Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 675 views

    Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines

    Uploaded by

    PMV
    PAL mistagged Shewaram's baggage, resulting in the loss of his camera worth P800. PAL offered P100 based on a liability limitation printed on the back of tickets. Shewaram argued he should be paid the full P800. The court found that the limited liability rule did not apply because Shewaram did not agree to or sign the ticket, as required by Article 1750 for such limitations to be valid. The carrier must obtain fair agreement from the shipper to limit liability. Since there was no agreement, PAL was fully liable for the P800 loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines

    Uploaded by

    PMV
    675 views1 page
    PAL mistagged Shewaram's baggage, resulting in the loss of his camera worth P800. PAL offered P100 based on a liability limitation printed on the back of tickets. Shewaram argued he should be paid the full P800. The court found that the limited liability rule did not apply because Shewaram did not agree to or sign the ticket, as required by Article 1750 for such limitations to be valid. The carrier must obtain fair agreement from the shipper to limit liability. Since there was no agreement, PAL was fully liable for the P800 loss.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PAL mistagged Shewaram's baggage, resulting in the loss of his camera worth P800. PAL offered P100 based on a liability limitation printed on the back of tickets. Shewaram argued he should be paid the full P800. The court found that the limited liability rule did not apply because Shewaram did not agree to or sign the ticket, as required by Article 1750 for such limitations to be valid. The carrier must obtain fair agreement from the shipper to limit liability. Since there was no agreement, PAL was fully liable for the P800 loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    675 views1 page

    Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines

    Uploaded by

    PMV
    PAL mistagged Shewaram's baggage, resulting in the loss of his camera worth P800. PAL offered P100 based on a liability limitation printed on the back of tickets. Shewaram argued he should be paid the full P800. The court found that the limited liability rule did not apply because Shewaram did not agree to or sign the ticket, as required by Article 1750 for such limitations to be valid. The carrier must obtain fair agreement from the shipper to limit liability. Since there was no agreement, PAL was fully liable for the P800 loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SHEWARAM VS.

    PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

    Facts:
     Parmanand Shewaram, a Hindu from Davao, boarded a PAL plane bound for
    Manila from Zamboanga. He checked in 3 baggages: a suitcase and 2 other
    bags. PAL’s personnel mistagged his baggage to “Iligan” instead of “Manila.”
    o The baggage was said to be tampered when it was found.
     Among his baggage was a camera with P800.00 and it was lost. PAL offered
    to pay P100.00. Shewaram wanted full payment of P800.00.
     A PAL ticket, on the reverse side, stated in fine print: “The liability, if any, for
    loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is
    limited to its value and, unless the passenger declares in advance a higher
    valuation and pay an additional charge therefor, the value shall be
    conclusively deemed not to exceed P100.00 for each ticket.”
     PAL maintains that in view of the failure of the Shewaram to declare a higher
    value for his luggage, and pay the freight on the basis of said declared value
    when he checked such luggage at the Zamboanga City airport, pursuant to
    the abovequoted condition, appellee can not demand payment from the
    appellant of an amount in excess of P100.00.

    Issue: Whether the limited liability rule shall apply in the case at bar?

    Held: NO. The limited liability rule shall not apply.

    Since this is a stipulation on qualified liability, which operates to reduce the liability
    of the carrier, the carrier and the shipper must agree thereupon. Otherwise, the
    carrier will be liable for full. PAL is fully liable (for full) because Shewaran did not
    agree to the stipulation on the ticket, as manifested by the fact that Shewaram did
    not sign the ticket. Ticket should have been signed.

    Article 1750 of the New Civil Code which provides as follows: A contract fixing the
    sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or
    deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the
    circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.

    In accordance with the above-quoted provision of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code,
    the pecuniary liability of a common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed
    amount. It is required, however, that the contract must be "reasonable and just
    under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon."

    You might also like