RGDRG
RGDRG
RGDRG
ISSUE: W/N Dangwa should be held liable for the negligence of its
driver Theodore
Trial court ruling: The trial court ordered Prudent Security and
Escartin to jointly and severally pay the Navidads actual damages,
compensatory damages, indemnity for the death of Nicanor, moral
damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit. The court however
dismissed the complaint against LRTA and Roman for lack of merit.
Held: A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for
reason of public policy is duty bound to exercise utmost diligence in
ensuring the safety of the passengers. Article 1755 provide that a
common carrier is bound to varr the passenger safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using outmost diligence of a very
cautious person, with due regard for all circumstances. Furthermore,
Art 1759 of the Civil Code provide that common carriers are liable
fot the death and injuries to passengers through the negligence or
wilful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY vs. THE COURT
OF APPEALS and DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE AND
SURETY CORPORATION
Facts:
Issue:
Which laws govern the loss and destruction of goods due to collision
of vessels outside Philippine waters?
Ruling:
In a previously decided case, it was held that the law of the country
to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the
common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration
pursuant to Article 1753 of the Civil Code. It is immaterial that the
collision actually occurred in foreign waters, such as Ise Bay, Japan.
Since efforts to trace the missing luggage yielded negative results, (1) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs the sum of P200,000.00 for
Lufthansa informed Henry Alcantara accordingly and advised him to actual damages, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date
file a claim invoice (Exhibits "18" and "19"). of the filing of the complaint until the principal sum is fully paid;
(2) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 as Proclamation No. 201 signed by the late President Ramon
attorney's fees; and Magsaysay on September 23, 1965 made public the adherence of the
Republic of the Philippines to the said Warsaw Convention which
(3) Ordering defendant to pay the costs of suit. applies to all international transportation of persons, baggage or
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 62-63) goods performed by aircraft for hire. Since the contract between the
petitioner and respondent Henry H. Alcantara embodied in
The petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court. On Airwaybill No. 220-9776-2733 is one of international carriage by air,
May 31, 1984, the appellate promulgated its decision, the dispositive it is subject to the Warsaw Convention, which in Article 22 limits the
portion of which reads: liability of the carrier with respect to checked baggage to a sum of
250 French francs per kilo (equivalent to US $20.00/kilo) unless a
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed higher value has been declared in advance and additional charges are
from is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of paid by the passenger. Respondent Henry H. Alcantara having
P20,000.00 awarded as attorney's fees shall be deleted, the costs to admitted that he did not declare the value or contents of the missing
be borne by the respective parties. luggage, the liability of the petitioner is therefore limited by the
Warsaw Convention and the Airwaybill to US$20.00 per kilo.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 39).
The petitioner further argues that the award of P200,000.00 as actual
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the petition filed
damages is not borne by evidence. It insists that the testimonial and
the instant petition.
documentary evidence of respondent spouses failed to indicate the
The main issue in this case is whether or not the private respondents actual value of the alleged contents of the missing luggage and have
are entitled to an award of damages beyond the liability set forth in not presented actual proof as to the contents, total weight and value
the Warsaw Convention and in the Airwaybill of Lading. of the missing luggage as well as the actual damage they suffered
(Rollo, pp. 88-89, 95).
The petitioner contends that the Republic of the Philippines is a party
to the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to On the other hand, the private respondents maintain that the
International Transportation by Air," otherwise known as the petitioner, as found by the trial and appellate courts, waived the
Warsaw Convention. After the Senate of the Republic of the benefits of the Warsaw Convention when it offered a settlement in
Philippines, by its Resolution No. 19 of May 16, 1950, concurred in the amount of $200.00 which is much higher than what the
the adherence by the government of the Philippines to the said Convention prescribes and never raised timely objections during the
Convention, and after the government of the Republic of the trial to the introduction of evidence regarding the actual claims and
Philippines formally notified the government of the Republic of damages sustained by respondent Alcantara.
Poland of such adherence on November 9, 1950, Presidential
The private respondents also claim that in the trial of the case, they time, pointed out. Moreover, slight reflection readily leads to the
proved a loss of P200,000.00 and an expense of $15,000.00 in vainly conclusion that it should be deemed a limit of liability only in those
trying to locate the missing luggage all over Europe and the trial cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or destruction,
court awarded less than what was proven (Rollo, p. 118). loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable
to or attended by any wilfull misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or
The petition is without merit. otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee
The loss of one luggage belonging to the private respondents while for which the carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no special
the same was in the custody of the petitioner is not disputed. The or extraordinary form of resulting injury. The Convention's
contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public provisions, in short, do not "regulate or exclude liability for other
duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees could given breaches of contract by the carrier" or misconduct of its officers and
employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage.
