California; later
back to California via Texas. were holding PAL liable for said delay in delivery and
would commence judicial action should no favorable
explanation be given.
Philippine Airlines (PAL), the Saludos stated that they
Both TWA and PAL denied liability.
vii. The following day, 28 October 1976, the shipment or remains
A damage suit was filed by the Saludos before the then Court of
of Crispina Saludo arrived in San Francisco from Mexico on
board American Airlines. First Instance. Branch III. Southern Leyte. praying for the award
viii. This shipment was transferred to or received by PAL at 7:45 of actual damages of P50,000.00, moral damages of
P.m P1,000,000.00, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs
ix. This casket bearing the remains of Crispina Saludo, which was of suit.
mistakenly sent to Mexico and was opened (there), was 4 The trial court absolved the two airline companies of
resealed by Crispin F. Padagas for shipment to the Philippines.
liability.
x. The shipment was immediately loaded on PAL flight for Manila
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court in
that same evening and arrived in Manila on 30 October 1976, a
day after its expected arrival on 29 October 1976. toto, and in a subsequent resolution, denied the Saludos'
In a letter dated 15 December 1976, the counsel of the Saludos motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
informed Trans World Airlines (TWA) of the misshipment and ♦ Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
eventual delay in the delivery of the cargo containing the
1. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals binding of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded
upon the Supreme Court; Exceptions entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(c) w hen the inference made is manifestly
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition
filed in the Supreme Court to review on certiorari mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the
judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
This being so, the factual findings of the Court of misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual
Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of
reviewed by the Supreme Court. Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
The r ule, how e ver, a dmi ts of es tabli she d issues of the case and the same are contrary to
exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is grave abuse the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g)
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked determine the issue raised without reviewing or
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of
and which, if properly considered, would justify a law, otherwise it will be a question of fact.
different conclusion; and (h) where the findings of
fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those 3 . Issues warrant second look at facts
of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without Since it is the soundness of the inferences or
citation of specific evidence, or where the facts conclusions that may be drawn from the factual
set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the issues which are being assayed, the Court finds
respondent, or where the findings of fact of the that the issues raised in the present petition
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of indeed warrant a second look if this litigation is to
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on come to a reasonable denouement.
record. A discussion seriatim of said issues will further
reveal that the sequence of the events involved is
in effect disputed.
Likewise to be settled is whether or not the
conclusions of the Court of Appeals subject of the
review indeed find evidentiary and legal support.
20. Carrier did not undertake to carry cargo The terms are clear enough as to preclude the
aboard any specified aircraft n e c e s s i t y t o p r o b e b e yo n d t h e a p p a r e n t
intendment of the contractual provisions.
The carrier did not undertake to carry the cargo aboard There is no ambiguity in the terms of the airway
any specified aircraft, in view of the condition on the bill to warrant the application of the rules on
back of the airway bill which provides that: interpretation of contracts and documents.
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
22. Interpretation of contracts 23. Interpretative rule in Rules of Court applies
only if there is inconsistency between written and
• The hornbook rule on interpretation of contracts printed words
consecrates the primacy of the intention of the
parties, the same having the force of law between • The interpretative rule in the Rules of Court
them. that w ritten w ords control printed words in
i. When the terms of the agreement are documents may be considered only when there is
clear and explicit, th at they do n ot inconsistency between the written and printed
justify an attempt to read into any words of the contract.
alleged intention of the parties, the i. As previously stated, there was no ambiguity in
terms are to be understood literally just as the contract subject of this case that would call
they appear on the face of the contract. for the application of said rule.
ii. The various stipulations of a contract ii. In any event, the contract has provided for
shall be interpreted together and such a such a situation by explicitly stating that the
construction is to be adopted as will give condition remains effective "notwithstanding
effect to all provisions thereof. that the same (fixed time for completion of
iii. A con tr act c an n ot be con s tru ed b y carriage, specified aircraft, or any particular
parts, but its clauses should be interpreted route or schedule) may be stated on the face
in relation to one another. hereof."
iv. The whole contract must be iii. Herein, the typewritten specifications of the
interpreted or read together in order to flight, routes and dates of departures and
arrive at its true meaning. arrivals on the face of the airway bill does not
v. Certain stipulations cannot be constitute a special contract which modifies the
segregated and then made to control; printed conditions at the back thereof.
neither do particular words or phrases
necessarily determine the character of a The typewritten provisions of the contract are to
contract. be read and understood subject to and in view of
vi. The legal effect of the contract is not th e prin ted con d ition s , fu lly r eco n cilin g an d
to be determined alone by any giving effect to the manifest intention of the
particular provision disconnected from parties to the agreement.
all others, but in the ruling intention of the
parties as gathered from all the language 24. Statement on the face of the airway bill
they have used and from their The statement on the face of the airway bill properly
contemporaneous and subsequent acts. and completely reads "Carrier certifies goods described
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2 "d Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
below were received for carriage subject to the Whether or not there has been such an
Conditions on the reverse hereof the goods then being undertaking on the part of the carrier is to be
in apparent good order and condition except as noted determined from the circumstances surrounding
hereon. the case and by application of the ordinary rules
for the interpretation of contracts.
