80. pan am vs iac.docx

7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx

1/26

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 70462 August 11, 1988

PAN AMERICAN WORL AIRWA!S,

INC., petitioner,vs.

INTERMEIATE APPELLATE COURT,

RENE ". PANGAN, SOTANG #ASTOS

PROUCTIONS $%& ARC'ER

PROUCTIONS, respondents.

uerrero ! Torres for petitioner.

"ose #. $a%u& for private respondents.

CORTES, (.)

#efore the 'ourt is a petition filed b% an

international air carrier see(in& to li)it its


2/26

liabilit% for lost ba&&a&e, containin&

pro)otional and advertisin& )aterials for fil)s

to be e*hibited in ua) and the +.S.., clutch

ba&s, baron& ta&alo&s and personal

belon&in&s, to the a)ount specified in the

airline tic(et absent a declaration of a hi&her

valuation and the pa%)ent of additional

char&es.

The undisputed facts of the case, as found b%

the trial court and adopted b% the appellate

court, are as follo-s

On pril /0, 1234, plaintiff Rene V. Pan&an,

president and &eneral )ana&er of the

plaintiffs Sotan& #astos and rcher

Production -hile in San 5rancisco, 'alifonia

and Pri)o 6uesada of Pri)e 5il)s, San

5rancisco, 'alifornia, entered into an

a&ree)ent 78*h. 9 -hereb% the for)er, for

and in consideration of the a)ount of +S:/,0;;.;; per picture, bound hi)self to suppl%

the latter -ith three fil)s.


3/26

'hi(itin& and I(in&,< and ;,

1234.

On his -a% ho)e to the Philippines, plaintiff

Pan&an visited ua) -here he contacted $eo

Slutchnic( of the Hafa dai Or&ani?ation.

Plaintiff Pan&an li(e-ise entered into a verbal

a&ree)ent -ith Slutchnic( for the e*hibition of

t-o of the fil)s above@)entioned at the Hafa

dai Theater in ua) on Ma% >;, 1234 for

the consideration of P3,;;;.;; per picture 7p.11, tsn, "une /;, 12329. Plaintiff Pan&an

undertoo( to provide the necessar%

pro)otional and advertisin& )aterials for said

fil)s on or before the e*hibition date on Ma%

>;,1234.

#% virtue of the above a&ree)ents, plaintiff

Pan&an caused the preparation of the

reAuisite pro)otional handbills and still


4/26

pictures for -hich he paid the total su) of

P1/,2;;.;; 78*hs. #, #@1, ' and '19.

$i(e-ise in preparation for his trip abroad to

co)pl% -ith his contracts, plaintiff Pan&an

purchased fourteen clutch ba&s, four capi?

la)ps and four baron& ta&alo&, -ith a total

value of PB,B;;.;; 78*hs. D, D@1, 8, and 59.

On Ma% 14, 1234, plaintiff Pan&an obtained

fro) defendant Pan )/B

78*h. 9 for passa&e fro) Manila to ua) on

defendant


5/26

ba&&a&e clai) tic(ets Nos. 2>>> and

2>B2 78*hs. H and H@19. The t-o lu&&a&es

contained the pro)otional and advertisin&

)aterials, the clutch ba&s, baron& ta&alo& and

his personal belon&in&s. SubseAuentl%,

Pan&an -as infor)ed that his na)e -as not

in the )anifest and so he could not ta(e 5li&ht

No. 4B/ in the econo)% class. Since there

-as no space in the econo)% class, plaintiffPan&an too( the first class because he

-anted to be on ti)e in ua) to co)pl% -ith

his co))it)ent, pa%in& an additional su) of

:11/.;;.

Ehen plaintiff Pan&an arrived in ua) on thedate of Ma% /3, 1234, his t-o lu&&a&es did

not arrive -ith his fli&ht, as a conseAuence of

-hich his a&ree)ents -ith Slutchnic( and

6uesada for the e*hibition of the fil)s in

ua) and in the +nited States -ere

cancelled 78*h. $9. Thereafter, he filed a

-ritten clai) 78*h. "9 for his )issin& lu&&a&es.


6/26

+pon arrival in the Philippines, Pan&an

contacted his la-%er, -ho )ade the

necessar% representations to protest as to the

treat)ent -hich he received fro) the

e)plo%ees of the defendant and the loss of

his t-o lu&&a&es 78*h. M, O, 6, S, and T9.

Defendant Pan ) assured plaintiff Pan&an

that his &rievances -ould be investi&ated and

&iven its i))ediate consideration 78*hs. N, Pand R9. Due to the defendant


7/26

filed, until the sa)e is full% paid, plus the

further su) of P1;,;;;.;; as attorne%.>B, for additional actual

da)a&es, -ith interest thereon at the rate of

1B per annu) fro) Dece)ber , 1234, until

the sa)e is full% paidJ

7>9 Dis)issin& the counterclai) interposed b%

defendant Pan )erican Eorld ir-a%s, Inc.J

and

7B9 Orderin& defendant Pan )erican Eorld

ir-a%s, Inc. to pa% the costs of suit. FRollo,pp. 1;@1;3.G

On appeal, the then Inter)ediate ppellate

'ourt affir)ed the trial court decision.

