You are on page 1of 12

SHEWARAM VS.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

Facts:
 ParmanandShewaram, a Hindu from Davao, boarded a PAL plane bound for Manila from
Zamboanga. He checked in 3 baggages: a suitcase and 2 other bags. PAL’s personnel
mistagged his baggage to “Iligan” instead of “Manila.”
o The baggage was said to be tampered when it was found.
 Among his baggage was a camera with P800.00 and it was lost. PAL offered to pay P100.00.
Shewaram wanted full payment of P800.00.
 A PAL ticket, on the reverse side, stated in fine print: “The liability, if any, for loss or damage
to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is limited to its value and, unless the
passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge therefor, the
value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed P100.00 for each ticket.”
 PAL maintains that in view of the failure of the Shewaram to declare a higher value for his
luggage, and pay the freight on the basis of said declared value when he checked such
luggage at the Zamboanga City airport, pursuant to the abovequoted condition, appellee can
not demand payment from the appellant of an amount in excess of P100.00.

Issue: Whether the limited liability rule shall apply in the case at bar?

Held: NO. The limited liability rule shall not apply.

Since this is a stipulation on qualified liability, which operates to reduce the liability of the carrier, the
carrier and the shipper must agree thereupon. Otherwise, the carrier will be liable for full. PAL is
fully liable (for full) because Shewaran did not agree to the stipulation on the ticket, as
manifested by the fact that Shewaram did not sign the ticket. Ticket should have been
signed.

Article 1750 of the New Civil Code which provides as follows:A contract fixing the sum that may be
recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it
is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.

In accordance with the above-quoted provision of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code, 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 and
freely agreed upon."

Page 1 of 12
Ong Yui vs. CA Case Digest
Ong Yui vs. Court of Appeals
(91 SCRA 223)

Facts: On august 26, 1967, Ong Yiu was a fare paying passenger of respondent PAL from Mactan,
Cebu to Butuan City wherein he was scheduled to attend a trial. As a passenger, he checked in one
piece of luggae, blue maleta for which he was issued a claim ticket. Upon arrival at Butuan City,
petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found. PAL Butuan sent a message to PAL Cebu
which in turn sent a message to PAL Manila that same afternoon. PAL Manila advised PAL Cebu that
the luggage has been overcarried to Manila and that it would be forwarded to PAL Cebu that same
day. PAL Cebu then advised PAL Butuan that the luggage will be forwarded the following day, on
scheduled morning flight. This message was not received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had
already gone for the day. Meanwhile, Ong Yiu was worried about the missing luggage because it
contained vital documents needed for the trial the next day so he wired PAL Cebu demanding
delivery of his luggage before noon that next day or he would hold PAL liable for damages based on
gross negligence. Early morning, petitioner went to the Butuan Airport to inquire about the luggage
but did not wait for the arrival of the morning flight at 10:00am. which carried his luggage. A certain
Dagorro, a driver of a colorum car, who also used to drive the petitioner volunteered to take the
luggage to the petitioner. He revelaed that the documents were lost. Ong Yiu demanded from PAL
Cebu actual and compensatory damages as an incident of breach of contract of carriage.

Issue:
1. Whether or not PAL is guilty of only simple negligence and not gross negligence?
2. Whether the doctrine of limited liability doctrine applies in the instant case?

Held: PAL had not acted in bad faith. It exercised due diligence in looking for petitioner’s luggage
which had been miscarried. Had petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the airport for the
arrival of the morning flight which carried his luggage, he would have been able to retrieve his
luggage sooner. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud, the petitioner is not entitled
to moral damages. Neither is he entitled to exemplary damages absent any proof that the defendant
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless manner.

The limited liability applies in this case. On the presumed negligence of PAL, its liability for the loss
however, is limited on the stipulation written on the back of the plane

Ticket which is P100 per baggage. The petitioner not having declared a greater value and not having
called the attention of PAL on its true value and paid the tariff therefore. The stipulation is printed in
reasonably and fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a frequent
passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he being a lawyer and a businessman,
must be fully aware of these conditions.

Page 2 of 12
049 Pan American World Airways vs. IAC AUTHOR:RC

[G.R. No. 70462; Aug. 11, 1988] NOTES:

TOPIC:Liability under the Convention Pan Am seeked to limit its liability for lost
baggageup to the amount specified in the airline
PONENTE:Cortes, J.
ticket absent a declaration of a higher valuation
and payment of additional charges.