25. Carrier not an insurer against delay in 26. Mendoza vs. PAL; Delayed delivery of air
transportation of goods in absence of a special cargo
contract
In a similar case of delayed delivery of air cargo
The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's under a very similar stipulation contained in the
liability for delay is that in the absence of a airway bill which reads:
special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against "The carrier does not obligate itself to carry
delay in transportation of goods. the goods by any specified aircraft or on a
When a common carrier undertakes to convey specified time. Said carrier being hereby
goods, the law implies a contract that they shall authorized to deviate from the route of the
be delivered at destination within a reasonable shipment without any liability therefore,"
time, in the absence of any agreement as to the ■ t h e S u p r e me C o u r t r ul e d t h a t
time of delivery. common carriers are not obligated by
= But w here a carrier has made an express law to carry and to deliver
contract to transport and deliver property within a merchandise, and persons are not
specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and vested w ith thP r i g ht to pmm pt
is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause delivery, unless such common carriers
it may have arisen. previously assume the obligation. Said
This result logically follows from the well-settled rights and obligations are created by a
rule that where the law creates a duty or charge, specific contract entered into by the
and the party is disabled from performing it parties (Mendoza vs. PAL, 90 Phil.
without any default in himself, and has no remedy 836).
over, then the law will excuse him, but where the
party by his own contract creates a duty or charge 27. Specification of flights does not constitute a
upon himself, he is bound to make it good special contract
notw ithstanding any accident or dela y b y
inevitable necessity because he might have To countenance a postulate that the specification
provided against it by contract. of the flights and dates of departures and arrivals
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
constitute a special contract (that would prevail brought to the knowledge of the shipper and
over the printed stipulations at the back of the agreed to by him, and in the absence of fraud or
airway bill) mistake, he is estopped from thereafter denying
= would unduly burden the common carrier for that he assented to such terms.
tha t w oul d ha ve the e f fe c t o f uni l a te ra l l y This rule applies with particular force where a
transforming every single bill of lading or trip shipper accepts a bill of lading with full knowledge
ticket into a special contract by the simple of its contents, and acceptance, under such
expedient of filling it up with the particulars of the circumstances makes it a binding contract.
flight, trip or voyage, and thereby imposing upon In order that any presumption of assent to a
the carrier duties and/or obligations which it may stipulation in a bill of lading limiting the liability of
not have been ready or willing to assume had it a carrier may arise, it must appear that the clause
been timely advised thereof. containing this exemption from liability plainly
formed a part of the contract contained in the bill
28. Ordinary prudence required of person
of lading.
entering in contract
A stipulation printed on the back of a receipt or
The fact that the challenged condition 5 was bill of lading or on papers attached to such receipt
printed at the back of the airway bill militate will be quite as effective as if printed on its face, if
against its binding effect on the Saludos as parties it is shown that the consignor knew of its terms.
to the c on tra c t, f or t he re w e re s uff i c i e n t Thus, where a shipper accepts a receipt which
indications on the face of said bill that would alert states that its conditions are to be found on the
them to the presence of such additional condition back, such receipt comes within the general rule,
to put them on their guard. and the shipper is held to have accepted and to
Ordinary prudence on the part of any person be bound by the conditions there to be found.
entering or contemplating to enter into a contract 30. When contract of adhesion void and
would prompt even a cursory examination of any unenforceable
such conditions, terms and/or stipulations.
A contract of adhesion may be struck down as
29. Acceptance of bill of lading without dissent void and unenforceable, for being subversive of
raises presumption that all terms brought to public policy, only when the weaker party is
knowledge of shipper and agreed to by him imposed upon in dealing with the dominant
The acceptance of a bill of lading without dissent bargaining party and is reduced to the alternative
raises a presumption that all terms therein were of taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of
the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.
Saludo v. CA GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2 "d Division- Regalado, J. II. COMMON CARRIERS
D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
from liability in the exculpatory sanctuary of
Condition 5 or arbitrarily vary routes, flights and
schedules to the prejudice of their customers.