COMPANIA MARITIMA V. INSURANCE COMPANY LU DO V. BINAMIRA KLEPPER V. APL EASTERN SHIPPING V. CA HEACOCK V. MACONDRAY SHEWARAM V.

PAL ONG YIU V. CA PANAM V. IAC CATHAY PACIFIC V. CA

COMPANIA MARITIMA V. INSURANCE COMPANY EN BANC G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964

COMPAIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respondent. Rafael Dinglasan for petitioner. Ozaeta Gibbs & Ozaeta for respondent. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Sometime in October, 1952, Macleod and Company of the Philippines contracted by telephone the services of the Compaia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for the shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from the former's Sasa private pier at Davao City to Manila and for their subsequent transhipment to Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the S.S. Steel Navigator. This oral contract was later on confirmed by a formal and written booking issued by Macleod's branch office in Sasa and handcarried to Compaia Maritima's branch office in Davao in compliance with which the latter sent to Macleod's private wharf LCT Nos. 1023 and 1025 on which the loading of the hemp was completed on October 29, 1952. These two lighters were manned each by a patron and an assistant patron. The patrons of both barges issued the corresponding carrier's receipts and that issued by the patron of Barge No. 1025 reads in part: Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition from MACLEOD AND COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transhipment at Manila onto S.S. Steel Navigator. FINAL DESTINATION: Boston. Thereafter, the two loaded barges left Macleod's wharf and proceeded to and moored at the government's marginal wharf in the same place to await the arrival of the S.S. Bowline Knot belonging to Compaia Maritima on which the hemp was to be loaded. During the night of October 29, 1952, or at the early hours of October 30, LCT No. 1025 sank, resulting in the damage or loss of 1,162 bales of hemp loaded therein. On October 30, 1952, Macleod promptly notified the carrier's main office in Manila and its branch in Davao advising it of its liability. The damaged hemp was brought to Odell Plantation in Madaum, Davao, for cleaning, washing, reconditioning, and redrying. During the period from November 1-15, 1952, the carrier's trucks and lighters hauled from Odell to Macleod at Sasa a total of 2,197.75 piculs of the reconditioned hemp out of the original cargo of 1,162 bales weighing 2,324 piculs which had a total value of 116,835.00. After reclassification, the value of the reconditioned hemp was reduced to P84,887.28, or a loss in value of P31,947.72. Adding to this last amount the sum of P8,863.30 representing Macleod's expenses in checking, grading, rebating, and other fees for washing, cleaning and redrying in the amount of P19.610.00, the total loss adds up to P60,421.02. All abaca shipments of Macleod, including the 1,162 bales loaded on the carrier's LCT No. 1025, were insured with the Insurance Company of North America against all losses and damages. In due time, Macleod filed a claim for the loss it suffered as above stated with said insurance company, and after the same had been processed, the sum of P64,018.55 was paid, which was noted down in a document which aside from being a receipt of the amount paid, was a subrogation agreement between Macleod and the insurance company wherein the former assigned to the latter its rights over the insured and damaged cargo. Having failed to recover from the carrier the sum of P60,421.02, which is the only amount supported by receipts, the insurance company instituted the present action on October 28, 1953. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering the carrier to pay the insurance company the sum of P60,421.02, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, and the costs. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on December 14, 1960. Hence, this petition for review. The issues posed before us are: (1) Was there a contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper even if the loss occurred when the hemp was loaded on a barge owned by the carrier which was loaded free of charge and was not actually loaded on the S.S. Bowline Knot which would carry the hemp to Manila and no bill of lading was issued therefore?; (2) Was the damage caused to the cargo or the sinking of the barge where it was loaded due to a fortuitous event, storm or natural disaster that would exempt the carrier from liability?; (3) Can respondent insurance company sue the carrier under its insurance contract as assignee of Macleod in spite of the fact that the liability of the carrier as insurer is not recognized in this jurisdiction?; (4) Has the Court of Appeals erred in regarding Exhibit NNN-1 as an implied admission by the carrier of the correctness and sufficiency of the shipper's statement of accounts contrary to the burden of proof rule?; and (5) Can the insurance company maintain this suit without proof of its personality to do so?

1. This issue should be answered in the affirmative. As found by the Court of Appeals, Macleod and Company contracted by telephone the services of petitioner to ship the hemp in question from the former's private pier at Sasa, Davao City, to Manila, to be subsequently transhipped to Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., which oral contract was later confirmed by a formal and written booking issued by the shipper's branch office, Davao City, in virtue of which the carrier sent two of its lighters to undertake the service. It also appears that the patrons of said lighters were employees of the carrier with due authority to undertake the transportation and to sign the documents that may be necessary therefor so much so that the patron of LCT No. 1025 signed the receipt covering the cargo of hemp loaded therein as follows: . Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition from MACLEOD AND COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transhipment at Manila onto S.S. Steel Navigator. FINAL DESTINATION: Boston. The fact that the carrier sent its lighters free of charge to take the hemp from Macleod's wharf at Sasa preparatory to its loading onto the ship Bowline Knot does not in any way impair the contract of carriage already entered into between the carrier and the shipper, for that preparatory step is but part and parcel of said contract of carriage. The lighters were merely employed as the first step of the voyage, but once that step was taken and the hemp delivered to the carrier's employees, the rights and obligations of the parties attached thereby subjecting them to the principles and usages of the maritime law. In other words, here we have a complete contract of carriage the consummation of which has already begun: the shipper delivering the cargo to the carrier, and the latter taking possession thereof by placing it on a lighter manned by its authorized employees, under which Macleod became entitled to the privilege secured to him by law for its safe transportation and delivery, and the carrier to the full payment of its freight upon completion of the voyage. The receipt of goods by the carrier has been said to lie at the foundation of the contract to carry and deliver, and if actually no goods are received there can be no such contract. The liability and responsibility of the carrier under a contract for the carriage of goods commence on their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier or an authorized agent. ... and delivery to a lighter in charge of a vessel for shipment on the vessel, where it is the custom to deliver in that way, is a good delivery and binds the vessel receiving the freight, the liability commencing at the time of delivery to the lighter. ... and, similarly, where there is a contract to carry goods from one port to another, and they cannot be loaded directly on the vessel and lighters are sent by the vessel to bring the goods to it, the lighters are for the time its substitutes, so that the bill of landing is applicable to the goods as soon as they are placed on the lighters. (80 C.J.S., p. 901, emphasis supplied) ... The test as to whether the relation of shipper and carrier had been established is, Had the control and possession of the cotton been completely surrendered by the shipper to the railroad company? Whenever the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier and nothing remains to be done by the shipper, then it can be said with certainty that the relation of shipper and carrier has been established. Railroad Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S.W. 419, 46 A. St. Rep. 202; Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Ry. v. MaKenzie, 74 Ark. 100, 86 S.W. 834; Matthews & Hood v. St. L., I.M. & S.R. Co., 123 Ark. 365, 185 S.W. 461, L.R.A. 1916E, 1194. (W.F. Bogart & Co., et al. v. Wade, et al., 200 S.W. 148). The claim that there can be no contract of affreightment because the hemp was not actually loaded on the ship that was to take it from Davao City to Manila is of no moment, for, as already stated, the delivery of the hemp to the carrier's lighter is in line with the contract. In fact, the receipt signed by the patron of the lighter that carried the hemp stated that he was receiving the cargo "in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order and condition." On the other hand, the authorities are to the effect that a bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation of a contract of carriage. Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage. As to the issuance of a bill of lading, although article 350 of the Code of Commerce provides that "the shipper as well as the carrier of merchandise or goods may mutua-lly demand that a bill of lading is not indispensable. As regards the form of the contract of carriage it can be said that provided that there is a meeting of the minds and from such meeting arise rights and obligations, there should be no limitations as to form." The bill of lading is not essential to the contract, although it may become obligatory by reason of the regulations of railroad companies, or as a condition imposed in the contract by the agreement of the parties themselves. The bill of lading is juridically a documentary proof of the stipulations and conditions agreed upon by both parties. (Del Viso, pp. 314-315; Robles vs. Santos, 44 O.G. 2268). In other words, the Code does not demand, as necessary requisite in the contract of transportation, the delivery of the bill of lading to the shipper, but gives right to both the carrier and the shipper to mutually demand of each other the delivery of said bill. (Sp. Sup. Ct. Decision, May 6, 1895). (Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Vol. II, Revised Edition, pp. 12-13) The liability of the carrier as common carrier begins with the actual delivery of the goods for transportation, and not merely with the formal execution of a receipt or bill of lading; the issuance of a bill of lading is not necessary to complete delivery and acceptance. Even where it is provided by statute that liability commences with the issuance of the bill of lading, actual delivery and acceptance are sufficient to bind the carrier. (13 C.J.S., p. 288)

2. Petitioner disclaims responsibility for the damage of the cargo in question shielding itself behind the claim of force majeure or storm which occurred on the night of October 29, 1952. But the evidence fails to bear this out. Rather, it shows that the mishap that caused the damage or loss was due, not to force majeure, but to lack of adequate precautions or measures taken by the carrier to prevent the loss as may be inferred from the following findings of the Court of Appeals: Aside from the fact that, as admitted by appellant's own witness, the ill-fated barge had cracks on its bottom (pp. 18-19, t.s.n., Sept. 13, 1959) which admitted sea water in the same manner as rain entered "thru tank man-holes", according to the patron of LCT No. 1023 (exh. JJJ-4) conclusively showing that the barge was not seaworthy it should be noted that on the night of the nautical accident there was no storm, flood, or other natural disaster or calamity. Certainly, winds of 11 miles per hour, although stronger than the average 4.6 miles per hour then prevailing in Davao on October 29, 1952 (exh. 5), cannot be classified as storm. For according to Beaufort's wind scale, a storm has wind velocities of from 64 to 75 miles per hour; and by Philippine Weather Bureau standards winds should have a velocity of from 55 to 74 miles per hour in order to be classified as storm (Northern Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Visayan Stevedore Transportation Co., CA-G.R. No. 23167-R, March 12, 1959). The Court of Appeals further added: "the report of R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc., marine surveyors, attributes the sinking of LCT No. 1025 to the 'non-water-tight conditions of various buoyancy compartments' (exh. JJJ); and this report finds confirmation on the above-mentioned admission of two witnesses for appellant concerning the cracks of the lighter's bottom and the entrance of the rain water 'thru manholes'." We are not prepared to dispute this finding of the Court of Appeals. 3. There can also be no doubt that the insurance company can recover from the carrier as assignee of the owner of the cargo for the insurance amount it paid to the latter under the insurance contract. And this is so because since the cargo that was damaged was insured with respondent company and the latter paid the amount represented by the loss, it is but fair that it be given the right to recover from the party responsible for the loss. The instant case, therefore, is not one between the insured and the insurer, but one between the shipper and the carrier, because the insurance company merely stepped into the shoes of the shipper. And since the shipper has a direct cause of action against the carrier on account of the damage of the cargo, no valid reason is seen why such action cannot be asserted or availed of by the insurance company as a subrogee of the shipper. Nor can the carrier set up as a defense any defect in the insurance policy not only because it is not a privy to it but also because it cannot avoid its liability to the shipper under the contract of carriage which binds it to pay any loss that may be caused to the cargo involved therein. Thus, we find fitting the following comments of the Court of Appeals: It was not imperative and necessary for the trial court to pass upon the question of whether or not the disputed abaca cargo was covered by Marine Open Cargo Policy No. MK-134 isued by appellee. Appellant was neither a party nor privy to this insurance contract, and therefore cannot avail itself of any defect in the policy which may constitute a valid reason for appellee, as the insurer, to reject the claim of Macleod, as the insured. Anyway, whatever defect the policy contained, if any, is deemed to have been waived by the subsequent payment of Macleod's claim by appellee. Besides, appellant is herein sued in its capacity as a common carrier, and appellee is suing as the assignee of the shipper pursuant to exhibit MM. Since, as above demonstrated, appellant is liable to Macleod and Company of the Philippines for the los or damage to the 1,162 bales of hemp after these were received in good order and condition by the patron of appellant's LCT No. 1025, it necessarily follows that appellant is likewise liable to appellee who, as assignee of Macleod, merely stepped into the shoes of and substi-tuted the latter in demanding from appellant the payment for the loss and damage aforecited. 4. It should be recalled in connection with this issue that during the trial of this case the carrier asked the lower court to order the production of the books of accounts of the Odell Plantation containing the charges it made for the loss of the damaged hemp for verification of its accountants, but later it desisted therefrom on the claim that it finds their production no longer necessary. This desistance notwithstanding, the shipper however pre-sented other documents to prove the damage it suffered in connection with the cargo and on the strength thereof the court a quo ordered the carrier to pay the sum of P60,421.02. And after the Court of Appeals affirmed this award upon the theory that the desistance of the carrier from producing the books of accounts of Odell Plantation implies an admission of the correctness of the statements of accounts contained therein, petitioner now contends that the Court of Appeals erred in basing the affirmance of the award on such erroneous interpretation. There is reason to believe that the act of petitioner in waiving its right to have the books of accounts of Odell Plantation presented in court is tantamount to an admission that the statements contained therein are correct and their verification not necessary because its main defense here, as well as below, was that it is not liable for the loss because there was no contract of carriage between it and the shipper and the loss caused, if any, was due to a fortuitous event. Hence, under the carrier's theory, the correctness of the account representing the loss was not so material as would necessitate the presentation of the books in question. At any rate, even if the books of accounts were not produced, the correctness of the accounts cannot now be disputed for the same is supported by the original documents on which the entries in said books were based which were presented by the shipper as part of its evidence. And according to the Court of Appeals, these documents alone sufficiently establish the award of P60,412.02 made in favor of respondent.

5. Finally, with regard to the question concerning the personality of the insurance company to maintain this action, we find the same of no importance, for the attorney himself of the carrier admitted in open court that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines with a personality to file the present action. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner. Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar JJ., concur. LU DO V. BINAMIRA EN BANC G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957

LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant, vs. I. V. BINAMIRA, respondent-plaintiff. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for petitioner. I. V. Binamira in his own behalf. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: On April 4, 1954, plaintiff filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against defendant to recover the sum of P324.63 as value of certain missing shipment, P150 as actual and compensatory damages, and P600 as moral and pecuniary damages. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P216.84, with legal interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, hence the present petition for review. On August 10, 1951, the Delta Photo Supply Company of New York shipped on board the M/S "FERNSIDE" at New York, U.S.A., six cases of films and/or photographic supplies consigned to the order of respondent I. V. Binamira. For this shipment, Bill of Lading No. 29 was issued. The ship arrived at the port of Cebu on September 23, 1951 and discharged her cargo on September 23, and 24, 1951, including the shipment in question, placing it in the possession and custody of the arrastre operator of said port, the Visayan Cebu Terminal Company, Inc. Petitioner, as agent of the carrier, hired the Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc. to unload its cargo. During the discharge, good order cargo was separated from the bad order cargo on board the ship, and a separate list of bad order cargo was prepared by Pascual Villamor, checker of the stevedoring company. All the cargo unloaded was received at the pier by the Visayan Cebu Terminal Company Inc, arrastre operator of the port. This terminal company had also its own checker, Romeo Quijano, who also recorded and noted down the good cargo from the bad one. The shipment in question, was not included in the report of bad order cargo of both checkers, indicating that it was discharged from the, ship in good order and condition. On September 26, 1951, three days after the goods were unloaded from the ship, respondent took delivery of his six cases of photographic supplies from the arrastre operator. He discovered that the cases showed signs of pilferage and, consequently, he hired marine surveyors, R. J. del Pan & Company, Inc., to examine them. The surveyors examined the cases and made a physical count of their contents in the presence of representatives of petitioner, respondent and the stevedoring company. The surveyors examined the cases and made a physical count of their contents in the presence of representatives of petitioner, respondent and the stevedoring company. The finding of the surveyors showed that some films and photographic supplies were missing valued at P324.63. It appears from the evidence that the six cases of films and photographic supplies were discharged from the ship at the port of Cebu by the stevedoring company hired by petitioner as agent of the carrier. All the unloaded cargo, including the shipment in question, was received by the Visayan Cebu Terminal Company Inc., the arrastre operator appointed by the Bureau of Customs. It also appears that during the discharge, the cargo was checked both by the stevedoring company hired by petitioner as well as by the arrastre operator of the port, and the shipment in question, when discharged from the ship, was found to be in good order and condition. But after it was delivered to respondent three days later, the same was examined by a marine surveyor who found that some films and supplies were missing valued at P324.63. The question now to be considered is: Is the carrier responsible for the loss considering that the same occurred after the shipment was discharged from the ship and placed in the possession and custody of the customs authorities? The Court of Appeals found for the affirmative, making on this point the following comment:

In this jurisdiction, a common carrier has the legal duty to deliver goods to a consignee in the same condition in which it received them. Except where the loss, destruction or deterioration of the merchandise was due to any of the cases enumerated in Article 1734 of the new Civil Code, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault and to have acted negligently, unless it could prove that it observed extraordinary diligence in the care and handling of the goods (Article 1735, supra). Such presumption and the liability of the carrier attach until the goods are delivered actually or constructively, to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them (Article 1736, supra), and we believe delivery to the customs authorities is not the delivery contemplated by Article 1736, supra, in connection with second paragraph of Article 1498, supra, because, in such a case, the goods are then still in the hands of the Government and their owner could not exercise dominion whatever over them until the duties are paid. In the case at bar, the presumption against the carrier, represented appellant as its agent, has not been successfully rebutted. It is now contended that the Court of Appeals erred in its finding not only because it made wrong interpretation of the law on the matter, but also because it ignored the provisions of the bill of lading covering the shipment wherein it was stipulated that the responsibility of the carrier is limited only to losses that may occur while the cargo is still under its custody and control. We believe this contention is well taken. It is true that, as a rule, a common carrier is responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods it assumes to carry from one place to another unless the same is due to any to any of the causes mentioned in Article 1734 on the new Civil Code, and that, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, for causes other that those mentioned, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed extraordinary diligence in their care (Article 1735, Idem.), and that this extraordinary liability lasts from the time the goods are placed in the possession of the carrier until they are delivered to the consignee, or "to the person who has the right to receive them" (Article 1736, Idem.), but these provisions only apply when the loss, destruction or deterioration takes place while the goods are in the possession of the carrier, and not after it has lost control of them. The reason is obvious. While the goods are in its possession, it is but fair that it exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting them from damage, and if loss occurs, the law presumes that it was due to its fault or negligence. This is necessary to protect the interest the interest of the owner who is at its mercy. The situation changes after the goods are delivered to the consignee. While we agree with the Court of Appeals that while delivery of the cargo to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them", contemplated in Article 1736, because in such case the goods are still in the hands of the Government and the owner cannot exercise dominion over them, we believe however that the parties may agree to limit the liability of the carrier considering that the goods have still to through the inspection of the customs authorities before they are actually turned over to the consignee. This is a situation where we may say that the carrier losses control of the goods because of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made responsible for what may happen during the interregnum. And this is precisely what was done by the parties herein. In the bill of lading that was issued covering the shipment in question, both the carrier and the consignee have stipulated to limit the responsibility of the carrier for the loss or damage that may because to the goods before they are actually delivered by insert in therein the following provisions: 1. . . . The Carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever for any delay, nondelivery or misdelivery, or loss of or damage to the goods occurring while the goods are not in the actual custody of the Carrier. . . . (Emphasis ours.) (Paragraph 1, Exhibit "1") 2. . . . The responsibility of the Carrier in any capacity shall altogether cease and the goods shall be considered to be delivered and at their own risk and expense in every respect when taken into the custody of customs or other authorities. The Carrier shall not be required to give any notification of disposition of the goods. . . . (Emphasis ours.) (Paragraph 12, Exhibit "1") 3. Any provisions herein to the contrary notwithstanding, goods may be . . . by Carrier at ship's tackle . . . and delivery beyond ship's tackle shall been tirely at the option of the Carrier and solely at the expense of the shipper or consignee. (Paragraph 22, Exhibit "1") It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not assume liability for any loss or damage to the goods once they have been "taken into the custody of customs or other authorities", or when they have been delivered at ship's tackle. These stipulations are clear. They have been adopted precisely to mitigate the responsibility of the carrier considering the present law on the matter, and we find nothing therein that is contrary to morals or public policy that may justify their nullification. We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the carrier is not responsible for the loss in question, it appearing that the same happened after the shipment had been delivered to the customs authorities. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

KLEPPER V. APL (Note: I couldnt find APL v. Klepper. Please help find this case.) EN BANC G.R. No. L-19004 June 30, 1964