FACTS:

1.Plaintiff Rene V. Pangan, pres. and gen. mngr. of the plaintiffs SotangBastos and Archer Production
while in San Francisco, Califonia and Primo Quesada of Prime Films, San Francisco, California, entered
into an agreement where the former, for US $2,500.00 per picture, bound himself to supply the latter
with 3 films. ('AngMabait, Masungit at angPangit,' 'Big Happening with Chikiting and Iking,' and
'Kambal Dragon' for exhibition in the United States.) It was also agreed that plaintiffs would provide
the promotional and advertising materials.

2. On his way home to the Philippines, Pangan visited Guam where he contacted Leo Slutchnick of the
HafaAdai Organization. Pangan entered into a verbal agreement with Slutchnick for the exhibition of 2
of the films at the HafaAdai Theater in Guam for P7,000.00 per picture. Pangan alsoprovided the
promotional and advertising materials for the films.

3. Due to the above agreements, Pangan caused the preparation of the requisite promotional
handbills and still pictures for which he paid P12,900.00. Likewise in preparation for his trip abroad to
comply with his contracts, Pangan purchased 14 clutch bags, 4 capiz lamps and 4 barong tagalog,
total value of P4,400.00.

4. Pangan obtained from defendant Pan Am's Manila Office (through Your Travel Guide) an economy
class airplane ticket for Manila to Guam on defendant's Flight (No. 842) upon payment of the regular
fare.

5. The Your Travel Guide is a tour and travel office owned and managed by plaintiffs witness Mila de
la Rama.

6. 2 hours before departure time Pangan was at the defendant's ticket counter at the Manila
International Airport and presented his ticket and checked in his 2 luggages, for which he was given
baggage claim tickets.

7. The 2 luggageshad the promotional &advertising materials, clutch bags, barong tagalog and his
personal belongings.

8. Subsequently, Pangan was informed that his name was not in the manifest and so he could not
take Flight (No. 842) in the economy class. Since there was no space in the economy class, Pangan
took the first class because he wanted to be on time in Guam to comply with his commitment with an

Page 3 of 12
additional sum of $112.00.

9. When Pangan arrived in Guam, his 2 luggages did not arrive with his flight, as a consequence of
which his agreements with Slutchnick and Quesada for the exhibition of the films in Guam and in the
United States were cancelled.

10. He then filed a written claim for his missing luggages.

11. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Pangan contacted his lawyer, who made the necessary
representations to protest as to the treatment which he received from the employees of the
defendant and the loss of his two luggages.

12. Defendant Pan Am assured Pangan that his grievances would be investigated and given its
immediate consideration. 13. The present complaint was filed by the plaintiff due to Pan Am’s failure
to communicate with Pangan.

14. CFI: Pan Am liable. (actual damages with interest, attys fees, and costs of suit)

15. IAC: Affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the IAC erred as a matter of law in affirming the CFI's award of actual damages
beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the Warsaw Convention and the contract of carriage.

HELD:

Yes, petitioner's liability for the lost baggage is limited to $20.00 per kilo or $600.00, as stipulated at
the back of the ticket.

>>WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the Decision of the IAC is SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is rendered ordering petitioner to pay private respondents damages in the amount of US
$600.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment.

RATIO:

1. The airline ticket contains the following conditions:

NOTICE

If the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the
country of departure the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and the Convention governs
and in most cases limits the liability of carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss
of or damage to baggage. See also notice headed "Advice to International Passengers on
Limitation of Liability.

CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

Page 4 of 12
1. As used in this contract "ticket" means this passenger ticket and baggage check of which
these conditions and the notices form part, "carriage" is equivalent to "transportation," "carrier"
means all air carriers that carry or undertake to carry the passenger or his baggage hereunder
or perform any other service incidental to such air carriage. "WARSAW CONVENTION" means
the convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air
signed at Warsaw, 12th October 1929, or that Convention as amended at The Hague, 28th
September 1955, whichever may be applicable.

2. Carriage hereunder is subject to the rules and limitations relating to liability established by
the Warsaw Convention unless such carriage is not "international carriage" as defined by that
Convention.

