NAME: Meracap, Joshua N
SECTION: JD1-D
SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS
I. FACTS
The case involves the issue of Sabena Belgian World Airlines (SBWA) liability for
lost luggage. The plaintiff’s flight was from Casablanca to Brussels, then Brussels to
Manila. The plaintiff arrived at Manila on September 2, 1987, she then immediately
submitted her Tag No 71423 to facilitate the release of her luggage but her luggage was
missing. She was advised to accomplish and submit a property Irregularity Report which
she submitted and filed on the same day. She felt relieved when, on October 23, 1987, she
was advised that her luggage had finally been found, with its contents intact when waited
anxiously only to be told later that her luggage had been lost for the second time.
The plaintiff followed up her claim on Septembers 14, 1987 but the luggage
remained to be missing. Plaintiff demanded from the defendant the money value of the
luggage and its contents, but defendant refused to settle the claim.
Petitioner airline claims that negligence of private respondent should be considered
the primary cause for the loss of her luggage since the flight ticket she had was only for
Casablanca and Brussels, and that her flight from Brussels to Manila had yet to be
confirmed, she did not retrieve the luggage upon arrival in Brussels.
The trial court rendered judgment ordering the petitioner Sabena Belgian World
Airlines to pay private respondent damages. The decision was then affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
II. ISSUES
Whether or not Sabena is guilty of gross negligence in the handling of
private respondent’s luggage.
III. RULING
Yes, Sabena Airlines is guilty of gross negligence in the handling of the
private respondent’s luggage. The Court held that Under domestic law and
jurisprudence (the Philippines being the country of destination), the attendance of gross
negligence (given the equivalent of fraud or bad faith) holds the common carrier liable for
all damages which can be reasonably attribute, although unforeseen, to the non-
performance of the obligation, including moral and exemplary damages.
IV. ANALYSIS
Even when the contract is breached by tort although non-contradictory principles on
quasi-delict may then be assimilated as also forming part of the governing law. Petitioner
is not thus entirely off track when it has likewise raised in its defense the tort doctrine of
proximate cause. Unfortunately for petitioner, however, the doctrine cannot, in this
particular instance, support its case. Proximate cause is that which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and
without which the result would not have occurred.
In the case at bar, it remained undisputed that private respondent’s luggage was lost
while it was in the custody of petitioner. It was supposed to arrive on the same flight that
private respondent took in returning to Manila on 02 September 1987. When she
discovered that the luggage was missing, she promptly accomplished and filed a Property
Irregularity Report. She followed up her claim on 14 September 1987, and filed, on the
following day, a formal letter-complaint with petitioner. She felt relieved when, on 23
October 1987, she was advised that her luggage had finally been found, with its contents
intact when waited anxiously only to be told later that her luggage had been lost for the
second time. Thus, the appellate court, given all the facts before it, sustained the trial
court in finding petitioner ultimately guilty of "gross negligence" in the handling of
private respondent’s luggage. The "loss of said baggage not only once by twice," said the
appellate court, "underscore the wanton negligence and lack of care" on the part of the
carrier.
V. CONCLUSION
The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed by the Supreme Court and held that
the Sabena Airlines is guilty of gross negligence in the handling of the private
respondent’s luggage, them being the carrier has full custody of the luggage and
has the responsibility to return the said luggage to the owner.
