7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for petitioner.
     Carlos R. de Castro for private respondent.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision dated July 19,

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1989 of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the
Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court of Pasay City which awarded
P72,766.02 as damages and attorney’s fees to private
*
respondent Isidro Co for the loss of his checked-in baggage
G.R. No. 92501. March 6, 1992.
as a passenger of petitioner airline.
The findings of the trial court, which were adopted by
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF the appellate court, are:
APPEALS and ISIDRO CO, respondents.
“At about 5:30 a.m. on April 17, 1985, plaintiff [Co], accompanied
by his wife and son, arrived at the Manila International Airport
Transportation; Common Carriers; Damages; Limits of
aboard defendant airline’s PAL Flight No. 107 from San
liability under the Warsaw Convention not applicable.—Petitioner
Francisco, California, U.S.A. Soon after his enbarking (sic),
contends that under the Warsaw Convention, its liability, if any,
plaintiff proceeded to the baggage retrieval area to claim his nine
cannot exceed US $20.00 based on weight as private respondent
pieces of checked-in luggage with the corresponding claim checks
Co did not declare the contents of his baggage nor pay additional
in his possession. Plaintiff found eight of his luggage, but despite
charges before the flight (p. 3, tsn, July 18, 1985). We find no
diligent search, he failed to locate the ninth luggage, with claim
merit in that contention. In Samar Mining Company, Inc. vs.
check number 729113 which is the one in question in this case.
Nordeutscher Lloyd (132 SCRA 529), this Court ruled: “The
“Plaintiff then immediately notified defendant company
liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruc-
through its employee, Willy Guevarra, who was then in charge of
the PAL claim counter at the airport. Willy Guevarra, who
_______________ testified during the trial court on April 11, 1986, filled up a
printed form known as a Property Irregularity Report (Exh. ‘A’),
* FIRST DIVISION.
acknowledging one of the plaintiff’s luggages to be missing (Exh.
‘A-1’), and signed it after asking plaintiff himself to sign the same
document (Exh. ‘A-2’). In accordance with his procedure in cases
101
of this nature, Willy Guevarra asked plaintiff to surrender to him
the nine claim checks corresponding to the nine luggages, i.e.,
including the one that was missing.
VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 101
102
Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
tion or deterioration of goods transported from a foreign country Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals
to the Philippines is governed primarily by the New Civil Code. In
all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations
“The incontestable evidence further shows that plaintiff’s lost
of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce
luggage was a Samsonite suitcase measuring about 62 inches in
and by Special Laws.” x x x. Since the passenger’s destination in
length, worth about US$200.00 and containing various personal
this case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability
effects purchased by plaintiff and his wife during their stay in the
of the carrier for the loss of the passenger’s luggage.
United States and similar other items sent by their friends abroad
PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of to be given as presents to relatives in the Philippines. Plaintiff’s
Appeals. invoices evidencing their purchases show their missing personal

