Case Digest: PAL v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 100, G.R. No. 92501

 

PAL v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 100, G.R. No. 92501, 6 March 1992

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Isidro Co, plaintiff, 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, plaintiff proceeded to the baggage retrieval area to claim his checks in his possession. Plaintiff found eight of his luggage, but despite diligent search, he failed to locate 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 the printed form known as a Property Irregularity Report, acknowledging one of the plaintiff's luggage to be missing, and signed after asking plaintiff himself to sign the same document. In accordance with this procedure in cases of this nature, Willy Guevarra asked plaintiff to surrender to him the nine claim checks corresponding to the nine luggage, i.e., including the one that was missing.

Plaintiff on several occasions unrelentingly called at defendant's office in order to pursue his complaint about his missing luggage but no avail. Thus, on April 15, 1985, plaintiff through his lawyer wrote a demand letter to defendant company though Rebecca V. Santos, its manager, Central Baggage Services. Despite the letter of apology from the inconvenience, however, defendants never found plaintiff's missing luggage or paid its corresponding value. Consequently, in May 1985, plaintiff filed his present complaint against said defendants.

RTC rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff. CA affirmed RTC decision in toto. Hence this petition.

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 traditional charges before the flight.

ISSUE                                                                                           

Whether or not CA erred in disregarding the limit of liability under the Warsaw Convention which limits the liability of an air carrier of loss, delay or damage to checked-in baggage to US$20.00 based on weight.

RULING

No, it is not applicable.

Under the law, 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.

In this case, 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 as contemplated in Articles 1733, 1735 and 1753 of the Civil Code. 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. Therefore, CA did not err in disregarding the limits of liability under the Warsaw Convention.