As to amount of liability o The tampering of the suitcase is more apparent.

o Plaintiff asked that the suitcase be checked of the things inside his be made and
G.R. No. L-20099             July 7, 1966 defendant admitted that the two items could not be found inside the suitcase.
PARMANAND SHEWARAM, plaintiff and appellee, o This proven fact that baggage may and could be opened without the necessary
vs. authorization and presence of its owner, applied too, to the suitcase of plaintiff
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant and appellant. which was mis-sent to Iligan City because of mistagging. The possibility of what
ZALDIVAR, J.: happened in the baggage of Mr. Del Rosario at the Manila Airport in his
absence could have also happened to plaintiffs suitcase at Iligan City in the
absence of plaintiff. Hence, the Court believes that these two items were really
Parties in plaintiff's suitcase and defendant should be held liable for the same by virtue
o Parmanand Shewaram a paying passenger on defendant's aircraft from of its contract of carriage.
Zamboanga City bound for Manila.
o PAL is a common carrier engaged in airline transportation in the Philippines, Parmanand Shewaram: filed an action to recover damages suffered by him due to
the alleged failure of PAL to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance and
offering its services to the public to carry and transport passengers and cargoes
carriage of his luggage.
from and to different points in the Philippines

Facts: MTC: Rendered judgment ordering the PAL to pay Shewaram P373.00 as actual
damages, P100.00 as exemplary damages, P150.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs
o The former checked in (3) pieces of baggages — a suitcase and two (2) other of the action.
pieces; that the suitcase was mistagged by defendant's personnel in
Zamboanga City, (for Iligan), instead of MNL (for Manila). o PAL appealed to the CFI.
 Plaintiff arrived in Manila his suitcase did not arrive with his flight because
it was sent to Iligan. CFI: Modified the judgment and ordered PAL to pay only the sum of P373.00 as
 Another suitcase similar to his own which was the only baggage left for actual damages, with legal interest from May 6, 1960 and the sum of P150.00 as
that flight and was given to the plaintiff for him to take delivery but he did attorney's fees, eliminating the award of exemplary damages.
not and refused to take delivery of the same on the ground:
i. That it was not his,
ii. National transistor and a Rollflex camera were not found inside the
suitcase.
o PAL appealed to the SC.
iii. It contained a pistol which he did not have nor placed inside his
suitcase; Issue (1): WON PAL is a common carrier.
iv. It belonged to a certain Del Rosario
o The station agent of the PAL in Iligan caused the same to be sent to Manila for Held: Yes
delivery to Mr. Shewaram and arrived in Manila airport on November 24, 1959
upon arrival he was informed by Mr. Tomas Blanco, Jr., the acting station agent Ratio: There is no question that the appellant is a common carrier. As such common
of the Manila that his suitcase had arrived but of course minus his Transistor carrier the appellant, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public
Radio and the Rollflex Camera; policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
o That Shewaram made demand for these two (2) items or for the value thereof and for the safety of the passengers transported by it according to the
but the same was not complied with by defendant. circumstances of each case.

Issue (2): WON plaintiff is bound by the terms in the contract, if the answer is in the
IMPORTANT FACTS FOUND BY THE LOWER COURT:
negative, WON PAL is liable for the negligence of its employees.
o Defendant admitted that there was mistake in tagging the suitcase.
Held: No he is not bound, Yes PAL is liable. that was issued by the appellant to the appellee. The fact that those conditions are
printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that they are hard to read
Ratio: It is clear from the above-quoted portions of the decision of the trial court
would not warrant the presumption that the appellee was aware of those
that said court had found that the suitcase of the appellee was tampered and was
conditions such that he had "fairly and freely agreed" to those conditions. The trial
shown that the loss of the transistor radio and the camera of the appellee, costing
court has categorically stated in its decision that the "Defendant admits that
P373.00, was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant, it is clear
passengers do not sign the ticket, much less did plaintiff herein sign his ticket when
that the appellant should be held liable for the payment of said loss.
he made the flight on November 23, 1959." We hold, therefore, that the appellee is
Argument not, and can not be, bound by the conditions of carriage found at the back of the
PAL ticket stub issued to him when he made the flight on appellant's plane on
November 23, 1959.
Its liability should be limited to the amount stated in the conditions of
carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket stub which was issued to Liability of the PAL is governed by:
the appellee, which conditions are embodied in Domestic Tariff
Regulations No. 2 which was filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board. ART. 1734. Common carries are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
“The liability, if any, for loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay following causes only:
in the delivery thereof is limited to its value and, unless the passenger
declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, or other natural disaster or calamity;
therefor, the value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed P100.00
for each ticket”.
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
The failure of the appellee to declare a higher value for his luggage, and
pay the freight on the basis of said declared value when he checked
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
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. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
containers;

Basis of the court: (5) Order or act of competent public authority.1äwphï1.ñët

Article 1750 of the New Civil Code 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
A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
and freely agreed upon.
It having been clearly found by the trial court that the transistor radio and the
camera of the appellee were lost as a result of the negligence of the appellant as a
The pecuniary liability of a common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed
common carrier, the liability of the appellant is clear — it must pay the appellee the
amount. It is required, however, that the contract must be "reasonable and just
value of those two articles. Ysmael and Co. vs. Barreto, 51 Phil. 90, cited by the trial
under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon."
court in support of its decision, this Court had laid down the rule that the carrier
In the case before us We believe that the requirements of said article have not been cannot limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods shipped where such injury or
met. It can not be said that the appellee had actually entered into a contract with loss was caused by its own negligence.
the appellant, embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket stub