3. To the extent not in conflict with the foregoing carriage and other services performed by
each carrier are subject to: (i) provisions contained in this ticket, (ii) applicable tariffs, (iii)
carrier's conditions of carriage and related regulations which are made part hereof (and are
available on application at the offices of carrier), except in transportation between a place in
the United States or Canada and any place outside thereof to which tariffs in force in those
countries apply.

xxx xxx xxx

NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS

Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher value is
declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1)for most international travel (including
domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kilo)
for checked baggage and $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage: (2) for travel wholly
between U.S. points, to $750 per passenger on most carriers (a few have lower limits). Excess
valuation may not be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability
for fragile or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier.

2. On the basis of the said stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, petitioner contends that its
liability for the lost baggage of Pangan is limited to $600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not
declare a higher value for his baggage and pay the corresponding additional charges.

3. Petitioner cites OngYiu v. CA, where the Court sustained the validity of a printed stipulation at the
back of an airline ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a specified amount and
ruled that the carrier's liability was limited to said amount since the passenger did not declare a higher
value, much less pay additional charges. (OngYiuis squarely applicable to the instant case.)

4. While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket, he is, nevertheless bound by
the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and
valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the
regulation." It is known as a contract of "adhesion" wherein one party imposes a ready made form of

Page 5 of 12
contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The
one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his
consent.

5. Randolph v. American Airline: A contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend
against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.

6.On the other hand, the ruling in Shewaram v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., where the Court held that
the stipulation limiting the carrier's liability to a specified amount was invalid, finds no application in
the instant case, as the ruling in said case was premised on the finding that the conditions printed at
the back of the ticket were so small and hard to read that they would not warrant the presumption
that the passenger was aware of the conditions and that he had freely and fairly agreed thereto. In
the instant case, similar facts that would make the case fall under the exception have not been
alleged, much less shown to exist.

7. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca: "To apply the Warsaw Convention which limits a carrier's liability
to US$9.07 per pound or US$20.00 per kilo in cases of contractual breach of carriage is against public
policy" is utterly misplaced.

8. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.:Under Art.1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith like
the defendant herein, may be held liable only for damages that were foreseen or might have been
foreseen at the time the contract of transportation was entered into…Before defendant could be held
to special damages, such as the present alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of
delivery, it must have appeared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular
circumstances attending the shipment, and which probably would lead to such special loss if he
defaulted. Or, as the rule has been stated in another form, in order to purpose on the defaulting party
further liability than for damages naturally and directly, i.e., in the ordinary course of things, arising
from a breach of contract, such unusual or extraordinary damages must have been brought within the
contemplation of the parties as the probable result of breach at the time of or prior to contracting.
Generally, notice then of any special circumstances which will show that the damages to be
anticipated from a breach would be enhanced has been held sufficient for this effect.

>> Thus, applying the ruling to the instant case, in the absence of a showing that Pan Am's attention
was called to the special circumstances requiring prompt delivery of Pangan'sluggages, Pan Am
cannot be held liable for the cancellation of Pangan’scontracts as it could not have foreseen such an
eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.

9. The Court is unable to uphold the IAC's disregard the ruling in Mendoza that petitioner is liable for
damages based on the finding that "[tlhe undisputed fact is that the contracts of the plaintiffs for the
exhibition of the films in Guam and California were cancelled because of the loss of the 2luggages in
question." The evidence reveals that the proximate cause of the cancellation of the contracts was
Pangan's failure to deliver the promotional and advertising materials on the dates agreed upon. For
this petitioner cannot be held liable. Pangan had not declared the value of the 2luggages he had

Page 6 of 12
checked in and paid additional charges. Neither was petitioner privy to respondents' contracts nor was
its attention called to the condition therein requiring delivery of the promotional and advertising
materials on or before a certain date.

