Scribd
Upload
227 views1 page

PAL Luggage Loss Case Analysis

1. Ong Yiu was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. Upon arrival, his checked luggage could not be found. PAL made efforts to locate the luggage, determining it had been misdirected to Manila and would be forwarded to Cebu. However, the luggage did not arrive in Butuan before Ong Yiu's scheduled trial. 2. The Supreme Court found no gross negligence by PAL, as they took prompt actions to locate the luggage and arrange for its transport. 3. The Court also applied the limited liability doctrine from the conditions printed on the back of Ong Yiu's ticket, capping PAL's liability at P100 since he did

Uploaded by

Glenn Mikko Mendiola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
227 views1 page

PAL Luggage Loss Case Analysis

1. Ong Yiu was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. Upon arrival, his checked luggage could not be found. PAL made efforts to locate the luggage, determining it had been misdirected to Manila and would be forwarded to Cebu. However, the luggage did not arrive in Butuan before Ong Yiu's scheduled trial. 2. The Supreme Court found no gross negligence by PAL, as they took prompt actions to locate the luggage and arrange for its transport. 3. The Court also applied the limited liability doctrine from the conditions printed on the back of Ong Yiu's ticket, capping PAL's liability at P100 since he did

Uploaded by

Glenn Mikko Mendiola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ong Yiu v.

Court of Appeals
R. No. L-40597, 29 June 1979, 91 SCRA 223
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

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 over carried 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 revelead that the documents were lost. Ong Yiu demanded from PAL
Cebu actual and compensatory damages as an incident of breach of contract of carriage.

ISSUES:
1. WON there was gross negligence on the part of PAL.
2. WON the doctrine of limited liability doctrine applies in the instant case.

HELD:
No. There was no gross negligence on the part of PAL. Bad faith means a breach of a known
duty through some motive of interest or ill will. It was PAL’s duty to look for petitioner’s
luggage which had been done. PAL exerted due diligence in complying with such duty. SC
agreed with CA’s finding that no bad faith on PAL’s part because: a) PAL Butuan
communicated the loss to PAL Cebu in less than an hour after Ong Yiu’s luggage cannot be
located; b) Cebu also immediately relayed the information to PAL Manila; c) Upon discovery
that the luggage was overcarried to Manila, it was sent bag to Cebu in the afternoon of the
same day.

Yes. 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.

You might also like