Hence, the instant recourse to this 'ourt b%

petitioner.

The petition -as &iven due course and the

parties, as reAuired, sub)itted their respective


8/26

)e)oranda. In due ti)e the case -as

sub)itted for decision.

In assailin& the decision of the Inter)ediateppellate 'ourt petitioner assi&ned the

follo-in& errors

1. The respondent court erred as a )atter of

la- in affir)in& the trial court


9/26

1. The airline tic(et 78*h. K


10/26

KERSE 'ONV8NTIONK )eans the

convention for the +nification of 'ertain Rules

Relatin& to International 'arria&e b% ir

si&ned at Earsa-, 1/th October 12/2, or that

'onvention as a)ended at The Ha&ue, /4th

Septe)ber 1200, -hichever )a% be

applicable.

/. 'arria&e hereunder is subect to the rules

and li)itations relatin& to liabilit% established

b% the Earsa- 'onvention unless such

carria&e is not Kinternational carria&eK as

defined b% that 'onvention.

>. To the e*tent not in conflict -ith the

fore&oin& carria&e and other services

perfor)ed b% each carrier are subect to 7i9

provisions contained in this tic(et, 7ii9

applicable tariffs, 7iii9 carrier


11/26

thereof to -hich tariffs in force in those

countries appl%.

*** *** ***

NOTI'8 O5 #8 $I#I$ITC

$IMITTIONS

$iabilit% for loss, dela%, or da)a&e to ba&&a&e

is li)ited as follo-s unless a hi&her value is

declared in advance and additional char&es

are paid 719for )ost international travel

7includin& do)estic portions of international

ourne%s9 to appro*i)atel% :2.;3 per pound

7:/;.;; per (ilo9 for chec(ed ba&&a&e and

:B;; per passen&er for unchec(ed ba&&a&e7/9 for travel -holl% bet-een +.S. points, to

:30; per passen&er on )ost carriers 7a fe-

have lo-er li)its9. 8*cess valuation )a% not

be declared on certain t%pes of valuable

articles. 'arriers assu)e no liabilit% for fra&ile

or perishable articles. 5urther infor)ation )a%

be obtained fro) the carrier. F8)phasis

supplied.G.


12/26

On the basis of the fore&oin& stipulations

printed at the bac( of the tic(et, petitioner

contends that its liabilit% for the lost ba&&a&e

of private respondent Pan&an is li)ited to

:;;.;; 7:/;.;; * >; (ilos9 as the latter did

not declare a hi&her value for his ba&&a&e

and pa% the correspondin& additional char&es.

To support this contention, petitioner cites the

case of On& Ciu v. 'ourt of ppeals F.R. No.

$@B;023, "une /2, 1232, 21 S'R //>G,

-here the 'ourt sustained the validit% of a

printed stipulation at the bac( of an airline

tic(et li)itin& the liabilit% of the carrier for lost

ba&&a&e to a specified a)ount and ruled thatthe carrier


13/26

Petitioner further contends that respondent

'ourt co))itted &rave error -hen it li)ited

P$


14/26

#ut petitioner ar&ues that there is nothin& in

the evidence to sho- that he had actuall%

entered into a contract -ith P$ li)itin& the

latter So.

/d >B.G It is -hat is (no-n as a contract of

Kadhesion,K in re&ards -hich it has been said

that contracts of adhesion -herein one part%i)poses a read% )ade for) of contract on the

other, as the plane tic(et in the case at bar,

are contracts not entirel% prohibited. The one


15/26

-ho adheres to the contract is in realit% free to

reect it entirel%J if he adheres, he &ives his

consent,FTolentino, 'ivil 'ode, Vol. IV, 12/

ed., p. B/, citin& Mr. "ustice ".#.$. Re%es,

$a-%er1, 1201, p. B2G. nd

as held in Randolph v. )erican irlines, 1;>

Ohio pp. 13/,1BB N.8. /d 434J Rosenchein

v. Trans Eorld irlines, Inc., >B2 S.E. /d B4>.G

Ka contract li)itin& liabilit% upon an a&reedvaluation does not offend a&ainst the polic% of

the la- forbiddin& one fro) contractin&

a&ainst his o-n ne&li&ence.K

'onsiderin&, therefore, that petitioner had

failed to declare a hi&her value for hisba&&a&e, he cannot be per)itted a recover%

in e*cess of P1;;.;;....

On the other hand, the rulin& in She-ara) v.

Philippine ir $ines, Inc. F.R. No. $@/;;22,

"ul% /, 12, 13 S'R ;G, -here the 'ourtheld that the stipulation li)itin& the carrier


16/26

rulin& in said case -as pre)ised on the

findin& that the conditions printed at the bac(

of the tic(et -ere so s)all and hard to read

that the% -ould not -arrant the presu)ption

that the passen&er -as a-are of the

conditions and that he had freel% and fairl%

a&reed thereto. In the instant case, si)ilar

facts that -ould )a(e the case fall under the

e*ception have not been alle&ed, )uch lesssho-n to e*ist.

In vie- thereof petitionerG to sustain the vie- that Kto

appl% the Earsa- 'onvention -hich li)its a

carrier


17/26

+S:/;.;; per (ilo in cases of contractual

breach of carria&e **is a&ainst public polic%K is utterl% )isplaced, to sa% the least. In said case,-hile the 'ourt, as Auoted in the Inter)ediate ppellate 'ourt


18/26

...The case is no- before us on petition for

revie- b% certiorari, upon the &round that the

lo-er court has erred 719 in holdin& that the

Earsa- 'onvention of October 1/, 12/2,

relative to transportation b% air is not in force

in the Philippines 7/9 in not holdin& that

respondent has no cause of actionJ and 7>9 in

a-ardin& P/;,;;; as no)inal da)a&es.

Ee dee) it unnecessar% to pass upon the

5irst assi&n)ent of error because the sa)e is

the basis of the second assi&n)ent of error,

and the latter is devoid of )erit, even if -e

assu)ed the for)er to be -ell

ta(en. 78)phasis supplied.9

Thus, it is Auite clear that the 'ourt never

intended to, and in fact never did, rule a&ainst

the validit% of provisions of the Earsa-

'onvention. 'onseAuentl%, b% no stretch of

the i)a&ination )a% said Auotationfro) North-est be considered as supportive

of the appellate court


19/26

provisions of the Earsa- 'onvention li)ited a

carrier


20/26

fil) on the 13th of Septe)ber, 12B4 for the

reason that the plans of Mendo?a to e*hibit

that fil) durin& the to-n fiesta and his

preparations, speciall% the announce)ent of

said e*hibition b% posters and advertise)ent

in the ne-spaper, -ere not called to the

defendant


21/26

da)a&es or loss of profits. #ut the hi&hest

court in the State of Ne- Cor( refused to

a-ard hi) special da)a&es. Said appellate

court observed

#ut before defendant could be held to special

da)a&es, such as the present alle&ed loss of

profits on account of dela% or failure of

deliver%, it )ust have appeared that he had

notice at the ti)e of deliver% to hi) of the

particular circu)stances attendin& the

ship)ent, and -hich probabl% -ould lead to

such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the

rule has been stated in another for), in order

to purpose on the defaultin& part% furtherliabilit% than for da)a&es naturall% and

directl%, i.e., in the ordinar% course of thin&s,

arisin& fro) a breach of contract, such

unusual or e*traordinar% da)a&es )ust have

been brou&ht -ithin the conte)plation of the

parties as the probable result of breach at the

ti)e of or prior to contractin&. enerall%,

notice then of an% special circu)stances


22/26

-hich -ill sho- that the da)a&es to be

anticipated fro) a breach -ould be enhanced

has been held sufficient for this effect.

s )a% be seen, that Ne- Cor( case is a

stron&er one than the present case for the

reason that the attention of the co))on

carrier in said case -as called to the nature of

the articles shipped, the purpose of ship)ent,

and the desire to rush the ship)ent,

circu)stances and facts absent in the present

case. F8)phasis supplied.G

Thus, appl%in& the fore&oin& rulin& to the facts

of the instant case, in the absence of a

sho-in& that petitioner


23/26

The 'ourt is unable to uphold the

Inter)ediate ppellate 'ourt


24/26

>. Eith the 'ourt


25/26

L rt. 130;. contract fi*in& the su) that )a%

be recovered b% the o-ner or shipper for the

loss, destruction, or deterioration of the &oods

is valid, if it is reasonable and ust under the

circu)stances, and has been fairl% and freel%

a&reed upon.

LL The Earsa- 'onvention actuall% provides

that KFiGn the transportation of chec(ed

ba&&a&e and of &oods, the liabilit% of the

carrier shall be li)ited to a su) of /0; francs

per (ilo&ra), unless the consi&nor has )ade,

at the ti)e -hen the pac(a&e -as handed

over to the carrier, a special declaration of the

value of deliver% and has paid asupple)entar% su) if the case so reAuires. In

that case, the carrier -ill be liable to pa% a

su) not e*ceedin& the declared su), unless

he proves that the su) is &reater than the

actual value to the consi&nor at deliver%....

The su)s )entioned above shall be dee)ed

to refer to the 5rench franc consistin& of 0@

1/ )illi&ra)s of &old at the standard of


26/26

fineness of nine hundred thousandths. These

su)s )a% be converted into an% national

currenc% in round fi&ures. F01 O.. 0;4B,

0;21.G

Procla)ation No. /;1, 7Septe)ber />, 12009

)ade public the adherence of the Republic of

the Philippines to the Earsa- 'onvention. F01

O.. B2>>.G

80. pan am vs iac.docx

Documents