Page 7 of 12
PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS INC V. JOSE K. RAPADAS, G.R. NO 60673 (1992)

FACTS: Private respondent Jose Rapadas purchased a plane ticket from Pan American Airways
bound for Manila from Guam.
1. On January 16, 1975, while Rapadas was waiting to check in at the Guam Airport, he was
ordered by Pan American’s hand carry control agent to check-in his Samsonite attaché case.
Rapadas protested; arguing that other co-passengers were allowed to hand carry bulkier
baggage
2. As such, he went to the end of line hoping that he would not have to register his luggage.
However, the same man in charge of hand carry control ordered him to register his bag
3. Fearing that he would miss his flight, he agreed to check it in. He then gave his bag to his
brother who happened to be around and who checked it in for him, without declaring its
contents or the value thereof
4. Upon arrival in Manila, Rapadas claimed and was given all his checked-in luggage without the
exception of the Samsonite attaché case. As such, Rapadas filed a claim with petitioner’s
Manila Baggage Service. However, Pan American was unable to locate the lost bag.
5. As such, Pan Am Airways offered to settle the lost for $160 representing the airline’s limit of
liability for loss or damage to a passenger’s personal property under the contract of carriage
between Rapadas and Pan Am.
6. Rapadas refused and filed an action for damages against Pan Am. He alleged that Pan Am
singled him out in ordering his luggage to be checked in and that the airlines neglected in its
duty in handling and safekeeping his luggage. He alleged that the value of the lost bag and its
contents was $42,403.90, the loss resulted in his failure to pay certain monetary obligations,
failure to remit money sent through him to relatives, inability to enjoy the fruits of his
retirement and vacation pay earned from working in Tonga Construction Co
7. In its answer, Pan Am acknowledged responsibility for the loss of the suitcase but asserted
that the claim was subject to the notice of baggage liability limitations printed at the back of
the plane ticket and posted in its offices
8. The trial court held in favor of Rapadas, rejecting Pan Am’s claim that its liability under the
passenger ticket is only up to $160. CA affirmed the same

ISSUE: WON a passenger is bound by the terms of a passenger ticket declaring the limitations of
liability set forth in the Warsaw Convention

HELD: Yes. The Convention governs the availment of the liability limitations where the baggage
check is combined with or incorporated in the passenger ticket which complies with the provisions of
Article 3, par. 1(c). (Article 4, par. 2) In the case at bar, the baggage check is combined with the
passenger ticket in one document of carriage.

The provisions in the plane ticket sufficient to govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline for loss
of luggage. The passenger, upon contracting with the airline and receiving the plane ticket, was
expected to be vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. If the passenger fails to adduce evidence
to overcome the stipulations, he cannot avoid the application of the liability limitations.

The facts show that the private respondent actually refused to register the attaché case and chose to
take it with him despite having been ordered by the PAN AM agent to check it in. In attempting to
avoid registering the luggage by going back to the line, private respondent manifested a disregard of
Page 8 of 12
airline rules on allowable hand-carried baggage. Prudence of a reasonably careful person also
dictates that cash and jewelry should be removed from checked-in-luggage and placed in one's
pockets or in a hand-carried Manila-paper or plastic envelope.

The alleged lack of enough time for him to make a declaration of a higher value and to pay the
corresponding supplementary charges cannot justify his failure to comply with the requirement that
will exclude the application of limited liability. Had he not wavered in his decision to register his
luggage, he could have had enough time to disclose the true worth of the articles in it and to pay the
extra charges or remove them from the checked-in-luggage. Moreover, an airplane will not depart
meantime that its own employee is asking a passenger to comply with a safety regulation.

Passengers are also allowed one hand-carried bag each provided it conforms to certain prescribed
dimensions. If Mr. Rapadas was not allowed to hand-carry the lost attaché case, it can only mean
that he was carrying more than the allowable weight for all his luggage or more than the allowable
number of hand-carried items or more than the prescribed dimensions for the bag or valise. The
evidence on any arbitrary behavior of a Pan Am employee or inexcusable negligence on the part of
the carrier is not clear from the petition. Absent such proof, we cannot hold the carrier liable because
of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mistreatment.

It does not mean, however, that passengers are always bound to the stipulated amounts printed on a
ticket, found in a contract of adhesion, or printed elsewhere but referred to in handouts or forms.
The reasons behind stipulations on liability limitations arise from the difficulty, if not impossibility, of
establishing with a clear preponderance of evidence the contents of a lost valise or suitcase. Unless
the contents are declared, it will always be the word of a passenger against that of the airline. If the
loss of life or property is caused by the gross negligence or arbitrary acts of the airline or the
contents of the lost luggage are proved by satisfactory evidence other than the self-serving
declarations of one party, the Court will not hesitate to disregard the fine print in a contract of
adhesion. Otherwise, the Court is constrained to rule on the basis of the provisions of the contract.

