Home

Law Firm

Law Library

Laws

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > March 1992 Decisions > G.R.
No. 92501 March 6, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 92501. March 6, 1992.]

 PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ISIDRO
CO., Respondents.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Petitioner.

Carlos R. de Castro for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; NOT A TRIER OF FACTS. — Whether or not the lost
luggage was ever retrieved by the passenger, and whether or not the actual and
exemplary damages awarded by the court to him are reasonable, are factual issues
which we may not pass upon in the absences of special circumstances requiring a review
of the evidence.

2. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIER; LIABILITY OF CARRIER FOR THE LOSS,

DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION OF GOODS TRANSPORTED; GOVERNING LAWS;
CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner contends that under the Warsaw Convention, its liability, if
any, cannot exceed US $20.00 based on weight as private respondent Co did not declare
the contents of his baggage nor pay additional charges before the flight. We find no
merit in that contention. In Samar Mining Company, Inc. v. Nordeutscher Lloyd (132
SCRA 529), this Court ruled: "The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction
or deterioration of goods transported from a foreign country to the Philippines is
governed primarily by the New Civil Code. In all matters not regulated by said Code, the
rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce
and by Special Laws." Since the passenger’s destination in this case was the Philippines,
Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier for the loss of the passenger’s luggage.

3. ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; JUSTIFIED IN CASE OF FAILURE TO SATISFY JUST AND

VALID DEMANDABLE CLAIM. — The award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to
the private respondent was justified. In the cases of Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. Simon,
(122 Phil. 189) and Bert Osmeña and Associates v. CA, (120 SCRA 396), the appellant
was awarded attorney’s fees because of appellee’s failure to satisfy the former’s just and
valid demandable claim which forced the appellant to litigate. Likewise, in the case of
Phil. Surety and Ins. Co., Inc. v. Royal Oil Products, (102 Phil. 326), this Court justified
the grant of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the petitioner’s failure, even
refusal, to pay the private respondent’s valid claim.
 DECISION

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision dated July 19, 1989 of the Court of Appeals affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City which awarded P72,766.02 as damages and
attorney’s fees to private respondent Isidro Co for the loss of his checked-in baggage as a
passenger of petitioner airline.
chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The findings of the trial court, which were adopted by the appellate court, are: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At about 5:30 a.m. on April 17, 1985, plaintiff [Co], accompanied by his wife and son, arrived at
the Manila International Airport aboard defendant airline’s PAL Flight No. 107 from San Francisco,
California, U.S.A. Soon after his embarking (sic), plaintiff proceeded to the baggage retrieval area
to claim his nine pieces of checked-in luggage with the corresponding claim checks in his
possession. Plaintiff found eight of his luggage, but despite diligent search, he failed to locate the
ninth luggage, with claim check number 729113 which is the one in question in this case.

"Plaintiff then immediately notified defendant company through its employee, Willy Guevarra, who
was then in charge of the PAL claim counter at the airport. Willy Guevarra, who testified during the
trial court on April 11, 1986, filled up a printed form known as a Property Irregularity Report
(Exh.’A’), acknowledging one of the plaintiff’s luggages to be missing (Exh.’A-1’), and signed it
after asking plaintiff himself to sign the same document (Exh.’A-2’). In accordance with his
procedure in cases if this nature, Willy Guevarra asked plaintiff to surrender to him the nine claim
checks corresponding to the nine luggages, i.e., including the one that was missing.

"The incontestable evidence further shows that plaintiff’s lost luggage was a Samsonite suitcase
measuring about 62 inches in length, worth about US $200.00 and containing various personal
effects purchased by plaintiff and his wife during their stay in the United States and similar other
items sent by their friends abroad to be given as presents to relatives in the Philippines. Plaintiff’s
invoices evidencing their purchases show their missing personal effects to be worth US $1,243.01,
in addition to the presents entrusted to them by their friends which plaintiff testified to be worth
about US $500.00 to US $600.00 (Exhs.’D,’ ‘D-1,’ to ‘D-17,’ tsn, p. 9, July 11, 1985; pp. 5-14,
March 7, 1986).

"Plaintiff on several occasions unrelentingly called at defendant’s office in order to pursue his
complaint about his missing luggage but to no avail. Thus, on April 15, 1985, plaintiff through his
lawyer wrote a demand letter to defendant company through Rebecca V. Santos, its manager,
Central Baggage Services (Exhs.’B’ & ‘B-1’). On April 17, 1985, Rebecca Santos replied to the
demand letter (Exh.’B’) acknowledging ‘that to date we have been unable to locate your client’s
(plaintiff’s) baggage despite our careful search’ and requesting plaintiff’s counsel to ‘please extend
to him our sincere apologies for the inconvenience he was caused by this unfortunate incident’
(Exh.’C’). Despite the letter (Exh.’C’), however, defendants never found plaintiff’s missing luggage
or paid its corresponding value. Consequently, on May 3, 1985, plaintiff filed his present complaint
against said defendants." (pp. 38-40, Rollo.)

Co sued the airline for damages. The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City found the defendant airline
(now petitioner) liable, and rendered judgment on June 3, 1986, the dispositive portion of which
reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendant Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay
plaintiff Isidro Co: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1) P42,766.02 by way of actual damages;

"2) P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;

"3) P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees;

all in addition to the costs or the suit.

"Defendants’ counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." (p. 40, Rollo.)

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court’s award.

In his petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, petitioner alleges that the appellate
court erred: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. in affirming the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner’s retrieval baggage report was a
fabrication;

2. in not applying the limits of liability under the Warsaw Convention which limits the liability of an
air carrier for loss, delay or damage to checked-in baggage to US $20.00 based on weight; and

3. in awarding private respondent Isidro Co actual and exemplary damages attorney’s fees, and
costs.

The first and third assignments of error raise purely factual issues which are not reviewable by this
Court (Sec. 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court). The Court reviews only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth in the petition. (Hodges v. People, 68 Phil. 178.) The probative value of
petitioner’s retrieval report was passed upon by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, whose
finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In this respect, it is further argued that appellee should produce his claim tag if he had not
surrendered it because there was no baggage received. It appeared, however, that appellee
surrendered all the nine claim checks corresponding to the nine luggages, including the one that
was missing, to the PAL officer after accomplishing the Property Irregularity Report. Therefore, it
could not be possible for appellee to produce the same in court. It is now for appellant airlines to
produce the veracity of their Baggage Retrieval Report by corroborating evidence other than
testimonies of their employees. Such document is within the control of appellant and necessarily
requires other corroborative evidence. Since there is no compelling reason to reverse the factual
findings of the lower court, this Court resolves not to disturb the same." (p. 41, Rollo.)

Whether or not the lost luggage was ever retrieved by the passenger, and whether or not the
actual and exemplary damages awarded by the court to him are reasonable, are factual issues
which we may not pass upon in the absence of special circumstances requiring a review of the
evidence. chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

In Alitalia v. IAC (192 SCRA 9, 18, citing Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, 164 SCRA 268),
the Warsaw Convention limiting the carrier’s liability was applied because of a simple loss of
baggage without any improper conduct on the part of the officials or employees of the airline, or
other special injury sustained by the passengers. The petitioner therein did not declare a higher
value for his luggage, much less did he pay an additional transportation charge. chanrobles law library : red

Petitioner contends that under the Warsaw Convention, its liability, if any, cannot exceed US
$20.00 based on weight as private respondent Co did not declare the contents of his baggage nor
pay additional charges before the flight (p. 3, tsn, July 18, 1985).

We find no merit in that contention. In Samar Mining Company, Inc. v. Nordeutscher Lloyd (132
SCRA 529), this Court ruled: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods transported
from a foreign country to the Philippines is governed primarily by the New Civil Code. In all
matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be
governed by the Code of Commerce and by Special Laws." cralaw virtua1aw library

The provisions of the New Civil Code on common carriers are Articles 1733, 1735 and 1753 which
provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of
the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case." cralaw virtua1aw library

"Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article
if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required in article 1733.

"Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the
liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration."
cralaw virtua1aw library

Since the passenger’s destination in this case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the
liability of the carrier for the loss of the passenger’s luggage.

In this case, the petitioner failed to overcome, not only the presumption, but more importantly,
the private respondent’s evidence, proving that the carrier’s negligence was the proximate cause
of the loss of his baggage. Furthermore, petitioner acted in bad faith in faking a retrieval receipt to
bail itself out of having to pay Co’s claim.

The Court of Appeals therefore did not err in disregarding the limits of liability under the Warsaw
Convention.

The award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to the private respondent was justified. In
the cases of Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. Simon, 122 Phil. 189 and Bert Osmeña and Associates v.
CA, 120 SCRA 396, the appellant was awarded attorney’s fees because of appellee’s failure to
satisfy the former’s just and valid demandable claim which forced the appellant to litigate.
Likewise, in the case of Phil. Surety and Ins. Co., Inc. v. Royal Oil Products, 102 Phil. 326, this
Court justified the grant of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the petitioner’s failure,
even refusal, to pay the private respondent’s valid claim.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J. and Medialdea, J., concur.

Cruz, J., took no part.

 Back to Home | Back to Main

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

 Squarespace
Website Builder

Make and manage your

own professional
website with
Squarespace's all-in-one
platform.
 Squarespace
Website Builder

Make and manage your

own professional
website with
Squarespace's all-in-one
platform.

italian village

german restaurant

waiter service

supreme court

village bus lines

 supreme court

village bus lines

insurance lawyer

pamar village

business lawyer

italian suits

metro restaurant

arbitration law

bond rates

civil lawyer

March-1992 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 86150 March 2, 1992 - GUMAN, BOCALING & CO. v. RAOUL S.V.
BONNEVIE

A.M. No. P-88-255 March 3, 1992 - MANUEL U. DEL ROSARlO v. JOSE T. BASCAR,
JR., ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 46460-61 March 3, 1992 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. AMADO G.

INCIONG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 - GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO

CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 85479 March 3, 1992 - PERFECTO ESPAÑOL v. CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93003 March 3, 1992 - CARMELITA REYES v. EMPLOYEES’

COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I.

SANTIAGO

G.R. No. 95696 March 3, 1992 - ALFONSO S. TAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 101753 March 3, 1992 - CIPRIANO PEÑAFLORIDA v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-42987 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE REBULADO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 84363 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO B. ALILIN, ET
AL.

G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 March 4, 1992 - DANIEL GARCIA, ET AL. v.
ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91745 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO MANLIGUEZ, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 96607 March 4, 1992 - OSCAR QUILOÑA v. GENERAL COURT MARTIAL,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 97296 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. CANCILLER

G.R. Nos. 102653, 102925, 102983 March 5, 1992 - NATIONAL PRESS CLUB v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 58879 March 6, 1992 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’

COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 62088 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SAMILLANO

G.R. No. 66641 March 6, 1992 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 77744 March 6, 1992 - TEODORA CLAVERIAS v. ADORACION QUINGCO,

ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 89983-84 March 6, 1992 - LORENZO S. MENDIOLA v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. 92501 March 6, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 92878 March 6, 1992 - EDUARDO PATNA-AN v. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93851 March 6, 1992 - MARK BAYQUEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94530 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DONATO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992 - CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR. v. JOB B.

MADAYAG, ET AL.
 G.R. Nos. 95370 & 101227 March 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v.
EFREN O. RAMOS, ET AL.

A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., v.
OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN

G.R. No. 40243 March 11, 1992 - CELESTINO TATEL v. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47815 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v.
TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84612 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO AVILA, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 86744 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO
BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91662 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO AGUILUZ

G.R. No. 94129 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RIVERA

G.R. No. 95594 March 11, 1992 - ITALIAN VILLAGE RESTAURANT, ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 57630 March 13, 1992 - CLARA BADAYOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100926 March 13, 1992 - INDEPENDENT SAGAY-ESCALANTE PLANTERS,

INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

A.M. No. 3216 March 16, 1992 - DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO v. JOSEPHINE
PALOGAN EDUARTE

G.R. Nos. 74306 & 74315 March 16, 1992 - ENRIQUE RAZON v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91122 March 16, 1992 - DIONY RAPIZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93234 March 16, 1992 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94803 March 16, 1992 - TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE
COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95692 March 16, 1992 - SUNDAY MACHINE WORKS, INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 98030 March 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO J. CUADRA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 85469 March 18, 1992 - JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 87148 March 18, 1992 - MARCIANA CONSIGNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94810 March 18, 1992 - EASTERN METROPOLITAN BUS CORP., ET AL. v.
EDILBERTO PANGAN, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992 - PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97357 March 18, 1992 - VIRON GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, CO., INC.,
ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100727 March 18, 1992 - COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 71238 March 19, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75308 March 23, 1992 - LOPE SARREAL, SR. v. JAPAN AIR LINES CO.,
LTD., ET AL.

G.R. No. 75907 March 23, 1992 - FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE
PHIL., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 80658-60 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO
TINAMPAY, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90519 March 23, 1992 - UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90527 March 23, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BAAO, INC., ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 92442-43 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR DELA
CRUZ

G.R. No. 92740 March 23, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. JAIME J. RAMOS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 95022 March 23, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992 - ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97346 March 23, 1992 - RODOLFO YOSORES v. EMPLOYEES’

COMPENSATION COMMISSION

G.R. No. 101367 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.
 G.R. Nos. 83583-84 March 25, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.
RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84220 March 25, 1992 - BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA C.
PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 88942 March 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO S. CARPIO

A.M. No. RTJ-87-98 March 26, 1992 - AMELIA B. JUVIDA v. MANUEL SERAPIO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 93044 March 26, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE

PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL WAGES COUNCIL, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96697 March 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME COMPETENTE,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 45425 & 45965 March 27, 1992 - CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ET AL. v.
ERNESTO TENGCO, ET AL.

A.C. No. 3724 March 31, 1992 - JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO v. RAMON J.

QUISUMBING, ET AL.

G.R. No. 64220 March 31, 1992 - SEARTH COMMODITIES CORPORATION, ET AL.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 68319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS DELA CRUZ, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 76225 March 31, 1992 - ESPIRIDION TANPINGCO v. INTERMEDIATE

APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 87710 March 31, 1992 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. BOARD OF

ADMINISTRATORS OF TELEVISION STATIONS RPN, BBC AND IBC

G.R. No. 94071 March 31, 1992 - NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO ARCEGA

G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992 - FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 101556 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ESTERA

G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992 - BLO UMPAR ADIONG v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz