Shewarma vs. PAL FACTS: Plaintiff paid for his ticket for his flight from Zamboanga to Manila.

He checked in 3 luggages. Upon arrival in Manila, one of his luggages which contained a radio and a camera worth P353 was missing. Upon investigation by PAL, it was found out that it was mistagged and was sent to Iligan. The next day the lugggage was returned but the camera and radio were already missing. Plaintiff now wants PAL to pay for the original amount of the camera and radio but PAL invoked the provision at the back of the ticket. The provision provided that the company would pay only P100 for any lost item not initially declared. ISSUE: Whether PAL is liable and to what extent.

HELD: Yes. PAL being a common carrier is liable. Its contention that the liability limitation to P100 cannot be enforced. Accdg. to SC, there is nothing wrong in limiting the liability but first there must be a contract which is just and reasonable under the circumstances and must fairly be agreed upon (Art. 1750). In this case, the print at the back of the ticket was so small and there was no signature at the back of the ticket to manifest a fairly agreed contract. Hence, PAL is liable for the whole amount of the objects although they were not initially declared. To establish negligence, SC used Art 1734 and 1735. In these articles, there is an exclusive list where common carriers are exempted from liablility. These are the following: 1 flood , storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster 2 act of the public enemyin war, whether international or civil 3 act or omission of the shipper or owner of goods 4 the cahracter of the goods or defects in the packing or in containers 5 order or act of competent public authorities Since in the case at bar, none of these fall in the categories cited, PAL is considered negligent and liable.