Sabena
Belgian vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 38, G.R. No. 104685, March 14, 1996
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
On August 21, 1987, plaintiff was a passenger on board Flight SN 284 of
defendant airline originating from Casablanca to Brussels, Belgium on her way
back to Manila. Plaintiff checked in her luggage which contained her valuables,
namely: jewelry valued at $2,350.00; clothes $1,500.00 shoes/bag $150;
accessories $75; luggage itself $10.00; or a total of $4,265.00, for which she
was issued Tag No. 71423. She stayed overnight in Brussels and her luggage was
left on board Flight SN 284.
Plaintiff arrived at Manila International Airport on September 2, 1987
and immediately submitted her Tag No. 71423 to facilitate the release of her
luggage but the luggage was missing. She was advised to accomplish and submit a
property Irregularity Report which she submitted and filed on the same day.
She followed up her claim on September 14, 1987 but the luggage remained
to be missing.
On September 15, 1987, she filed her formal complaint with the office of
Ferge Massed, defendant's Local Manager, demanding immediate attention.
On September 30, 1987, on the occasion of plaintiffs following up of her
luggage claim, she was furnished copies of defendant's telexes with an
information that the Burssel's Office of defendant found the luggage and that
they have broken the locks for identification. Plaintiff was assured by the
defendant that it has notified its Manila Office that the luggage will be
shipped to Manila on October 27, 1987. But unfortunately plaintiff was informed
that the luggage was lost for the second time.
At the time of the filing of the complaint, the luggage with its content
has not been found.
Plaintiff demanded from the defendant the money value of the luggage and
its contents amounting to $4,265.00 or its exchange value, but defendant
refused to settle the claim.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the loss even though respondent
was not able to declare the valuables.
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is liable for the loss even though the respondent was not able to declare the valuables.
Under the law that from the very nature of their business and by reasons
of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. This extraordinary
responsibility, according to Art. 1736, lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of and received by the carrier until
they are delivered actually or constructively to the consignee or person who
has the right to receive them. Art. 1737 states that the common carrier's duty
to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported
by them remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily
unloaded or stored in transit. And Art. 1735 establishes the presumption that
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
had observed extraordinary diligence
In this case, remained undisputed that private respondent's luggage was
lost while it was in the custody of petitioner. Given all the facts, SC sustained
the trial court’s finding that the petitioner is ultimately guilty of
"gross negligence" in the handling of private respondent's luggage.
The "loss of said baggage not only once but twice. It underscores the
wanton negligence and lack of care on the part of the carrier.
No comments:
Post a Comment