Ong Yiu v. CA, 180 Phil.
185 (1979)
FACTS:
On August 26, 1967, petitioner was a fare paying passenger of respondent Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
(PAL), on board Flight No. 463-R, from Mactan, Cebu, bound for Butuan City . He was scheduled to
attend the trial of Civil Case No. 1005 and Spec. Procs. No. 1125 in the Court of First Instance, Branch II,
thereat, set for hearing on August 28-31, 1967. As a passenger, he checked in one piece of luggage, a
blue "maleta" for which he was issued Claim Check No. 2106-R (Exh. "A").
The plane left Mactan Airport, Cebu, at about 1:00 o’clock P.M., and arrived at Bancasi airport, Butuan
City, at past 2:00 o’clock P.M., of the same day. Upon arrival, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could
not be found. According to petitioner, it was only after reacting indignantly to the loss that the matter
was attended to by the porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, which, however, the latter denies. At about 3:00
o’clock P.M., PAL Butuan, sent a message to PAL, Cebu, inquiring about the missing luggage, which
message was, in turn, relayed in full to the Mactan Airport teletype operator at 3:45 P.M. (Exh. "2") that
same afternoon. It must have been transmitted to Manila immediately, for at 3:59 that same afternoon,
PAL Manila wired PAL Cebu advising that the luggage had been overcarried to Manila aboard Flight No.
156 and that it would be forwarded to Cebu on Flight No. 345 of the same day. Instructions were also
given that the luggage be immediately forwarded to Butuan City on the first available flight (Exh. "3"). At
5:00 P.M. of the same afternoon, PAL Cebu sent a message to PAL Butuan that the luggage would be
forwarded on Flight No. 963 the following day, August 27, 1967. However, this message was not
received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had already left since there were no more incoming flights
that afternoon.
In the meantime, petitioner was worried about the missing luggage because it contained vital
documents needed for trial the next day. At 10:00 o’clock that evening, petitioner wired PAL Cebu
demanding the delivery of his baggage before noon the next day, otherwise, he would hold PAL liable
for damages, and stating that PAL’s gross negligence had caused him undue inconvenience, worry,
anxiety and extreme embarrassment (Exh. "B"). This telegram was received by the Cebu PAL supervisor
but the latter felt no need to wire petitioner that his luggage had already been forwarded on the
assumption that by the time the message reached Butuan City, the luggage would have arrived.
Early in the morning of the next day, August 27, 1967, petitioner went to the Bancasi Airport to inquire
about his luggage. He did not wait, however, for the morning flight which arrived at 10:00 o’clock that
morning. This flight carried the missing luggage. The porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, paged petitioner,
but the latter had already left.
A certain Emilio Dagorro, a driver of a "colorum" car, who also used to drive for petitioner, volunteered
to take the luggage to petitioner. As Maximo Gomez knew Dagorro to be the same driver used by
petitioner whenever the latter was in Butuan City, Gomez took the luggage and placed it on the
counter. Dagorro examined the lock, pressed it, and it opened. After calling the attention of Maximo
Gomez, the "maleta" was opened, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did not touch them . Dagorro
then delivered the "maleta" to petitioner, with the information that the lock was open.
Upon inspection, petitioner found that a folder containing certain exhibits, transcripts and private
documents in Civil Case No. 1005 and Sp. Procs. No. 1126 were missing, aside from two gift items for
his parents-in-law. Petitioner refused to accept the luggage. Dagorro returned it to the porter clerk,
Maximo Gomez, who sealed it and forwarded the same to PAL Cebu.
Meanwhile, petitioner asked for postponement of the hearing of Civil Case No. 1005 due to loss of his
documents, which was granted by the Court (Exhs. "C" and "C-1"). Petitioner returned to Cebu City on
August 28, 1967. In a letter dated August 29, 1967 addressed to PAL, Cebu, petitioner called attention to
his telegram (Exh. "D"), demanded that his luggage be produced intact, and that he be compensated in
the sum of P250,000.00 for actual and moral damages within five days from receipt of the letter,
otherwise, he would be left with no alternative but to file suit (Exh. "D").
On August 31, 1967, Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi, and Agustin, all of PAL Cebu, went to petitioner’s office
to deliver the "maleta." In the presence of Mr. Jose Yap and Atty. Manuel Maranga, the contents were
listed and receipted for by petitioner (Exh. "E").
On September 5, 1967, petitioner sent a tracer letter to PAL Cebu inquiring about the results of the
investigation which Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi and Agustin had promised to conduct to pinpoint
responsibility for the unauthorized opening of the "maleta".
The following day, September 6, 1967, PAL sent its reply hereinunder quoted: “We regret to inform you
that to date we have not found the supposedly lost folder of papers nor have we been able to pinpoint
the personnel who allegedly pilferred your baggage. "You must realize that no inventory was taken of
the cargo upon loading them on any plane. Consequently, we have no way of knowing the real
contents of your baggage when same was loaded.”
On September 13, 1967, petitioner filed a Complaint against PAL for damages for breach of contract of
transportation with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch V, docketed as Civil Case No. R-10188,
which PAL traversed.
CFI: found PAL to have acted in bad faith and with malice and declared petitioner entitled to
moral damages in the gum of P80,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, attorney’s fees of
P5,000.00, and costs.
CA: finding that PAL was guilty only of simple negligence, reversed the judgment of the trial
Court granting petitioner moral and exemplary damages, but ordered PAL to pay plaintiff the
sum of P100.00, the baggage liability assumed by it under the condition of carriage printed at
the back of the ticket.
ISSUE:
a. Did the CA commit grave error when it limited PAL’s carriage liability to the amount of P100.00 as
stipulated at the back of the ticket?
RULING:
a. NO. We agree with the foregoing finding. The pertinent Condition of Carriage printed at the back
of the plane ticket reads:
"8. BAGGAGE LIABILITY . . . The total liability of the Carrier for lost or damaged baggage of
the passenger is LIMITED TO P100.00 for each ticket unless a passenger declares a higher
valuation in excess of P100.00, but not in excess, however, of a total valuation of P1,000.00
and additional charges are paid pursuant to Carrier’s tariffs."
There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for his luggage, much less
did he pay any additional transportation charge.
But petitioner argues that there is nothing in the evidence to show that he had actually entered
into a contract with PAL limiting the latter’s liability for loss or delay of the baggage of its
passengers, and that Article 1750 * of the Civil Code has not been complied with.
While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket (Exh. "12"), he is
nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a part of
the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter’s
lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation."
It is what is known as a contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts
of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the
plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to
the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent . And as
held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein v. Trans
World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation
does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own
negligence."
Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he
cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00. Besides, passengers are advised not to
place valuable items inside their baggage but "to avail of our V-cargo service" (Exh. "1"). It is
likewise to be noted that there is nothing in the evidence to show the actual value of the goods
allegedly lost by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Petition is hereby denied, and the judgment sought to be
reviewed hereby affirmed in toto.
