(d5) Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals

(D5) PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS.
COURT OF APPEALS The Air Waybill is a contract of adhesion considering that all the provisions
thereof are prepared and drafted only by the carrier. The only participation left of the
255 SCRA 48 other party is to affix his signature thereto. In the earlier case of Angeles v. Calasanz,
G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 the Supreme Court ruled that the terms of a contract of adhesion must be interpreted
against the party who drafted the same.
FACTS:
On January 27, 1990, plaintiff Gilda C. Mejia shipped thru defendant, Philippine
Airlines, one (1) unit microwave oven under PAL Air Waybill No. 0-79-1013008-3, with
a gross weight of 33 kilograms from San Francisco, U.S.A. to Manila, Philippines. Upon
arrival, however, of said article in Manila, Philippines, plaintiff discovered that its front
glass door was broken and the damage rendered it unserviceable.
Demands both oral and written were made by plaintiff against the defendant for the
reimbursement of the value of the damaged microwave oven, and transportation
charges paid by plaintiff to defendant company. But these demands fell on deaf ears.
This is because, according to petitioner, was filed out of time under paragraph 12, a (1)
of the Air Waybill which provides: "(a) the person entitled to delivery must make a
complaint to the carrier in writing in case: (1) of visible damage to the goods, immediately
after discovery of the damage and at the latest within 14 days from the receipt of the
goods.
On September 25, 1990, Gilda C. Mejia filed an action for damages against the
petitioner in the lower court. The latter rendered a decision rendering PAL liable to pay,
actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals similarly ruled in favor of private respondent by affirming in full the trial court's
judgment, with costs against petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent court erred in affirming the conclusions of the
trial court that since the air waybill is a contract of adhesion, its provisions should be
strictly construed against herein petitioner.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision.
The trial court relied on the ruling in the case of Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. Vda. De Songco, et al. in finding that the provisions of the air waybill should be strictly
construed against petitioner.
(D5) PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS enumeration of the instances when a carrier shall be liable for breach of contract or as
an absolute limit of the extent of liability nor does it preclude the operation of the Civil
Code or other pertinent laws.
<Facts>
Also, the willful misconduct and insensitivity of the officers of PAL in not attempting to
This is definitely not a case of first impression. The incident, which eventuated in the explain the damage despite due demand and the unexplained delay in acting on her
present controversy, is a drama of common contentious occurrence between claim amounted to bad faith and renders unquestionable its liability for damages
passengers and carriers whenever loss is sustained by the former. Withal, the exposition
of the factual ambience and the legal precepts in this adjudication may hopefully channel Adhesion contract is one that is not negotiated by the parties having been drafted by the
the assertiveness of passengers and the intransigence of carriers into the realization dominant party and usually embodied in a standardized form. It is called a contract of
that at times a bad extrajudicial compromise could be better than a good judicial victory. adhesion because the participation of 1 party is limited to affixing her signature.
Assailed in this petition for review is the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 42744 1 which affirmed the decision of the lower court 2 finding petitioner
Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) liable as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Philippine Air Lines,

Inc., to pay plaintiff Gilda C. Mejia:
(1) P30, 000.00 by way of actual damages of the microwave oven;
(2) P10, 000.00 by way of moral damages;
(3) P20, 000.00 by way of exemplary damages;
(4) P10, 000.00 as attorney's fee;
All in addition to the costs of the suit.
Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
Mejia shipped through PAL 1 microwave oven from San Francisco to Manila. Upon
arrival, she discovered that the front glass door was broken and the oven could not be
used. Mejia filed action against PAL. PAL denied liability and alleged that it acted in
conformity with the Warsaw Convention
<Issues>
Whether or not the air waybill should be strictly construed against petitioner?
<Ruling>
Although the airway bill is binding between the parties, the liability of Pal is not limited
on the provisions of the airway bill. While the Warsaw Convention is law in the
Philippines, the Philippines being a signatory thereto, it does not operate as an exclusive

(d5) Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(d5) Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(d5) Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(D5) PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision.

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Philippine Air Lines,

(1) P30, 000.00 by way of actual damages of the microwave oven;

(2) P10, 000.00 by way of moral damages;

(3) P20, 000.00 by way of exemplary damages;

(4) P10, 000.00 as attorney's fee;

All in addition to the costs of the suit.

Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

You might also like