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/6

7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207

effects to be worth US$1,243.01, in addition to the presents 1. in affirming the conclusion of the trial court that
entrusted to them by their friends which plaintiff testified to be petitioner’s retrieval baggage report was a
worth about US$500.00 to US$600.00 (Exhs. ‘D’, ‘D-1’, to ‘D-17’; fabrication;
tsn, p. 4, July 11, 1985; pp. 5-14, March 7, 1986). 2. in not applying the limits of liability under the
“Plaintiff on several occasions unrelentingly called at Warsaw Convention which limits the liability of an
defendant’s office in order to pursue his complaint about his air carrier for loss, delay or damage to checked-in
missing luggage but to no avail. Thus, on April 15, 1985, plaintiff baggage to US$20.00 based on weight; and
through his lawyer wrote a demand letter to defendant company
3. in awarding private respondent Isidro Co actual
through Rebecca V. Santos, its manager, Central Baggage
and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Services (Exhs. ‘B’ & ‘B-1’). On April 17, 1985, Rebecca Santos
replied to the demand letter (Exh. ‘B’) acknowledging ‘that to date
The first and third assignments of error raise purely
we have been unable to locate your client’s (plaintiff’s) baggage
factual issues which are not reviewable by this Court (Sec.
despite our careful search’ and requesting plaintiff’s counsel to
2, Rule 45, Rules of Court). The Court reviews only
‘please extend to him our sincere apologies for the inconvenience
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the
he was caused by this unfortunate incident’ (Exh. ‘C’). Despite the
petition. (Hodges vs. People, 68 Phil. 178.) The probative
letter (Exh. ‘C’), however, defendants never found plaintiff’s
value of petitioner’s retrieval report was passed upon by
missing luggage or paid its corresponding value. Consequently, on
the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, whose finding was
May 3, 1985, plaintiff filed his present complaint against said
affirmed by the Court of Appeals as follows:
defendants.” (pp. 38-40, Rollo.)
“In this respect, it is further argued that appellee should produce
Co sued the airline for damages. The Regional Trial Court his claim tag if he had not surrendered it because there was no
of Pasay City found the defendant airline (now petitioner) baggage received. It appeared, however, that appellee
liable, and rendered judgment on June 3, 1986, the surrendered all the nine claim checks corresponding to the nine
dispositive portion of which reads: luggages, including the one that was missing, to the PAL officer
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing after accomplishing the Property, Irregularity Report. Therefore,
defendant Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay plaintiff Isidro Co: it could not be possible for appellee to produce the same in court.
It is now for appellant airlines to produce the veracity of their
“1) P42,766.02 by way of actual damages; Baggage Retrieval Report by corroborating evidence other than
“2) P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; testimonies of their employees. Such document is within the
control of appellant and necessarily requires other corroborative
“3) P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
evidence. Since there is no compelling reason to reverse the
all in addition to the costs of the suit. factual findings of the lower court, this Court resolves not to
“Defendants’ counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of disturb the same.” (p. 41, Rollo.)
merit.” (p. 40, Rollo.)
Whether or not the lost luggage was ever retrieved by the
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial passenger, and whether or not the actual and exemplary
court’s award. damages awarded by the court to him are reasonable, are
In his petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s factual issues which we may not pass upon in the absence
decision, of special circumstances requiring a review of the evidence.
In Alitalia vs. IAC (192 SCRA 9, 18, citing Pan
103 American World Airways, Inc. vs. IAC, 164 SCRA 268), the
Warsaw Convention limiting the carrier’s liability was
VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 103
applied because of a simple loss of baggage without any
improper conduct on the part of the officials or employees
Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals of the airline, or other special
104
petitioner alleges that the appellate court erred:

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/6
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207

Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals

mate cause of the loss of his baggage. Furthermore,
not declare a higher value for his luggage, much less did he petitioner acted in bad faith in faking a retrieval receipt to
pay an additional transportation charge. bail itself out of having to pay Co’s claim.
Petitioner contends that under the Warsaw Convention, The Court of Appeals therefore did not err in
its liability, if any, cannot exceed US $20.00 based on disregarding the limits of liability under the Warsaw
weight as private respondent Co did not declare the Convention.
contents of his baggage nor pay additional charges before The award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to
the flight (p. 3, tsn, July 18, 1985). the private respondent was justified. In the cases of
We find no merit in that contention. In Samar Mining Imperial Insurance, Inc. vs. Simon, 122 Phil. 189 and Bert
Company, Inc. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd (132 SCRA 529), Osmeña and Associates vs. CA, 120 SCRA 396, the
this Court ruled: appellant was awarded attorney’s fees because of appellee’s
failure to satisfy the former’s just and valid demandable
“The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or claim which forced the appellant to litigate. Likewise, in
deterioration of goods transported from a foreign country to the the case of Phil. Surety and Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Royal Oil
Philippines is governed primarily by the New Civil Code. In all Products, 102 Phil. 326, this Court justified the grant of
matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the petitioner’s
common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and failure, even refusal, to pay the private respondent’s valid
by Special Laws.” claim.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for
The provisions of the New Civil Code on common carriers lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.
are Articles 1733, 1735 and 1753 which provide: SO ORDERED.
“Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business      Narvasa (C.J.) and Medialdea, J., concur.
and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe      Cruz, J., No part. Related to petitioners counsel.
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the Petition denied.
circumstances of each case.”
“Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, Note.—Misconduct on the part of the carrier’s
3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article if the goods are lost, destroyed employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for
or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at damages against the carrier. (Sabena Belgian World
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620.)
observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
“Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be ——o0o——
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for
106
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.
In this case, the petitioner failed to overcome, not only
the presumption, but more importantly, the private
respondent’s evidence, proving that the carrier’s negligence © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
was the proxi-
105

VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 105

Philippine Air Lines vs. Court of Appeals
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae39f8e8424d2dbc1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/6