BRITISH AIRWAYS, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GOP MAHTANI, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, respondents.
GR 121824, 29 January 1998
FACTS: On 16 April 1989, GOP Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India. In anticipation of his visit, he obtained
the services of a certain Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans. The latter, in turn, purchased a ticket from British Airways (BA)
where the following itinerary was indicated (Manila [MNL], PR 310Y, 16 April, 1730H, Status OK; Hongkong [HKG] BA 20M,
16 April, 2100H, Status OK; Bombay [BOM], BA19M, 23 April, 0840H, Status OK; Hongkong [HKG], PR 311 Y; Manila
[MNL].”
Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight to Hongkong via Philippine Airlines (PAL),
and upon arrival in Hongkong he had to take a connecting flight to Bombay on board BA. Prior to his departure, Mahtani
checked in at the PAL counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothings and personal effects, confident that
upon reaching Hongkong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay. Unfortunately, when Mahtani
arrived in Bombay he discovered that his luggage was
missing and that upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been diverted to London. After
patiently waiting for his luggage for one week, BA finally advised him to file a claim by accomplishing the “Property Irregularity
Report.”
Back in the Philippines, specifically on 11 June 1990, Mahtani filed his complaint for damages and attorney’s fees against BA
and Mr. Gumar before the trial court (Civil Case CEB-9076). After appropriate proceedings and trial, on 4 March 1993, the trial
court rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani, ordering BA to pay Mahtani the sum of P7,000.00 for the value of the two (2) suit
cases; US$400.00 representing the value of the contents of Mahtani’s luggage; P50,000.00 Pesos for moral and actual damages
and 20% of the total amount imposed against BA for attorney’s fees and costs of the action. The Court dismissed BA’s third
party complaint against PAL.
Dissatisfied, BA appealed to the Court of Appeals.
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Hence, this petition asserting that that the award of compensatory damages and
attorney’s fees for the loss of Mahtanis two pieces of luggage was without basis since Mahtani failed to declare a higher
valuation with respect to his luggage, a condition provided for in the ticket, which reads“Liability for loss, delay, or damage to
baggage is limited unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid.”
Since Mahtani failed to declare a separate higher valuation for the luggage,and therefore, its liability is limited, at most, only to
the amount stated in the ticket.
ISSUE:
(1) What is the nature of airline’s contract of carriage
(2) Whether or not in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger is needed to recover a greater amount?
RULING:
(1) The nature of an airline’s contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: a contract to deliver a cargo or
merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers to their destination. A business intended to serve
the travelling public primarily, it is imbued with public interest, hence, the law governing common carriers imposes an
exacting standard. Neglect or malfeasance by the carrier’s employees could predictably furnish bases for an action for
damages.
(2) American jurisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an amount in excess of the
limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such tariff being binding on the passenger
regardless of the passenger’s lack of knowledge thereof or assent thereto. This doctrine is recognized in this
jurisdiction. However, the benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as when the air carrier failed to raise
timely objections during the trial when questions and answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the
passenger were asked.[23] The inescapable conclusion that BA had waived the defense of limited liability when it
allowed Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to misplacement of his luggage, without any
objection. It is a well-settled doctrine that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party
to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. However, such right is a mere privilege which can
be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, in case of silence when there is
opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections.
