Scribd
Upload
311 views2 pages

Airline Baggage Liability Case

PAL vs. CA and Isidro Co concerned a passenger, Isidro Co, who arrived at Manila International Airport from San Francisco aboard a PAL flight with his wife and son. Upon baggage retrieval, one of Co's checked bags was missing. Co sued PAL for the loss, and was awarded damages and attorney's fees by the RTC and CA. PAL argued its liability was limited to $20 under the Warsaw Convention. However, the Supreme Court held that under Philippine law, which governs as the passenger's destination was the Philippines, PAL is presumed at fault for lost baggage unless it can prove extraordinary diligence was observed. The Court also upheld the award of actual damages, exemplary damages

Uploaded by

JenniferPizarrasCadiz-Carulla
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
311 views2 pages

Airline Baggage Liability Case

PAL vs. CA and Isidro Co concerned a passenger, Isidro Co, who arrived at Manila International Airport from San Francisco aboard a PAL flight with his wife and son. Upon baggage retrieval, one of Co's checked bags was missing. Co sued PAL for the loss, and was awarded damages and attorney's fees by the RTC and CA. PAL argued its liability was limited to $20 under the Warsaw Convention. However, the Supreme Court held that under Philippine law, which governs as the passenger's destination was the Philippines, PAL is presumed at fault for lost baggage unless it can prove extraordinary diligence was observed. The Court also upheld the award of actual damages, exemplary damages

Uploaded by

JenniferPizarrasCadiz-Carulla
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/ 2

PAL vs.  CA and ISIDRO CO,   G.R. No.

92501 March 6, 1992

Facts:  Petitioner Co arrived in Manila International Airport aboard PAL with his wife
and son from San Francisco California to Manila. Upon arrival, plaintiff proceeded to
baggage retrieval. The luggage in-charge Willy Guevarra asked plaintiff to surrender his
(9) claim stub but Plaintiff found only 8 luggage . The ninth baggage was missing
despite diligent search.  The loss baggage contains personal belongings worth about 
US$500.00 to US$600.00  Private respondent Isidro Co sue PAL for the loss of his
checked-in baggage which RTC awarded damages and attorneys fees. CA Affirmed in
toto.
PAL defense of limited liability:  Petitioner contends that under the Warsaw Convention,
its liability, if any, cannot exceed US $20.00 based on weight as private respondent Co
did not declare the contents of his baggage nor pay traditional charges before the
flight .  In Alitalia vs. IAC (192 SCRA 9, 18, citing Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs.
IAC 164 SCRA 268), the Warsaw Convention limiting the carrier's liability was applied
because of a simple loss of baggage without any improper conduct on the part of the
officials or employees of the airline, or other special injury sustained by the passengers.
The petitioner therein did not declare a higher value for his luggage, much less did he
pay an additional transportation charge.
Issue:

1. Whether or not CA is correct in not applying the limit of liability under the
Warsaw Convention which limits the liability of an air carrier of loss, delay or
damage to checked-in baggage to US$20.00 based on weight;  

HELD:
Yes,  In Samar Mining Company, Inc. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd (132 SCRA 529), this
Court ruled:

The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or deterioration
of goods transported from a foreign country to the Philippines is governed
primarily by the New Civil Code. In all matters not regulated by said Code,
the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the
Code of Commerce and by Special Laws.

The provisions of the New Civil Code on common carriers are Articles 1733, 1735 and
1753 which provide:

Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
of the preceding article if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as required in article 1733.

Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported
shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or
deterioration.

Since the passenger's destination in this case was the Philippines, Philippine law
governs the liability of the carrier for the loss of the passenger's luggage.

Issue No. 2: 


Whether or not the CA is correct in  awarding private respondent Isidro Co actual and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Yes, The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees to the private respondent
was justified. In the cases of Imperial Insurance, Inc. vs. Simon, 122 Phil. 189 and Bert
Osmeña and Associates vs. CA, 120 SCRA 396, the appellant was awarded attorney's
fees because of appellee's failure to satisfy the former's just and valid demandable
claim which forced the appellant to litigate. Likewise, in the case of Phil. Surety Ins. Co.,
Inc. vs. Royal Oil Products, 102 Phil. 326, this Court justified the grant of exemplary
damages and attorney's fees to the petitioner's failure, even refusal, to pay the private
respondent's valid claim.

You might also like