ground for an action for damages (Zulueta v. Pan American World
Airways, Inc., 43 SCRA 37 [1972]). Common carriers are liable for Otherwise, "an air carrier would be exempt from any liability for
the missing goods for failure to comply with its duty (American damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in bad faith, to comply
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Macondray & Co., Inc., 39 SCRA 494 [171]). with a contract of carriage, which is absurd." Nor may it for a
moment be supposed that if a member of the aircraft complement
In Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (192 SCRA 9 [1990]) should inflict some physical injury on a passenger, or maliciously
where petitioner Alitalia as carrier failed to deliver a passenger's (Dr. destroy or damage the latter's property, the Convention might
Felipa Pablo's) baggage containing the papers she was scheduled to successfully be pleaded as the sole gauge to determine the carrier's
read and the materials which would have enabled her to make liability to the passenger. Neither may the Convention invoked to
scientific presentation (consisting of slides, autoradiograms or films, justify the disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting
tables and tabulations ) in a prestigious international conference in to a passenger and preclude recovery therefor beyond the limits set
Rome where she was invited to participate in the conference, by said Convention. It is in this sense that the Convention has been
extended by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in applied, or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts presented by
Food and Agriculture of the Untied Nations, as a consequence of each case.
which she failed to participate in the conference, this Court held that
the Warsaw Convention does not exclude liability for other breaches xxx xxx xxx
of contract by the carrier. Thus: In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be
The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration ascribed to the employees of petitioner airline; and Dr. Pablo's
of the instances of an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the luggage was eventually returned to her, belatedly, it is true, but
extent of that liability. Such a proposition is not borne out by the without appreciable damage. The fact is, nevertheless, that some
language of the Convention, as this Court has now, and at an earlier species of injury was caused to Dr. Pablo because petitioner
ALITALIA misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her at order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded
the time appointed a breach of its contract of carriage, to be sure by the defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the
with the result that she was unable to read the paper and make the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff that for any loss suffered
scientific presentation (consisting of slides, autoradiograms or films, and this Court agrees that the respondent Court of Appeals correctly
tables and tabulations) that she had painstakingly labored over, at the set the amount thereof at P40,000.00.
prestigious international conference, to attend which she had traveled
hundreds of miles, to her chagrin and embarrassment and the In the case at bar, the trial court found that: (a) petitioners airline has
disappointment and annoyance of the organizers. She felt, no not successfully refuted the presumption established by Article 1735
unreasonably, that the invitation for her to participate at the of the Civil Code that the loss of the luggage in question was due to
conference, extended by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic the negligence or fault of its employees; (b) the contents of the
Energy in Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, was a missing luggage of private respondents could not be replaced and
singular honor not only to herself, but to the University of the were assessed at P200,000.00 by the latter;
Philippines and the country as well, an opportunity to make some (c) respondent Henry Alcantara spent about $15,000.00 in trying to
sort of impression among her colleagues in that field of scientific locate said luggage in Frankfurt, Germany, London, United Kingdom
activity. The opportunity to claim this honor or distinction was and Hongkong;
irretrievably lost to her because of Alitalia's breach of its contract.
(d) there being no evidence to the contrary, the foregoing
Apart from this, there can be no doubt that Dr. Pablo underwent assessments made by private respondents were fair and reasonable;
profound distress and anxiety, which gradually turned to panic and and (e) private respondents were unable to present ample evidence to
finally despair, from the time she learned that her suitcases were prove fraud and bad faith and are therefore not entitled to moral
missing up to the time when, having gone to Rome, she finally damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code (Rollo, p. 61).
realized that she would no longer be able to take part in the
conference. As she herself put it, she "was really shocked and On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court's
distraught and confused." award of P200,000.00 as actual compensatory damages is well based
factually and legally (Rollo, p. 37) except as to the deletion of
Certainly, the compensation for the injury suffered by Dr. Pablo attorney's fees due to the absence of findings of gross and evident
cannot under the circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the bad faith (Rollo, p. 39).
Warsaw Convention for delay in the transport of baggage.
Under the circumstances, there appears to be no cogent reason to
She is not, of course, entitled to be compensated for loss or damage disturb the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of
to her luggage. As already mentioned, her baggage was ultimately Appeals.
delivered to her in Manila, tardily, but safely. She is however entitled
to nominal damages which, as the law says, is adjudicated in
Furthermore, the respondent court found that petitioner waived the WHEREFORE, the petition is Dismissed and the questioned decision
applicability of the Warsaw Convention to the case at bar when it and resolution of the appellate court are Affirmed. No costs.
offered private respondent a higher amount than that which is
provided in the said law and failed to raise timely objections during SO ORDERED.
the trial when questions and answers were brought out regarding the
actual claims and damages sustained by Alcantara which were even
subjected to lengthy cross examination by Lufthansa's counsel. In
Abrenica v. Gonda (34 Phil. 739), this Court held: