Ong Yiu v.

CA

FACTS:

In 1967, Ong Yiu was a fare paying passenger of respondent PAL from Mactan, Cebu to Butuan City
wherein he was scheduled to attend a trial.
o He checked in one piece of luggage, blue maleta for which he was issued a claim ticket.
Upon arrival at Butuan City, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found.
o PAL Butuan sent a message to PAL Cebu which in turn sent a message to PAL Manila that same
afternoon.
o PAL Manila advised PAL Cebu that the luggage has been overcarried to Manila and that it would be
forwarded to PAL Cebu that same day.
o PAL Cebu then advised PAL Butuan that the luggage will be forwarded the following day, on
scheduled morning flight.
o This message was not received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had already gone for the day.
Meanwhile, Ong Yiu was worried about the missing luggage because it contained vital documents needed
for the trial the next day so he wired PAL Cebu demanding delivery of his luggage before noon that next day
or he would hold PAL liable for damages based on gross negligence.
The next morning, petitioner went to the Butuan Airport to inquire about the luggage but did not wait for the
arrival of the morning flight at 10am which carried his luggage.
A certain Dagorro, a driver of a colorum car, who also used to drive the petitioner volunteered to take the
luggage to the petitioner. He revealed that the documents were lost.
Ong Yiu demanded from PAL Cebu actual and compensatory damages as an incident of breach of contract
of carriage.

ISSUES/HELD:

Is the doctrine of limited liability applicable in this case?YES.

o On the presumed negligence of PAL, its liability for the loss however, is limited on the stipulation
written on the back of the plane ticket which is P100/baggage.
The petitioner not having declared a greater value and not having called the attention of
PAL on its true value and paid the tariff therefore.
The stipulation is printed in reasonably and fairly big letters and is easily readable.
Moreso, petitioner had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and
back and he being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these conditions.

Is Ong Yiu entitled to moral and exemplary damages?NO.

o No Moral|: PAL had not acted in bad faith. It exercised due diligence in looking for petitioners
luggage which had been miscarried. Had petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the airport
for the arrival of the morning flight which carried his luggage, he would have been able to retrieve
his luggage sooner.
o No Exemplary: Neither is he entitled to exemplary damages absent any proof that the defendant
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless manner.
Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) v. CA

FACTS:

Milagros P. Morada is a flight attendant for petitioner SAUDIA airlines, where the former was attempted to be
raped by Thamer and Allah, both Saudi nationals and fellow crew members, after a night of dancing in their
hotel while in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Milagros was rescued.
After two weeks of detention the accused were both deported to Saudi and they were reinstated by SAUDIA.
Milagros was transferred to Manila but in one of her trips to Jeddah, she was pressured by police officers to
make a statement and to drop the case against the accused;
o In return she will then be allowed to return to Manila and retrieved her passport.
Again in 1993, Milagros was asked by her a SAUDIA officer to again appear before the Saudi court.
Without her knowledge, she was already tried by Saudi court together with the accused and was sentenced
to 5 mos. imprisonment and to 286 lashes in connection with the Jakarta rape incident.
o The court found her in contravention of Islamic law, guilty of:
adultery;
going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music;
and socializing with the male crew.
ISSUES/HELD:

Does QC RTC have jurisdiction?YES.

o Violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with judicially enforceable remedies in the municipal
forum.
o FIRST, QC RTC has JD over the subject matter. Its authority to try and hear the case is provided
for under Section 1 of RA 7691.
o SECOND, pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in
favor of the QC RTC assuming JD:
private interest of the litigant
enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained
relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial
Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, vex/harass/oppress the
defendant. Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs
choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
Had QC RTC refused to take cognizance, it would be forcing Milagros to seek
remedial action in Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
connections. Thats fundamental unfairness. Moreover, by hearing the case in
PH, no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by either of
the parties.
o THIRD, QC RTC has JD over persons of the parties.
Milagros: voluntarily submitted by filing complaint
SAUDIA: by praying for dismissal of complaint on grounds other than lack of JD
Should PH law govern?YES.
o In choice-of-law problems, there are two questions: (1) What legal system should control? and (2)
To what extent should that legal system regulate?
Before a choice can be made, there must be characterization.
Characterization/doctrine of qualification - process of deciding w/n the facts relate
to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule
o FIRST, since the case involves torts, the connecting factor/point of contact could be the place
where the tortious conduct/lex loci actus occurred.
In this case, it is in PH where SAUDIA allegedly deceived Milagros
o SECOND, the SC applied the most significant relationship rule.
In applying said principle, the ff contacts must be taken into account:
 place where the injury occurred
place where the conduct causing the injury occurred
domicile/residence/nationality/place of incorporation/place of business of the
parties
place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered
In this case:
Milagros is a resident Filipina national, working here
SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation engaged in the PH in the business of
international air carriage
ALSO: No obligation part of Milagros to plead and prove Saudi Arabia law since her cause of action is based
on Arts. 19 and 21. Burden is on SAUDIA.