Scribd
Upload
51 views1 page

PAL Vs CA, 2017 SCRA 100

PAL vs CA, 2017 SCRA 100 Isidro Co arrived in Manila from the USA aboard a Philippine Air Lines (PAL) flight, but was unable to find one of his nine checked bags upon arrival. Co filed a complaint against PAL, who argued their liability was limited to $20 under the Warsaw Convention since Co did not declare the contents of the bag. The Supreme Court ruled that the Warsaw Convention does not apply since Co's destination was the Philippines. Philippine law governs PAL's liability as a common carrier. Under Articles 1733, 1735, and 1753 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed liable for lost goods unless they can prove extraordinary diligence. PAL failed to

Uploaded by

Cid Benedict Pabalan
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
51 views1 page

PAL Vs CA, 2017 SCRA 100

PAL vs CA, 2017 SCRA 100 Isidro Co arrived in Manila from the USA aboard a Philippine Air Lines (PAL) flight, but was unable to find one of his nine checked bags upon arrival. Co filed a complaint against PAL, who argued their liability was limited to $20 under the Warsaw Convention since Co did not declare the contents of the bag. The Supreme Court ruled that the Warsaw Convention does not apply since Co's destination was the Philippines. Philippine law governs PAL's liability as a common carrier. Under Articles 1733, 1735, and 1753 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed liable for lost goods unless they can prove extraordinary diligence. PAL failed to

Uploaded by

Cid Benedict Pabalan
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/ 1

Re: Transportation Law Case Digest Pool

IV. Applicable Law in Cases Involving Common Carrier(Section 1733, Civil Code)
PAL vs CA, 2017 SCRA 100
Facts: Isidro Co arrived at Manila International Airport aboard Philippine Air Lines from
California, USA. After embarking, he proceeded to the baggage retrieval area to claim his
nine pieces of checked-in-luggage with corresponding claim checks in his possession.
However, he failed to find one luggage. The said item is a Samsonite suitcase measuring
worth about $200.00 and contained personal items.
Consequently, Co filed a complaint. The RTC and CA found PAL liable and awarded Co
damages. Upon reaching the SC, PAL contended that under the Warsaw Convention, its
liability, if any, cannot exceed $20.00 based on weigh as Co did not declare the contents of
his baggage nor pay additional charges before flight.
Issue: Whether or not the Warsaw Convention applies.
Ruling: No, the Warsaw Convention does not apply.
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 following applicable provisions of the New Civil Code applicable are Articles 1733,
1735 and 1753 which provide:
Article 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.
Article 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.
Article 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 passengers destination in this case was the Philippines. Philippine law
governs the liability of the carrier for the loss of the passengers luggage. In this case, PAL
failed to overcome, not only the presumption, but more importantly, Cos evidence, proving
that the carriers negligence was the proximate cause of the loss of his baggage.
Furthermore, the award of damages is bolstered by the fact that PAL acted in bad faith in
faking a retrieval receipt to bail itself out of having to Pay Cos claim.

You might also like