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; COMMON CARRIER; WARSAW CONVENTION; INTERNATIONAL


CARRIAGE; DEFINED. — The Warsaw Convention, as amended, specifically provides that it is
applicable to international carriage which it defines in Article 1, par. 2 as follows: "(2) For the
purposes of this Convention, the expression 'international carriage' means any carriage in which,
according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination,
whether or not there be a breach in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the
territories of two High Contracting Parties or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party if
there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a High
Contracting Party. Carriage between two points within the territory of a single High Contracting Party
without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not international carriage for
the purposes of this Convention." ("High Contracting Party" refers to a state which has ratified or
adhered to the Convention, or which has not effectively denounced the Convention [Article 40A(1)]).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PLANE TICKETS; BEING A CONTRACT OF ADHESION THOUGH NOT
ENTIRELY PROHIBITED; BLIND RELIANCE THEREON, NOT ENCOURAGED. — The Convention
governs the availment of the liability limitations where the baggage check is combined with or
Page 9 of 12
incorporated in the passenger ticket which complies with the provisions of Article 3, Par. 1 (c).
(Article 4, Par. 2) In the case at bar, the baggage check is combined with the passenger ticket in one
document of carriage. We have held in the case of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals, supra, and
reiterated in a similar case where herein petitioner was also sued for damages, Pan American World
Airways v. Intermediate Appellate Court (164 SCRA 268 [1988]) that: "It (plane ticket) is what is
known as a contract of 'adhesion', in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion
wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the
case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality
free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. (Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed.,
p. 462, citing Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, January 31, 1951, p. 49) And as held in
Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein v. Trans World
Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, 'a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend
against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.'
"Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he
cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00 . . ." (91 SCRA 223 at page 231)" We hasten to
add that while contracts of adhesion are not entirely prohibited, neither is a blind reliance on them
encouraged. In the face of facts and circumstances showing they should be ignored because of their
basically one sided nature, the Court does not hesitate to rule out blind adherence to their terms.
(See Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, 83 SCRA 361, 368-369 [1978])

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RECEIPT THEREOF BY PASSENGER WILL BIND HIM FROM
STIPULATIONS THEREIN; CASE AT BAR. — The arguments of the petitioner do not belie the fact that
it was indeed accountable for the loss of the attaché case. What the petitioner is concerned about is
whether or not the notice, which it did not fail to state in the plane ticket and which it deemed to
have been read and accepted by the private respondent will be considered by this Court as adequate
under the circumstances of this case. As earlier stated, the Court finds the provisions in the plane
ticket sufficient to govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline for loss of luggage. The
passenger, upon contracting with the airline and receiving the plane ticket, was expected to be
vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. If the passenger fails to adduce evidence to overcome
the stipulations, he cannot avoid the application of the liability limitations.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; STIPULATION ON LIABILITY LIMITATION; APPLICATION. — We are
not by any means suggesting that passengers are always bound to the stipulated amounts printed on
a ticket, found in a contract of adhesion, or printed elsewhere but referred to in handouts or forms.
We simply recognize that the reasons behind stipulations on liability limitations arise from the
difficulty, if not impossibility, of establishing with a clear preponderance of evidence the contents of a
lost valise or suitcase. Unless the contents are declared, it will always be the word of a passenger
against that of the airline. If the loss of life or property is caused by the gross negligence or arbitrary
acts of the airline or the contents of the lost luggage are proved by satisfactory evidence other than
the self-serving declarations of one party, the Court will not hesitate to disregard the fine print in a
contract of adhesion. (See Sweet Lines Inc. v. Teves, supra) Otherwise, we are constrained to rule
that we have to enforce the contract as it is the only reasonable basis to arrive at a just award.
Page 10 of 12
5. ID.; ID.; ID. ; ID.; LIABILITY ON LOST UNCHECKED LUGGAGE; RULE; CASE AT BAR. — The
attaché case was originally handcarried does not beg the conclusion that the amount of $4,750.00 in
cash could have been placed inside. It may be noted that out of a claim for US$42,403.90 as the
amount lost, the trial court found for only US$5,228.90 and 100 paengs. The court had doubts as to
the total claim. The lost luggage was declared as weighing around 18 pounds or approximately 8
kilograms. At $20.00 per kilogram, the petitioner offered to pay $160.00 as a higher value was not
declared in advance and additional charges were not paid. We note, however, that an amount of
$400.00 per passenger is allowed for unchecked luggage. Since the checking-in was against the will
of the respondent, we treat the lost bag as partaking of involuntarily and hurriedly checked-in
luggage and continuing its earlier status as unchecked luggage. The fair liability under the
petitioner's own printed terms is $400.00. Since the trial court ruled out discriminatory acts or bad
faith on the part of Pan Am or other reasons warranting damages, there is no factual basis for the
grant of P20,000.00 damages.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES; NOT PRECLUDED THEREFROM. — As to the
question of whether or not private respondent should be paid attorney's fees, the Court sustains the
finding of the trial court and the respondent appellate court that it is just and equitable for the
private respondent to recover expenses for litigation in the amount of P5,000.00. Article 22(4) of the
Warsaw Convention, as amended does not preclude an award of attorney's fees. That provision
states that the limits of liability prescribed in the instrument "shall not prevent the court from
awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and other
expenses of litigation incurred by the plaintiff." We, however, raise the award to P10,000.00
considering the resort to the Court of Appeals and this Court.

7. ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ARBITRARINESS, DISCRIMINATION


OR MISTREATMENT ON THE PART OF ITS PERSONNEL. — Passengers are also allowed one
handcarried bag each provided it conforms to certain prescribed dimensions. If Mr. Rapadas was not
allowed to handcarry the lost attaché case, it can only mean that he was carrying more than the
allowable weight for all his luggages or more than the allowable number of handcarried items or
more than the prescribed dimensions for the bag or valise. The evidence on any arbitrary behavior
of a Pan Am employee or inexcusable negligence on the part of the carrier is not clear from the
petition. Absent such proof, we cannot hold the carrier liable because of arbitrariness, discrimination,
or mistreatment.

Page 11 of 12
Robles v Santos

Doctrine:

1. If the damage or loss was not due to fortuitous events, force majeure or inherent nature and
defect of goods, but was traceable to the own negligence of the common carrier, then he is liable.

2. Provided that there is meeting of the minds and from such meeting arise rights and obligations,
there should be no limitations as to the form of the contract of carriage. Bill of lading is not essential
to the contract, although it may be obligatory by reason of the regulations of railroad companies or
as a condition imposed in the contract by agreement of that parties themselves.

Facts:
Plaintiff Rufina Robles brought the present action against defendant operator and driver Jose Santos
to recover the value of her lost goods. Sitting in the front seat of Santos’ old Roadster with her large
buri bag containing two bolts of cloth called “gris” and 10 undershirts, Robles was told by Santos to
transfer her baggage to the trunk compartment possibly because of its bulk. Robles objected because
it might get lost but later on agreed upon the reassurance of Santos that the compartment will be
locked. On the way to Manila, the compartment was opened from time to time as other passengers
got their baggages. Upon arrival in Bambang, Manila, Robles found that her bag with its contents is
missing.

Issue:
W/N defendant operator is liable

Held:
Yes. Judgment was modified as to amount of damages.

The defendant, being habitually engaged in transportation for the public, is bound and governed by
the Code of Commerce in his relations and responsibility to his passengers and their baggage or
goods. The last paragraph of Article 361 of the Code of Commerce, placing upon the carrier the
burden of proof to show that the loss or damage was caused by fortuitous events, force majeure or
inherent nature and defect of goods, implies that if the damage or loss was traceable to the own
negligence of the common carrier, then he is liable.

Had defendant allowed plaintiff to keep her bag near her and guard it, the loss would never have
occurred. There was misdelivery resulting in complete loss. The defendant as a carrier failed to
exercise the necessary supervision and care to prevent the loss.

On defendant’s contention that no bill of lading was issued and that he is thus not liable for loss, it
must be noted that the bill of lading is not indispensable. Provided that there is meeting of the minds
and from such meeting arise rights and obligations, there should be no limitations as to the form of
the contract of carriage. Bill of lading is not essential to the contract, although it may be obligatory by
reason of the regulations of railroad companies or as a condition imposed in the contract by
agreement of that parties themselves.

Page 12 of 12