RICHARD A. KLEPPER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES LTD., ET AL., defendants, AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., defendant-appellant. Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta for plaintiff-appellee. Ross, Selph and Carrascoso and Leocadio de Asis for defendant-appellant. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: On November 5, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 28826 rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered on favor of the plaintiff Richard A. Klepper, ordering the defendant, American President Lines, Ltd., to pay said plaintiff the sum of P6,729.50, value of the goods damaged, plus P500.00 as their sentimental value, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, and the further sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees. Once this judgment is satisfied, defendant Delgado Bros., Inc. is also ordered to pay to defendant American President Lines, Ltd., the same amounts. Delgado Bros. Inc., is likewise ordered to pay the costs. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in due time affirmed it in toto. Again, the case was taken to this Court on a petition for review, and on November 29, 1960, the latter affirmed the decision of the court a quo, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with slight modification as follows: WHEREFORE, with the modification that petitioner shipping Company should only pay to respondent the sum of $500.00 as value of the goods damaged, the decision appealed from should be affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs.1wph1.t Our decision having become final, the case was remanded to the court of origin, but instead of waiting for the execution of the judgment, counsel for defendants made a tender of payment to the plaintiff of P1,000.00 stating that it was in full satisfaction of the judgment which limits their liability of $500.00. When this tender was refused, defendants deposited the money with the clerk of court, and moved the court for an entry of satisfaction of judgment. This was opposed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the court a quo issued an order the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in addition to the sum of P1,000.00 deposited by the defendant, American President Lines, Ltd., it should also deposit with this Court the interest on said amount of the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, and the further sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, in conformity with the judgment of this Court confirmed by the Court of Appeals and in part by the Supreme Court. No costs should be awarded inasmuch as the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment "without pronouncement as to costs." Dissatisfied with this order, defendant took the present appeal. The main thesis of appellant is that since the main question involved in their appeal was whether the carrier's liability should be limited to $500.00, and this Court has upheld the affirmative contention of appellants, to interpret our decision to mean that the carrier can be liable for more than $500.00 by imposing thereon interest and attorney's fees as was done by the lower court, would be to nullify our holding on the very crux of the case the limitation of $500.00. But this contention overlooks one important factor, that in our decision we did not merely limit the liability of defendants to $500.00 but went further to state that "the decision appealed from should be affirmed in all other respects." In other words, while we ruled that the liability of defendants insofar as the value of the goods damaged is concerned should not go beyond $500.00, we likewise ruled that the other portion of the decision should stand, and this concerns the interest that defendants were ordered to pay on the amount adjudicated, as well as the attorney's fees. This portion of the judgment was affirmed, and hence it should be enforced. We find no error in the order appealed from.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Labrador, Barrera and Dizon, JJ., took no part. EASTERN SHIPPING V. CA EN BANC

G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents. Alojada & Garcia and Jimenea, Dala & Zaragoza for petitoner. Zapa Law Office for private respondent.

VITUG, J.: The issues, albeit not completely novel, are: (a) whether or not a claim for damage sustained on a shipment of goods can be a solidary, or joint and several, liability of the common carrier, the arrastre operator and the customs broker; (b) whether the payment of legal interest on an award for loss or damage is to be computed from the time the complaint is filed or from the date the decision appealed from is rendered; and (c) whether the applicable rate of interest, referred to above, is twelve percent (12%) or six percent (6%). The findings of the court a quo, adopted by the Court of Appeals, on the antecedent and undisputed facts that have led to the controversy are hereunder reproduced: This is an action against defendants shipping company, arrastre operator and broker-forwarder for damages sustained by a shipment while in defendants' custody, filed by the insurer-subrogee who paid the consignee the value of such losses/damages. On December 4, 1981, two fiber drums of riboflavin were shipped from Yokohama, Japan for delivery vessel "SS EASTERN COMET" owned by defendant Eastern Shipping Lines under Bill of Lading No. YMA-8 (Exh. B). The shipment was insured under plaintiff's Marine Insurance Policy No. 81/01177 for P36,382,466.38. Upon arrival of the shipment in Manila on December 12, 1981, it was discharged unto the custody of defendant Metro Port Service, Inc. The latter excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order, which damage was unknown to plaintiff. On January 7, 1982 defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from defendant Metro Port Service, Inc., one drum opened and without seal (per "Request for Bad Order Survey." Exh. D). On January 8 and 14, 1982, defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation made deliveries of the shipment to the consignee's warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages, while the rest of the contents was adulterated/fake (per "Bad Order Waybill" No. 10649, Exh. E). Plaintiff contended that due to the losses/damage sustained by said drum, the consignee suffered losses totaling P19,032.95, due to the fault and negligence of defendants. Claims were presented against defendants who failed and refused to pay the same (Exhs. H, I, J, K, L). As a consequence of the losses sustained, plaintiff was compelled to pay the consignee P19,032.95 under the aforestated marine insurance policy, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of said consignee against defendants (per "Form of Subrogation", "Release" and Philbanking check, Exhs. M, N, and O). (pp. 8586, Rollo.)

There were, to be sure, other factual issues that confronted both courts. Here, the appellate court said: Defendants filed their respective answers, traversing the material allegations of the complaint contending that: As for defendant Eastern Shipping it alleged that the shipment was discharged in good order from the vessel unto the custody of Metro Port Service so that any damage/losses incurred after the shipment was incurred after the shipment was turned over to the latter, is no longer its liability (p. 17, Record); Metroport averred that although subject shipment was discharged unto its custody, portion of the same was already in bad order (p. 11, Record); Allied Brokerage alleged that plaintiff has no cause of action against it, not having negligent or at fault for the shipment was already in damage and bad order condition when received by it, but nonetheless, it still exercised extra ordinary care and diligence in the handling/delivery of the cargo to consignee in the same condition shipment was received by it. From the evidence the court found the following: The issues are: 1. Whether or not the shipment sustained losses/damages; 2. Whether or not these losses/damages were sustained while in the custody of defendants (in whose respective custody, if determinable); 3. Whether or not defendant(s) should be held liable for the losses/damages (see plaintiff's pre-Trial Brief, Records, p. 34; Allied's pre-Trial Brief, adopting plaintiff's Records, p. 38). As to the first issue, there can be no doubt that the shipment sustained losses/damages. The two drums were shipped in good order and condition, as clearly shown by the Bill of Lading and Commercial Invoice which do not indicate any damages drum that was shipped (Exhs. B and C). But when on December 12, 1981 the shipment was delivered to defendant Metro Port Service, Inc., it excepted to one drum in bad order. Correspondingly, as to the second issue, it follows that the losses/damages were sustained while in the respective and/or successive custody and possession of defendants carrier (Eastern), arrastre operator (Metro Port) and broker (Allied Brokerage). This becomes evident when the Marine Cargo Survey Report (Exh. G), with its "Additional Survey Notes", are considered. In the latter notes, it is stated that when the shipment was "landed on vessel" to dock of Pier # 15, South Harbor, Manila on December 12, 1981, it was observed that "one (1) fiber drum (was) in damaged condition, covered by the vessel's Agent's Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 86427." The report further states that when defendant Allied Brokerage withdrew the shipment from defendant arrastre operator's custody on January 7, 1982, one drum was found opened without seal, cello bag partly torn but contents intact. Net unrecovered spillages was 15 kgs. The report went on to state that when the drums reached the consignee, one drum was found with adulterated/faked contents. It is obvious, therefore, that these losses/damages occurred before the shipment reached the consignee while under the successive custodies of defendants. Under Art. 1737 of the New Civil Code, the common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance of goods remains in full force and effect even if the goods are temporarily unloaded and stored in transit in the warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised and has had reasonable opportunity to remove or dispose of the goods (Art. 1738, NCC). Defendant Eastern Shipping's own exhibit, the "Turn-Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes" (Exhs. 3-Eastern) states that on December 12, 1981 one drum was found "open". and thus held: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered: A. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally: 1. The amount of P19,032.95, with the present legal interest of 12% per annum from October 1, 1982, the date of filing of this complaints, until fully paid (the liability of defendant Eastern Shipping, Inc. shall not exceed US$500 per case or the CIF value of the loss, whichever is lesser, while the liability of defendant Metro Port Service, Inc. shall be to the extent of the actual invoice value of each package, crate box or container in no case to exceed P5,000.00 each, pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Management Contract);

2. P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and 3. Costs. B. Dismissing the counterclaims and crossclaim of defendant/cross-claimant Allied Brokerage Corporation. SO ORDERED. (p. 207, Record). Dissatisfied, defendant's recourse to US. The appeal is devoid of merit. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. We find that the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct. As there is sufficient evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive possession of appellants, and therefore they are liable to the appellee, as subrogee for the amount it paid to the consignee. (pp. 87-89, Rollo.) The Court of Appeals thus affirmed in toto the judgment of the court a quo. In this petition, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the common carrier, attributes error and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court when I. IT HELD PETITIONER CARRIER JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE ARRASTRE OPERATOR AND CUSTOMS BROKER FOR THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS GRANTED IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION; II. IT HELD THAT THE GRANT OF INTEREST ON THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD COMMENCE FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM INSTEAD OF FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ONLY AT THE RATE OF SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM, PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM BEING INDISPUTABLY UNLIQUIDATED. The petition is, in part, granted. In this decision, we have begun by saying that the questions raised by petitioner carrier are not all that novel. Indeed, we do have a fairly good number of previous decisions this Court can merely tack to. The common carrier's duty to observe the requisite diligence in the shipment of goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation until delivered to, or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance by, the person entitled to receive them (Arts. 1736-1738, Civil Code; Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, 161 SCRA 646; Kui Bai vs. Dollar Steamship Lines, 52 Phil. 863). When the goods shipped either are lost or arrive in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable (Art. 1735, Civil Code; Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 87; Metro Port Service vs. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 365). There are, of course, exceptional cases when such presumption of fault is not observed but these cases, enumerated in Article 1734 1 of the Civil Code, are exclusive, not one of which can be applied to this case. The question of charging both the carrier and the arrastre operator with the obligation of properly delivering the goods to the consignee has, too, been passed upon by the Court. In Fireman's Fund Insurance vs. Metro Port Services (182 SCRA 455), we have explained, in holding the carrier and the arrastre operator liable in solidum, thus: The legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman (Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Co., 19 SCRA 5 [1967]. The relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator (Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, et al., 107 Phil. 253 [1960]). Since it is the duty of the ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also devolves upon the CARRIER. Both the ARRASTRE and the CARRIER are therefore charged with the obligation to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee. We do not, of course, imply by the above pronouncement that the arrastre operator and the customs broker are themselves always and necessarily liable solidarily with the carrier, or vice-versa, nor that attendant facts in a given case may not vary the rule. The

instant petition has been brought solely by Eastern Shipping Lines, which, being the carrier and not having been able to rebut the presumption of fault, is, in any event, to be held liable in this particular case. A factual finding of both the court a quo and the appellate court, we take note, is that "there is sufficient evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive possession of appellants" (the herein petitioner among them). Accordingly, the liability imposed on Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the sole petitioner in this case, is inevitable regardless of whether there are others solidarily liable with it. It is over the issue of legal interest adjudged by the appellate court that deserves more than just a passing remark. Let us first see a chronological recitation of the major rulings of this Court: The early case of Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., vs. Manila Port Service, 2 decided 3 on 15 May 1969, involved a suit for recovery of money arising out of short deliveries and pilferage of goods. In this case, appellee Malayan Insurance (the plaintiff in the lower court) averred in its complaint that the total amount of its claim for the value of the undelivered goods amounted to P3,947.20. This demand, however, was neither established in its totality nor definitely ascertained. In the stipulation of facts later entered into by the parties, in lieu of proof, the amount of P1,447.51 was agreed upon. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the appellants (defendants) Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company to pay appellee Malayan Insurance the sum of P1,447.51 with legal interest thereon from the date the complaint was filed on 28 December 1962 until full payment thereof. The appellants then assailed, inter alia, the award of legal interest. In sustaining the appellants, this Court ruled: Interest upon an obligation which calls for the payment of money, absent a stipulation, is the legal rate. Such interest normally is allowable from the date of demand, judicial or extrajudicial. The trial court opted for judicial demand as the starting point. But then upon the provisions of Article 2213 of the Civil Code, interest "cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty." And as was held by this Court in Rivera vs. Perez, 4 L-6998, February 29, 1956, if the suit were for damages, "unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof (Montilla c. Corporacion de P.P. Agustinos, 25 Phil. 447; Lichauco v. Guzman, 38 Phil. 302)," then, interest "should be from the date of the decision." (Emphasis supplied) The case of Reformina vs. Tomol, 5 rendered on 11 October 1985, was for "Recovery of Damages for Injury to Person and Loss of Property." After trial, the lower court decreed: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and third party defendants and against the defendants and third party plaintiffs as follows: Ordering defendants and third party plaintiffs Shell and Michael, Incorporated to pay jointly and severally the following persons: xxx xxx xxx (g) Plaintiffs Pacita F. Reformina and Francisco Reformina the sum of P131,084.00 which is the value of the boat F B Pacita III together with its accessories, fishing gear and equipment minus P80,000.00 which is the value of the insurance recovered and the amount of P10,000.00 a month as the estimated monthly loss suffered by them as a result of the fire of May 6, 1969 up to the time they are actually paid or already the total sum of P370,000.00 as of June 4, 1972 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until paid and to pay attorney's fees of P5,000.00 with costs against defendants and third party plaintiffs. (Emphasis supplied.) On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter modified the amount of damages awarded but sustained the trial court in adjudging legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. When the appellate court's decision became final, the case was remanded to the lower court for execution, and this was when the trial court issued its assailed resolution which applied the 6% interest per annum prescribed in Article 2209 of the Civil Code. In their petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners contended that Central Bank Circular No. 416, providing thus By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act 2655, as amended, Monetary Board in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed that the rate of interest for the loan, or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve (12%) percent per annum. This Circular shall take effect immediately. (Emphasis found in the text) should have, instead, been applied. This Court 6 ruled:

The judgments spoken of and referred to are judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. Any other kind of monetary judgment which has nothing to do with, nor involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits does not fall within the coverage of the said law for it is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank. xxx xxx xxx Coming to the case at bar, the decision herein sought to be executed is one rendered in an Action for Damages for injury to persons and loss of property and does not involve any loan, much less forbearances of any money, goods or credits. As correctly argued by the private respondents, the law applicable to the said case is Article 2209 of the New Civil Code which reads Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is six percent per annum. The above rule was reiterated in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Cruz, 7 promulgated on 28 July 1986. The case was for damages occasioned by an injury to person and loss of property. The trial court awarded private respondent Pedro Manabat actual and compensatory damages in the amount of P72,500.00 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. Relying on the Reformina v. Tomol case, this Court 8 modified the interest award from 12% to 6% interest per annum but sustained the time computation thereof, i.e., from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. In Nakpil and Sons vs. Court of Appeals, 9 the trial court, in an action for the recovery of damages arising from the collapse of a building, ordered, inter alia, the "defendant United Construction Co., Inc. (one of the petitioners) . . . to pay the plaintiff, . . . , the sum of P989,335.68 with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968, the date of the filing of the complaint until full payment . . . ." Save from the modification of the amount granted by the lower court, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's decision. When taken to this Court for review, the case, on 03 October 1986, was decided, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, we deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra. p. 10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception to attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon aforementioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and third-party defendants (Except Roman Ozaeta). (Emphasis supplied) A motion for reconsideration was filed by United Construction, contending that "the interest of twelve (12%) per cent per annum imposed on the total amount of the monetary award was in contravention of law." The Court 10 ruled out the applicability of the Reformina and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines cases and, in its resolution of 15 April 1988, it explained: There should be no dispute that the imposition of 12% interest pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 416 . . . is applicable only in the following: (1) loans; (2) forbearance of any money, goods or credit; and (3) rate allowed in judgments (judgments spoken of refer to judgments involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits. (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. v. Cruz, 143 SCRA 160-161 [1986]; Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., 139 SCRA 260 [1985]). It is true that in the instant case, there is neither a loan or a forbearance, but then no interest is actually imposed provided the sums referred to in the judgment are paid upon the finality of the judgment. It is delay in the payment of such final judgment, that will cause the imposition of the interest. It will be noted that in the cases already adverted to, the rate of interest is imposed on the total sum, from the filing of the complaint until paid; in other words, as part of the judgment for damages. Clearly, they are not applicable to the instant case. (Emphasis supplied.) The subsequent case of American Express International, Inc., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 11 was a petition for review on certiorari from the decision, dated 27 February 1985, of the then Intermediate Appellate Court reducing the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court, to P240,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively, and its resolution, dated 29 April 1985, restoring the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, i.e., P2,000,000.00 as moral damages and P400,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest thereon at 12% per annum from notice of judgment, plus costs of suit. In a decision of 09 November 1988, this Court, while recognizing the right of the private respondent to recover damages, held the award, however,

for moral damages by the trial court, later sustained by the IAC, to be inconceivably large. The Court 12 thus set aside the decision of the appellate court and rendered a new one, "ordering the petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, with six (6%) percent interest thereon computed from the finality of this decision until paid. (Emphasis supplied) Reformina came into fore again in the 21 February 1989 case of Florendo v. Ruiz 13 which arose from a breach of employment contract. For having been illegally dismissed, the petitioner was awarded by the trial court moral and exemplary damages without, however, providing any legal interest thereon. When the decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, the latter held: WHEREFORE, except as modified hereinabove the decision of the CFI of Negros Oriental dated October 31, 1972 is affirmed in all respects, with the modification that defendants-appellants, except defendant-appellant Merton Munn, are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the amounts stated in the dispositive portion of the decision, including the sum of P1,400.00 in concept of compensatory damages, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid (Emphasis supplied.) The petition for review to this Court was denied. The records were thereupon transmitted to the trial court, and an entry of judgment was made. The writ of execution issued by the trial court directed that only compensatory damages should earn interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint. Ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, a petition for certiorari assailed the said order. This Court said: . . . , it is to be noted that the Court of Appeals ordered the payment of interest "at the legal rate" from the time of the filing of the complaint. . . Said circular [Central Bank Circular No. 416] does not apply to actions based on a breach of employment contract like the case at bar. (Emphasis supplied) The Court reiterated that the 6% interest per annum on the damages should be computed from the time the complaint was filed until the amount is fully paid. Quite recently, the Court had another occasion to rule on the matter. National Power Corporation vs. Angas, 14 decided on 08 May 1992, involved the expropriation of certain parcels of land. After conducting a hearing on the complaints for eminent domain, the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay the private respondents certain sums of money as just compensation for their lands so expropriated "with legal interest thereon . . . until fully paid." Again, in applying the 6% legal interest per annum under the Civil Code, the Court 15 declared: . . . , (T)he transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment thereof. Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the joint judgment of the lower court sought to be enforced in this case is interest by way of damages, and not by way of earnings from loans, etc. Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply. Concededly, there have been seeming variances in the above holdings. The cases can perhaps be classified into two groups according to the similarity of the issues involved and the corresponding rulings rendered by the court. The "first group" would consist of the cases of Reformina v. Tomol (1985), Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Cruz (1986), Florendo v. Ruiz (1989) and National Power Corporation v. Angas (1992). In the "second group" would be Malayan Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service (1969), Nakpil and Sons v. Court of Appeals (1988), and American Express International v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1988). In the "first group", the basic issue focuses on the application of either the 6% (under the Civil Code) or 12% (under the Central Bank Circular) interest per annum. It is easily discernible in these cases that there has been a consistent holding that the Central Bank Circular imposing the 12% interest per annum applies only to loans or forbearance 16 of money, goods or credits, as well as to judgments involving such loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, and that the 6% interest under the Civil Code governs when the transaction involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general. Observe, too, that in these cases, a common time frame in the computation of the 6% interest per annum has been applied, i.e., from the time the complaint is filed until the adjudged amount is fully paid. The "second group", did not alter the pronounced rule on the application of the 6% or 12% interest per annum, 17 depending on whether or not the amount involved is a loan or forbearance, on the one hand, or one of indemnity for damage, on the other hand. Unlike, however, the "first group" which remained consistent in holding that the running of the legal interest should be from the time of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, the "second group" varied on the commencement of the running of the legal interest. Malayan held that the amount awarded should bear legal interest from the date of the decision of the court a quo, explaining that "if the suit were for damages, 'unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after

proof,' then, interest 'should be from the date of the decision.'" American Express International v. IAC, introduced a different time frame for reckoning the 6% interest by ordering it to be "computed from the finality of (the) decision until paid." The Nakpil and Sons case ruled that 12% interest per annum should be imposed from the finality of the decision until the judgment amount is paid. The ostensible discord is not difficult to explain. The factual circumstances may have called for different applications, guided by the rule that the courts are vested with discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on the award of interest. Nonetheless, it may not be unwise, by way of clarification and reconciliation, to suggest the following rules of thumb for future guidance. I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts 18 is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. 19 The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages. 20 II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows: 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. 21 Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. 22 In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 23 of the Civil Code. 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court 24 at the rate of 6% per annum. 25 No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. 26 Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be paid is SIX PERCENT (6%) on the amount due computed from the decision, dated 03 February 1988, of the court a quo. A TWELVE PERCENT (12%) interest, in lieu of SIX PERCENT (6%), shall be imposed on such amount upon finality of this decision until the payment thereof. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., took no part.

#Footnotes

1 Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

(5) Order or act of competent public authority. 2 28 SCRA 65. 3 Penned by Justice Conrado Sanchez, concurred in by Justices Jose B.L. Reyes, Arsenio Dizon, Querube Makalintal, Calixto Zaldivar, Enrique Fernando, Francisco Capistrano, Claudio Teehankee and Antonio Barredo, Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and Justice Fred Ruiz Castro were on official leave. 4 The correct caption of the case is "Claro Rivera vs. Amadeo Matute, L-6998, 29 February 1956," 98 Phil. 516. 5 139 SCRA 260, 265. 6 Penned by Justice Serafin Cuevas, concurred in by Justices Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., Vicente Abad Santos, Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, Venicio Escolin, Lorenzo Relova, Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., Buenaventura de la Fuente, Nestor Alampay and Lino Patajo. Justice Ramon Aquino concurred in the result. Justice Efren Plana filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, concurred in by Justice Claudio Teehankee while Chief Justice Felix Makasiar concurred with the separate opinion of Justice Plana. 7 143 SCRA 158. 8 Penned by then Justice, now Chief Justice, Andres Narvasa, concurred in by Justices Pedro Yap, Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, Isagani A. Cruz and Edgardo Paras. 9 160 SCRA 334. 10 Penned by Justice Edgardo Paras, with the concurrence of Justices Marcelo Fernan, Teodoro Padilla, Abdulwahid Bidin, and Irene Cortes. Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., took no part because he was the ponente in the Court of Appeals. 11 167 SCRA 209. 12 Rendered per curiam with the concurrence of then Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan, Justices Andres Narvasa, Isagani A. Cruz, Emilio Gancayco, Teodoro Padilla, Abdulwahid Bidin, Abraham Sarmiento, Irene Cortes, Carolina Grio-Aquino, Leo Medialdea and Florenz Regalado. Justices Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera and Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., took no part because they did not participate in the deliberations. Justices Edgardo Paras and Florentino Feliciano also took no part. 13 170 SCRA 461. 14 208 SCRA 542. 15 Penned by Justice Edgardo Paras with the concurrence of Justices Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, Teodoro Padilla, Florenz Regalado and Rodolfo Nocon. 16 Black's Law Dictionary (1990 ed., 644) citing the case of Hafer v. Spaeth, 22 Wash. 2d 378, 156 P.2d 408, 411 defines the word forbearance, within the context of usury law, as a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during given period of time, from requiring borrower or debtor to repay loan or debt then due and payable. 17 In the case of Malayan Insurance, the application of the 6% and 12% interest per annum has no bearing considering that this case was decided upon before the issuance of Circular No. 416 by the Central Bank. 18 Art. 1157. Obligations arise from. (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and

(5) Qausi-delicts." 19 Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. 20 Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title (on Damages) shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in article 1157. 21 Art. 1956. No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. 22 Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. 23 Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. "However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist: (1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or (2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or (3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. "In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins." 24 Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. 25 Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. 26 Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. HEACOCK V. MACONDRAY EN BANC G.R. No. L-16598 October 3, 1921

H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellant. Fisher & DeWitt for plaintiff-appellant. Wolfson, Wolfson & Schwarzkopf for defendant-appellant.

JOHNSON, J.:

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila to recover the sum of P240 together with interest thereon. The facts are stipulated by the parties, and are, briefly, as follows: (1) On or about the 5th day of June, 1919, the plaintiff caused to be delivered on board of steamship Bolton Castle, then in the harbor of New York, four cases of merchandise one of which contained twelve (12) 8-day Edmond clocks properly boxed and marked for transportation to Manila, and paid freight on said clocks from New York to Manila in advance. The said steampship arrived in the port of Manila on or about the 10th day of September, 1919, consigned to the defendant herein as agent and representative of said vessel in said port. Neither the master of said vessel nor the defendant herein, as its agent, delivered to the plaintiff the aforesaid twelve 8-day Edmond clocks, although demand was made upon them for their delivery. (2) The invoice value of the said twelve 8-day Edmond clocks in the city of New York was P22 and the market value of the same in the City of Manila at the time when they should have been delivered to the plaintiff was P420. (3) The bill of lading issued and delivered to the plaintiff by the master of the said steamship Bolton Castle contained, among others, the following clauses: 1. It is mutually agreed that the value of the goods receipted for above does not exceed $500 per freight ton, or, in proportion for any part of a ton, unless the value be expressly stated herein and ad valorem freight paid thereon. 9. Also, that in the event of claims for short delivery of, or damage to, cargo being made, the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less all charges saved, and any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis. (4) The case containing the aforesaid twelve 8-day Edmond clocks measured 3 cubic feet, and the freight ton value thereof was $1,480, U. S. currency. (5) No greater value than $500, U. S. currency, per freight ton was declared by the plaintiff on the aforesaid clocks, and no ad valorem freight was paid thereon. (6) On or about October 9, 1919, the defendant tendered to the plaintiff P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value of the aforesaid twelve 8-day Edmond clocks, in payment of plaintiff's claim, which tender plaintiff rejected. The lower court, in accordance with clause 9 of the bill of lading above quoted, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of P226.02, this being the invoice value of the clocks in question plus the freight and insurance thereon, with legal interest thereon from November 20, 1919, the date of the complaint, together with costs. From that judgment both parties appealed to this court. The plaintiff-appellant insists that it is entitled to recover from the defendant the market value of the clocks in question, to wit: the sum of P420. The defendant-appellant, on the other hand, contends that, in accordance with clause 1 of the bill of lading, the plaintiff is entitled to recover only the sum of P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value of the said clocks. The claim of the plaintiff is based upon the argument that the two clause in the bill of lading above quoted, limiting the liability of the carrier, are contrary to public order and, therefore, null and void. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that both of said clauses are valid, and the clause 1 should have been applied by the lower court instead of clause 9. I. The appeal of the plaintiff presents this question; May a common carrier, by stipulations inserted in the bill of lading, limit its liability for the loss of or damage to the cargo to an agreed valuation of the latter? 1awph!l.net Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable. The authorities relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant (the Harter Act [Act of Congress of February 13, 1893]: Louisville Ry. Co. vs. Wynn, 88 Tenn., 320; and Galt vs. Adams Express Co., 4 McAr., 124; 48 Am. Rep., 742) support the proposition that the first and second stipulations in a bill of lading are invalid which either exempt the carrier from liability for loss or damage occasioned by its negligence, or provide for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. A reading of clauses 1 and 9 of the bill of lading here in question, however, clearly shows that the present case falls within the third stipulation, to wit: That a clause in a bill of lading limiting the liability of the carrier to a certain amount unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight, is valid and enforceable. This proposition is supported by a

uniform lien of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered both prior and subsequent to the passage of the Harter Act, from the case of Hart vs. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. (decided Nov. 24, 1884; 112 U. S., 331), to the case of the Union Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Burke (decided Feb. 28, 1921, Advance Opinions, 1920-1921, p. 318). In the case of Hart vs. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., supra, it was held that "where a contract of carriage, signed by the shipper, is fairly made with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property carried, with the rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation, even in case of loss or damage by the negligence of the carrier, the contract will be upheld as proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight he receives, and protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuations." In the case of Union Pacific Railway Co. vs. Burke, supra, the court said: "In many cases, from the decision in Hart vs. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. (112 U. S. 331; 28 L. ed., 717; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep., 151, decided in 1884), to Boston and M. R. Co. vs. Piper (246 U. S., 439; 62 L. ed., 820; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep., 354; Ann. Cas. 1918 E, 469, decided in 1918), it has been declared to be the settled Federal law that if a common carrier gives to a shipper the choice of two rates, the lower of the conditioned upon his agreeing to a stipulated valuation of his property in case of loss, even by the carrier's negligence, if the shipper makes such a choice, understandingly and freely, and names his valuation, he cannot thereafter recover more than the value which he thus places upon his property. As a matter of legal distinction, estoppel is made the basis of this ruling, that, having accepted the benefit of the lower rate, in common honesty the shipper may not repudiate the conditions on which it was obtained, but the rule and the effect of it are clearly established." The syllabus of the same case reads as follows: "A carrier may not, by a valuation agreement with a shipper, limit its liability in case of the loss by negligence of an interstate shipment to less than the real value thereof, unless the shipper is given a choice of rates, based on valuation." A limitation of liability based upon an agreed value to obtain a lower rate does not conflict with any sound principle of public policy; and it is not conformable to plain principles of justice that a shipper may understate value in order to reduce the rate and then recover a larger value in case of loss. (Adams Express Co. vs. Croninger 226 U. S. 491, 492.) See also Reid vs. Farbo (130 C. C. A., 285); Jennings vs. Smith (45 C. C. A., 249); George N. Pierce Co. vs. Wells, Fargo and Co. (227 U. S., 278); Wells, Fargo & Co. vs. Neiman-Marcus Co. (227 U. S., 469). It seems clear from the foregoing authorities that the clauses (1 and 9) of the bill of lading here in question are not contrary to public order. Article 1255 of the Civil Code provides that "the contracting parties may establish any agreements, terms and conditions they may deem advisable, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public order." Said clauses of the bill of lading are, therefore, valid and binding upon the parties thereto. II. The question presented by the appeal of the defendant is whether clause 1 or clause 9 of the bill of lading here in question is to be adopted as the measure of defendant's liability. Clause 1 provides as follows: 1. It is mutually agreed that the value of the goods receipted for above does not exceed $500 per freight ton, or, in proportion for any part of a ton, unless the value be expressly stated herein and ad valorem freight paid thereon. Clause 9 provides: 9. Also, that in the even of claims for short delivery of, or damage to, cargo being made, the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less all charges saved, and any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis. The defendant-appellant contends that these two clauses, if construed together, mean that the shipper and the carrier stipulate and agree that the value of the goods receipted for does not exceed $500 per freight ton, but should the invoice value of the goods be less than $500 per freight ton, then the invoice value governs; that since in this case the invoice value is more than $500 per freight ton, the latter valuation should be adopted and that according to that valuation, the proportionate value of the clocks in question is only P76.36 which the defendant is ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff. It will be noted, however, that whereas clause 1 contains only an implied undertaking to settle in case of loss on the basis of not exceeding $500 per freight ton, clause 9 contains an express undertaking to settle on the basis of the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less all charges saved. "Any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis," clause 9 expressly provides. It seems to us that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two clauses with regard to the measure of defendant's liability. It is difficult to reconcile them without doing violence to the language used and reading exceptions and conditions into the undertaking contained in clause 9 that are not there. This being the case, the bill of lading in question should be interpreted against the defendant carrier, which drew said contract. "A written contract should, in case of doubt, be interpreted against the party who has drawn the contract." (6 R. C. L. 854.) It is a well-known principle of construction that ambiguity or uncertainty in an agreement must be construed most strongly against the party causing it. (6 R. C. L., 855.) These rules as applicable to contracts contained in bills of lading. "In construing a bill of lading given by the carrier for the safe transportation and delivery of goods shipped by a consignor, the contract will be construed most strongly against the

carrier, and favorably to the consignor, in case of doubt in any matter of construction." (Alabama, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Thomas, 89 Ala., 294; 18 Am. St. Rep., 119.) It follows from all of the foregoing that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, without any finding as to costs. So ordered. Araullo, street, Avancea and Villamor, JJ., concur.

SHEWARAM V. PAL EN BANC G.R. No. L-20099 July 7, 1966

PARMANAND SHEWARAM, plaintiff and appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant and appellant. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for defendant and appellant. Climaco and Associates for plaintiff and appellee. ZALDIVAR, J.: Before the municipal court of Zamboanga City, plaintiff-appellee Parmanand Shewaram instituted an action to recover damages suffered by him due to the alleged failure of defendant-appellant Philippines Air Lines, Inc. to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance and carriage of his luggage. After trial the municipal court of Zamboanga City rendered judgment ordering the appellant to pay appellee P373.00 as actual damages, P100.00 as exemplary damages, P150.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs of the action. Appellant Philippine Air Lines appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. After hearing the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City modified the judgment of the inferior court by ordering the appellant to pay the appellee only the sum of P373.00 as actual damages, with legal interest from May 6, 1960 and the sum of P150.00 as attorney's fees, eliminating the award of exemplary damages. From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, appellant appeals to this Court on a question of law, assigning two errors allegedly committed by the lower court a quo, to wit: 1. The lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff-appellee was bound by the provisions of the tariff regulations filed by defendant-appellant with the civil aeronautics board and the conditions of carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket stub. 2. The lower court erred in not dismissing this case or limiting the liability of the defendant-appellant to P100.00. The facts of this case, as found by the trial court, quoted from the decision appealed from, are as follows: That Parmanand Shewaram, the plaintiff herein, was on November 23, 1959, a paying passenger with ticket No. 4-30976, on defendant's aircraft flight No. 976/910 from Zamboanga City bound for Manila; that defendant is a common carrier engaged in air line transportation in the Philippines, offering its services to the public to carry and transport passengers and cargoes from and to different points in the Philippines; that on the above-mentioned date of November 23, 1959, he checked in three (3) pieces of baggages a suitcase and two (2) other pieces; that the suitcase was mistagged by defendant's personnel in Zamboanga City, as I.G.N. (for Iligan) with claim check No. B-3883, instead of MNL (for Manila). When plaintiff Parmanand Shewaram arrived in Manila on the date of November 23, 1959, his suitcase did not arrive with his flight because it was sent to Iligan. So, he made a claim with defendant's personnel in Manila airport and another suitcase similar to his own which was the only baggage left for that flight, the rest having been claimed and released to the other passengers of said flight, was given to the plaintiff for him to take delivery but he did not and refused to take delivery of the same on the ground that it was not his, alleging that all his clothes were white and the National transistor 7 and a Rollflex camera were not found inside the suitcase, and moreover, it contained a pistol which he did not have nor placed inside his suitcase; that after inquiries made by defendant's personnel in Manila from different airports where the suitcase in question must have been sent, it was found to have reached Iligan and the station agent of the PAL in Iligan caused the same to be sent to Manila for delivery to Mr. Shewaram and which suitcase belonging to the plaintiff herein arrived in Manila airport on November 24, 1959; that it was also found out that the suitcase shown to and

given to the plaintiff for delivery which he refused to take delivery belonged to a certain Del Rosario who was bound for Iligan in the same flight with Mr. Shewaram; that when the plaintiff's suitcase arrived in Manila as stated above on November 24, 1959, he was informed by Mr. Tomas Blanco, Jr., the acting station agent of the Manila airport of the arrival of his suitcase but of course minus his Transistor Radio 7 and the Rollflex Camera; that Shewaram made demand for these two (2) items or for the value thereof but the same was not complied with by defendant. xxx xxx xxx

It is admitted by defendant that there was mistake in tagging the suitcase of plaintiff as IGN. The tampering of the suitcase is more apparent when on November 24, 1959, when the suitcase arrived in Manila, defendant's personnel could open the same in spite of the fact that plaintiff had it under key when he delivered the suitcase to defendant's personnel in Zamboanga City. Moreover, it was established during the hearing that there was space in the suitcase where the two items in question could have been placed. It was also shown that as early as November 24, 1959, when plaintiff was notified by phone of the arrival of the suitcase, plaintiff asked that check of the things inside his suitcase be made and defendant admitted that the two items could not be found inside the suitcase. There was no evidence on record sufficient to show that plaintiff's suitcase was never opened during the time it was placed in defendant's possession and prior to its recovery by the plaintiff. However, defendant had presented evidence that it had authority to open passengers' baggage to verify and find its ownership or identity. Exhibit "1" of the defendant would show that the baggage that was offered to plaintiff as his own was opened and the plaintiff denied ownership of the contents of the baggage. This proven fact that baggage may and could be opened without the necessary authorization and presence of its owner, applied too, to the suitcase of plaintiff which was mis-sent to Iligan City because of mistagging. The possibility of what 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 in plaintiff's suitcase and defendant should be held liable for the same by virtue of its contract of carriage. It is clear from the above-quoted portions of the decision of the trial court that said court had found that the suitcase of the appellee was tampered, and the transistor radio and the camera contained therein were lost, and that the loss of those articles was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant. The evidence shows that the transistor radio cost P197.00 and the camera cost P176.00, so the total value of the two articles was P373.00. There is no question that the appellant is a common carrier.1 As such common carrier the appellant, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by it according to the circumstances of each case. 2 It having been shown that the loss of the transistor radio and the camera of the appellee, costing P373.00, was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant should be held liable for the payment of said loss.3 It is, however, contended by the appellant that 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 the appellee, which conditions are embodied in Domestic Tariff Regulations No. 2 which was filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board. One of those conditions, which is pertinent to the issue raised by the appellant in this case provides as follows: The liability, if any, for loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is limited to its value and, unless the passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge therefor, the value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed P100.00 for each ticket. The appellant maintains that in view of 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 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. The law that may be invoked, in this connection is Article 1750 of the New Civil Code which provides as follows: A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. In accordance with the above-quoted provision of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code, the pecuniary liability of a common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed amount. It is required, however, that the contract must be "reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon." The requirements provided in Article 1750 of the New Civil Code must be complied with before a common carrier can claim a limitation of its pecuniary liability in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods it has undertaken to transport. In the case before us We believe that the requirements of said article have not been met. It can not be said that the appellee had actually entered into a contract with the appellant, embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket stub 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 would not warrant the presumption that the appellee was aware of those conditions such that he had "fairly and freely

agreed" to those conditions. The trial court has categorically stated in its decision that the "Defendant admits that passengers do not sign the ticket, much less did plaintiff herein sign his ticket when he made the flight on November 23, 1959." We hold, therefore, that the appellee is not, and can not be, bound by the conditions of carriage found at the back of the ticket stub issued to him when he made the flight on appellant's plane on November 23, 1959. The liability of the appellant in the present case should be governed by the provisions of Articles 1734 and 1735 of the New Civil Code, which We quote as follows: ART. 1734. Common carries are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; (5) Order or act of competent public authority.1wph1.t 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 deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. 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 common carrier, the liability of the appellant is clear it must pay the appellee the value of those two articles. In the case of Ysmael and Co. vs. Barreto, 51 Phil. 90, cited by the trial court in support of its decision, this Court had laid down the rule that the carrier can not limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods shipped where such injury or loss was caused by its own negligence. Corpus Juris, volume 10, p. 154, says: "Par. 194, 6. Reasonableness of Limitations. The validity of stipulations limiting the carrier's liability is to be determined by their reasonableness and their conformity to the sound public policy, in accordance with which the obligations of the carrier to the public are settled. It cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability, unless such exemption is just and reasonable, and unless the contract is freely and fairly made. No contractual limitation is reasonable which is subversive of public policy. "Par. 195. 7. What Limitations of Liability Permissible. a. Negligence (1) Rule in America (a) In Absence of Organic or Statutory Provisions Regulating Subject aa. Majority Rule. In the absence of statute, it is settled by the weight of authority in the United States, that whatever limitations against its common-law liability are permissible to a carrier, it cannot limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods shipped, where such injury or loss is caused by its own negligence. This is the common law doctrine and it makes no difference that there is no statutory prohibition against contracts of this character. "Par. 196. bb. Considerations on which Rule Based. The rule, it is said, rests on considerations of public policy. The undertaking is to carry the goods, and to relieve the shipper from all liability for loss or damage arising from negligence in performing its contract is to ignore the contract itself. The natural effect of a limitation of liability against negligence is to induce want of care on the part of the carrier in the performance of its duty. The shipper and the common carrier are not on equal terms; the shipper must send his freight by the common carrier, or not at all; he is therefore entirely at the mercy of the carrier unless protected by the higher power of the law against being forced into contracts limiting the carrier's liability. Such contracts are wanting in the element of voluntary assent. "Par. 197. cc. Application and Extent of Rule (aa) Negligence of Servants. The rule prohibiting limitation of liability for negligence is often stated as a prohibition of any contract relieving the carrier from loss or damage caused by its own negligence or misfeasance, or that of its servants; and it has been specifically decided in many cases that no contract limitation will relieve the carrier from responsibility for the negligence, unskillfulness, or carelessness of its employer." (Cited in Ysmael and Co. vs. Barreto, 51 Phil. 90, 98, 99). In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur. Footnotes
1

Article 1732, New Civil Code. Articles 1733, 1734, 1735 and 1745, New Civil Code. Articles 1734, 1735, 1736 and 1754, New Civil Code.

ONG YIU V. CA G.R. No. L-40597 June 29, 1979 AGUSTINO B. ONG YIU, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: In this Petition for Review by Certiorari, petitioner, a practicing lawyer and businessman, seeks a reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 45005-R, which reduced his claim for damages for breach of contract of transportation. The facts are as follows: On August 26, 1967, petitioner was a fare paying passenger of respondent Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL), on board Flight No. 463-R, from Mactan Cebu, bound for Butuan City. He was scheduled to attend the trial of Civil Case No. 1005 and Spec. Procs. No. 1125 in the Court of First Instance, Branch II, thereat, set for hearing on August 28-31, 1967. As a passenger, he checked in one piece of luggage, a blue "maleta" for which he was issued Claim Check No. 2106-R (Exh. "A"). The plane left Mactan Airport, Cebu, at about 1:00 o'clock P.M., and arrived at Bancasi airport, Butuan City, at past 2:00 o'clock P.M., of the same day. Upon arrival, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found. According to petitioner, it was only after reacting indignantly to the loss that the matter was attended to by the porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, which, however, the latter denies, At about 3:00 o'clock P.M., PAL Butuan, sent a message to PAL, Cebu, inquiring about the missing luggage, which message was, in turn relayed in full to the Mactan Airport teletype operator at 3:45 P.M. (Exh. "2") that same afternoon. It must have been transmitted to Manila immediately, for at 3:59 that same afternoon, PAL Manila wired PAL Cebu advising that the luggage had been over carried to Manila aboard Flight No. 156 and that it would be forwarded to Cebu on Flight No. 345 of the same day. Instructions were also given that the luggage be immediately forwarded to Butuan City on the first available flight (Exh. "3"). At 5:00 P.M. of the same afternoon, PAL Cebu sent a message to PAL Butuan that the luggage would be forwarded on Fright No. 963 the following day, August 27, 196'(. However, this message was not received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had already left since there were no more incoming flights that afternoon. In the meantime, petitioner was worried about the missing luggage because it contained vital documents needed for trial the next day. At 10:00 o'clock that evening, petitioner wired PAL Cebu demanding the delivery of his baggage before noon the next day, otherwise, he would hold PAL liable for damages, and stating that PAL's gross negligence had caused him undue inconvenience, worry, anxiety and extreme embarrassment (Exh. "B"). This telegram was received by the Cebu PAL supervisor but the latter felt no need to wire petitioner that his luggage had already been forwarded on the assumption that by the time the message reached Butuan City, the luggage would have arrived. Early in the morning of the next day, August 27, 1967, petitioner went to the Bancasi Airport to inquire about his luggage. He did not wait, however, for the morning flight which arrived at 10:00 o'clock that morning. This flight carried the missing luggage. The porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, paged petitioner, but the latter had already left. A certain Emilio Dagorro a driver of a "colorum" car, who also used to drive for petitioner, volunteered to take the luggage to petitioner. As Maximo Gomez knew Dagorro to be the same driver used by petitioner whenever the latter was in Butuan City, Gomez took the luggage and placed it on the counter. Dagorro examined the lock, pressed it, and it opened. After calling the attention of Maximo Gomez, the "maleta" was opened, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did not touch them. Dagorro then delivered the "maleta" to petitioner, with the information that the lock was open. Upon inspection, petitioner found that a folder containing certain exhibits, transcripts and private documents in Civil Case No. 1005 and Sp. Procs. No. 1126 were missing, aside from two gift items for his parents-in-law. Petitioner refused to accept the luggage. Dagorro returned it to the porter clerk, Maximo Gomez, who sealed it and forwarded the same to PAL Cebu.

Meanwhile, petitioner asked for postponement of the hearing of Civil Case No. 1005 due to loss of his documents, which was granted by the Court (Exhs. "C" and "C-1"). Petitioner returned to Cebu City on August 28, 1967. In a letter dated August 29, 1967 addressed to PAL, Cebu, petitioner called attention to his telegram (Exh. "D"), demanded that his luggage be produced intact, and that he be compensated in the sum of P250,000,00 for actual and moral damages within five days from receipt of the letter, otherwise, he would be left with no alternative but to file suit (Exh. "D"). On August 31, 1967, Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi, and Agustin, all of PAL Cebu, went to petitioner's office to deliver the "maleta". In the presence of Mr. Jose Yap and Atty. Manuel Maranga the contents were listed and receipted for by petitioner (Exh. "E"). On September 5, 1967, petitioner sent a tracer letter to PAL Cebu inquiring about the results of the investigation which Messrs. de Leon, Navarsi, and Agustin had promised to conduct to pinpoint responsibility for the unauthorized opening of the "maleta" (Exh. "F"). The following day, September 6, 1967, PAL sent its reply hereinunder quoted verbatim: Dear Atty. Ong Yiu: This is with reference to your September 5, 1967, letter to Mr. Ricardo G. Paloma, Acting Manager, Southern Philippines. First of all, may we apologize for the delay in informing you of the result of our investigation since we visited you in your office last August 31, 1967. Since there are stations other than Cebu which are involved in your case, we have to communicate and await replies from them. We regret to inform you that to date we have not found the supposedly lost folder of papers nor have we been able to pinpoint the personnel who allegedly pilferred your baggage. You must realize that no inventory was taken of the cargo upon loading them on any plane. Consequently, we have no way of knowing the real contents of your baggage when same was loaded. We realized the inconvenience you encountered of this incident but we trust that you will give us another opportunity to be of better service to you. Very truly yours, PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. (Sgd) JEREMIAS S. AGUSTIN Branch Supervisor Cebu (Exhibit G, Folder of Exhibits) 1 On September 13, 1967, petitioner filed a Complaint against PAL for damages for breach of contract of transportation with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch V, docketed as Civil Case No. R-10188, which PAL traversed. After due trial, the lower Court found PAL to have acted in bad faith and with malice and declared petitioner entitled to moral damages in the sum of P80,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, attorney's fees of P5,000.00, and costs. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals petitioner in so far as he was awarded only the sum of P80,000.00 as moral damages; and defendant because of the unfavorable judgment rendered against it. On August 22, 1974, the Court of Appeals,* finding that PAL was guilty only of simple negligence, reversed the judgment of the trial Court granting petitioner moral and exemplary damages, but ordered PAL to pay plaintiff the sum of P100.00, the baggage liability assumed by it under the condition of carriage printed at the back of the ticket. Hence, this Petition for Review by Certiorari, filed on May 2, 1975, with petitioner making the following Assignments of Error: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING RESPONDENT PAL GUILTY ONLY OF SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE AND NOT BAD FAITH IN THE BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION WITH PETITIONER.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AWARDING TO PETITIONER MORAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P80,000.00, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF P30,000.00, AND P5,000.00 REPRESENTING ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND ORDERED RESPONDENT PAL TO COMPENSATE PLAINTIFF THE SUM OF P100.00 ONLY, CONTRARY TO THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2220, 2229, 2232 AND 2234 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. On July 16, 1975, this Court gave due course to the Petition. There is no dispute that PAL incurred in delay in the delivery of petitioner's luggage. The question is the correctness of respondent Court's conclusion that there was no gross negligence on the part of PAL and that it had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith as to entitle petitioner to an award of moral and exemplary damages. From the facts of the case, we agree with respondent Court that PAL had not acted in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. 2 It was the duty of PAL to look for petitioner's luggage which had been miscarried. PAL exerted due diligence in complying with such duty. As aptly stated by the appellate Court: We do not find any evidence of bad faith in this. On the contrary, We find that the defendant had exerted diligent effort to locate plaintiff's baggage. The trial court saw evidence of bad faith because PAL sent the telegraphic message to Mactan only at 3:00 o'clock that same afternoon, despite plaintiff's indignation for the non-arrival of his baggage. The message was sent within less than one hour after plaintiff's luggage could not be located. Efforts had to be exerted to locate plaintiff's maleta. Then the Bancasi airport had to attend to other incoming passengers and to the outgoing passengers. Certainly, no evidence of bad faith can be inferred from these facts. Cebu office immediately wired Manila inquiring about the missing baggage of the plaintiff. At 3:59 P.M., Manila station agent at the domestic airport wired Cebu that the baggage was over carried to Manila. And this message was received in Cebu one minute thereafter, or at 4:00 P.M. The baggage was in fact sent back to Cebu City that same afternoon. His Honor stated that the fact that the message was sent at 3:59 P.M. from Manila and completely relayed to Mactan at 4:00 P.M., or within one minute, made the message appear spurious. This is a forced reasoning. A radio message of about 50 words can be completely transmitted in even less than one minute depending upon atmospheric conditions. Even if the message was sent from Manila or other distant places, the message can be received within a minute. that is a scientific fact which cannot be questioned. 3 Neither was the failure of PAL Cebu to reply to petitioner's rush telegram indicative of bad faith, The telegram (Exh. B) was dispatched by petitioner at around 10:00 P.M. of August 26, 1967. The PAL supervisor at Mactan Airport was notified of it only in the morning of the following day. At that time the luggage was already to be forwarded to Butuan City. There was no bad faith, therefore, in the assumption made by said supervisor that the plane carrying the bag would arrive at Butuan earlier than a reply telegram. Had petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the Bancasi airport for the arrival of the morning flight, he would have been able to retrieve his luggage sooner. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, petitioner is not entitled to moral damages. Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act of omission. Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Petitioner is neither entitled to exemplary damages. In contracts, as provided for in Article 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages can be granted if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, which has not been proven in this case. Petitioner further contends that respondent Court committed grave error when it limited PAL's carriage liability to the amount of P100.00 as stipulated at the back of the ticket. In this connection, respondent Court opined: As a general proposition, the plaintiff's maleta having been pilfered while in the custody of the defendant, it is presumed that the defendant had been negligent. The liability, however, of PAL for the loss, in accordance with the stipulation written on the back of the ticket, Exhibit 12, is limited to P100.00 per baggage, plaintiff not having declared a greater value, and not having called the attention of the defendant on its true value and paid

the tariff therefor. The validity of this stipulation is not questioned by the plaintiff. They are printed in reasonably and fairly big letters, and are easily readable. Moreover, plaintiff had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back, and he, being a lawyer and businessman, must be fully aware of these conditions. 4 We agree with the foregoing finding. The pertinent Condition of Carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket reads: 8. BAGGAGE LIABILITY ... The total liability of the Carrier for lost or damaged baggage of the passenger is LIMITED TO P100.00 for each ticket unless a passenger declares a higher valuation in excess of P100.00, but not in excess, however, of a total valuation of P1,000.00 and additional charges are paid pursuant to Carrier's tariffs. There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for his luggage, much less did he pay any additional transportation charge. But petitioner argues that there is nothing in the evidence to show that he had actually entered into a contract with PAL limiting the latter's liability for loss or delay of the baggage of its passengers, and that Article 1750* of the Civil Code has not been complied with. While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket (Exh. "12"), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation". 5 It is what is known as a contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. 6 And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein vs. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence. Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00.Besides, passengers are advised not to place valuable items inside their baggage but "to avail of our V-cargo service " (Exh. "1"). I t is likewise to be noted that there is nothing in the evidence to show the actual value of the goods allegedly lost by petitioner. There is another matter involved, raised as an error by PAL the fact that on October 24, 1974 or two months after the promulgation of the Decision of the appellate Court, petitioner's widow filed a Motion for Substitution claiming that petitioner died on January 6, 1974 and that she only came to know of the adverse Decision on October 23, 1974 when petitioner's law partner informed her that he received copy of the Decision on August 28, 1974. Attached to her Motion was an Affidavit of petitioner's law partner reciting facts constitutive of excusable negligence. The appellate Court noting that all pleadings had been signed by petitioner himself allowed the widow "to take such steps as she or counsel may deem necessary." She then filed a Motion for Reconsideration over the opposition of PAL which alleged that the Court of Appeals Decision, promulgated on August 22, 1974, had already become final and executory since no appeal had been interposed therefrom within the reglementary period. Under the circumstances, considering the demise of petitioner himself, who acted as his own counsel, it is best that technicality yields to the interests of substantial justice. Besides, in the 'last analysis, no serious prejudice has been caused respondent PAL. In fine, we hold that the conclusions drawn by respondent Court from the evidence on record are not erroneous. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Petition is hereby denied, and the judgment sought to be reviewed hereby affirmed in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.

#Footnotes 1 pp. 47-48, Rollo. * Decision penned by Justice Jose Leuterio, with Justice Roseller Lim and Francisco Tantuico, Jr., concurring.

2 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 166 (1966); Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431 (1966). 3 pp. 12-13, Decision. on pp. 53-54, Rollo. 4 pp. 8-9, Decision on pp. 27-28, Rollo. * A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. 5 Tannebaum v. National Airline, Inc. 13 Misc. 2d 450, 176 N.Y.S. 2d 400; Lichten vs. Eastern Airlines, 87 Fed. Supp. 691; Migoski v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla. 63 So. 2d 634. 6 Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., p, 462, citing Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, Jan. 31, 195 1, p. 49. PANAM V. IAC G.R. No. 70462 August 11, 1988 PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RENE V. PANGAN, SOTANG BASTOS PRODUCTIONS and ARCHER PRODUCTIONS, respondents. Guerrero & Torres for petitioner. Jose B. Layug for private respondents.

CORTES, J.: Before the Court is a petition filed by an international air carrier seeking to limit its liability for lost baggage, containing promotional and advertising materials for films to be exhibited in Guam and the U.S.A., clutch bags, barong tagalogs and personal belongings, to the amount specified in the airline ticket absent a declaration of a higher valuation and the payment of additional charges. The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the trial court and adopted by the appellate court, are as follows: On April 25, 1978, plaintiff Rene V. Pangan, president and general manager of the plaintiffs Sotang Bastos and Archer Production while in San Francisco, Califonia and Primo Quesada of Prime Films, San Francisco, California, entered into an agreement (Exh. A) whereby the former, for and in consideration of the amount of US $2,500.00 per picture, bound himself to supply the latter with three films. 'Ang Mabait, Masungit at ang Pangit,' 'Big Happening with Chikiting and Iking,' and 'Kambal Dragon' for exhibition in the United States. It was also their agreement that plaintiffs would provide the necessary promotional and advertising materials for said films on or before May 30, 1978. On his way home to the Philippines, plaintiff Pangan visited Guam where he contacted Leo Slutchnick of the Hafa Adai Organization. Plaintiff Pangan likewise entered into a verbal agreement with Slutchnick for the exhibition of two of the films above-mentioned at the Hafa Adai Theater in Guam on May 30, 1978 for the consideration of P7,000.00 per picture (p. 11, tsn, June 20, 1979). Plaintiff Pangan undertook to provide the necessary promotional and advertising materials for said films on or before the exhibition date on May 30,1978. By virtue of the above agreements, plaintiff Pangan caused the preparation of the requisite promotional handbills and still pictures for which he paid the total sum of P12,900.00 (Exhs. B, B-1, C and C1). Likewise in preparation for his trip abroad to comply with his contracts, plaintiff Pangan purchased fourteen clutch bags, four capiz lamps and four barong tagalog, with a total value of P4,400.00 (Exhs. D, D-1, E, and F). On May 18, 1978, plaintiff Pangan obtained from defendant Pan Am's Manila Office, through the Your Travel Guide, an economy class airplane ticket with No. 0269207406324 (Exh. G) for passage from Manila to Guam

on defendant's Flight No. 842 of May 27,1978, upon payment by said plaintiff of the regular fare. The Your Travel Guide is a tour and travel office owned and managed by plaintiffs witness Mila de la Rama. On May 27, 1978, two hours before departure time plaintiff Pangan was at the defendant's ticket counter at the Manila International Airport and presented his ticket and checked in his two luggages, for which he was given baggage claim tickets Nos. 963633 and 963649 (Exhs. H and H-1). The two luggages contained the promotional and advertising materials, the clutch bags, barong tagalog and his personal belongings. Subsequently, Pangan was informed that his name was not in the manifest and so he could not take Flight No. 842 in the economy class. Since there was no space in the economy class, plaintiff Pangan took the first class because he wanted to be on time in Guam to comply with his commitment, paying an additional sum of $112.00. When plaintiff Pangan arrived in Guam on the date of May 27, 1978, his two luggages did not arrive with his flight, as a consequence of which his agreements with Slutchnick and Quesada for the exhibition of the films in Guam and in the United States were cancelled (Exh. L). Thereafter, he filed a written claim (Exh. J) for his missing luggages. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Pangan contacted his lawyer, who made the necessary representations to protest as to the treatment which he received from the employees of the defendant and the loss of his two luggages (Exh. M, O, Q, S, and T). Defendant Pan Am assured plaintiff Pangan that his grievances would be investigated and given its immediate consideration (Exhs. N, P and R). Due to the defendant's failure to communicate with Pangan about the action taken on his protests, the present complaint was filed by the plaintiff. (Pages 4-7, Record On Appeal). [Rollo, pp. 27-29.] On the basis of these facts, the Court of First Instance found petitioner liable and rendered judgment as follows: (1) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay all the plaintiffs the sum of P83,000.00, for actual damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from December 6, 1978, when the complaint was filed, until the same is fully paid, plus the further sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; (2) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay plaintiff Rene V. Pangan the sum of P8,123.34, for additional actual damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from December 6, 1978, until the same is fully paid; (3) Dismissing the counterclaim interposed by defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc.; and (4) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay the costs of suit. [Rollo, pp. 106-107.] On appeal, the then Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court decision. Hence, the instant recourse to this Court by petitioner. The petition was given due course and the parties, as required, submitted their respective memoranda. In due time the case was submitted for decision. In assailing the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court petitioner assigned the following errors: 1. The respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's award of actual damages beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the Warsaw Convention and the contract of carriage. 2. The respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's award of actual damages consisting of alleged lost profits in the face of this Court's ruling concerning special or consequential damages as set forth in Mendoza v. Philippine Airlines [90 Phil. 836 (1952).] The assigned errors shall be discussed seriatim 1. The airline ticket (Exh. "G') contains the following conditions: NOTICE If the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the country of departure the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and the Convention governs and in most cases limits the

liability of carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to baggage. See also notice headed "Advice to International Passengers on Limitation of Liability. CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT 1. As used in this contract "ticket" means this passenger ticket and baggage check of which these conditions and the notices form part, "carriage" is equivalent to "transportation," "carrier" means all air carriers that carry or undertake to carry the passenger or his baggage hereunder or perform any other service incidental to such air carriage. "WARSAW CONVENTION" means the convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw, 12th October 1929, or that Convention as amended at The Hague, 28th September 1955, whichever may be applicable. 2. Carriage hereunder is subject to the rules and limitations relating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention unless such carriage is not "international carriage" as defined by that Convention. 3. To the extent not in conflict with the foregoing carriage and other services performed by each carrier are subject to: (i) provisions contained in this ticket, (ii) applicable tariffs, (iii) carrier's conditions of carriage and related regulations which are made part hereof (and are available on application at the offices of carrier), except in transportation between a place in the United States or Canada and any place outside thereof to which tariffs in force in those countries apply. xxx xxx xxx NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1)for most international travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kilo) for checked baggage and $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage: (2) for travel wholly between U.S. points, to $750 per passenger on most carriers (a few have lower limits). Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier. [Emphasis supplied.]. On the basis of the foregoing stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, petitioner contends that its liability for the lost baggage of private respondent Pangan is limited to $600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not declare a higher value for his baggage and pay the corresponding additional charges. To support this contention, petitioner cites the case of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223], where the Court sustained the validity of a printed stipulation at the back of an airline ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a specified amount and ruled that the carrier's liability was limited to said amount since the passenger did not declare a higher value, much less pay additional charges. We find the ruling in Ong Yiu squarely applicable to the instant case. In said case, the Court, through Justice Melencio Herrera, stated: Petitioner further contends that respondent Court committed grave error when it limited PAL's carriage liability to the amount of P100.00 as stipulated at the back of the ticket.... We agree with the foregoing finding. The pertinent Condition of Carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket reads: 8. BAGGAGE LIABILITY ... The total liability of the Carrier for lost or damage baggage of the passenger is LIMITED TO P100.00 for each ticket unless a passenger declares a higher valuation in excess of P100.00, but not in excess, however, of a total valuation of Pl,000.00 and additional charges are paid pursuant to Carrier's tariffs. There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for his luggage, much less (lid he pay any additional transportation charge. But petitioner argues that there is nothing in the evidence to show that he had actually entered into a contract with PAL limiting the latter's liability for loss or delay of the baggage of its passengers, and that Article 1750 * of the Civil Code has not been complied with.

While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket (Exh. "12"), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation." [Tannebaum v. National Airline, Inc., 13 Misc. 2d 450,176 N.Y.S. 2d 400; Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, 87 Fed. Supp. 691; Migoski v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla., 63 So. 2d 634.] It is what is known as a contract of "adhesion," in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent,[Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., p. 462, citing Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, Jan. 31, 1951, p. 49]. And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172,144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483.] "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence." Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00.... On the other hand, the ruling in Shewaram v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [G.R. No. L-20099, July 2, 1966, 17 SCRA 606], where the Court held that the stipulation limiting the carrier's liability to a specified amount was invalid, finds no application in the instant case, as the ruling in said case was premised on the finding that the conditions printed at the back of the ticket were so small and hard to read that they would not warrant the presumption that the passenger was aware of the conditions and that he had freely and fairly agreed thereto. In the instant case, similar facts that would make the case fall under the exception have not been alleged, much less shown to exist. In view thereof petitioner's liability for the lost baggage is limited to $20.00 per kilo or $600.00, as stipulated at the back of the ticket. At this juncture, in order to rectify certain misconceptions the Court finds it necessary to state that the Court of Appeal's reliance on a quotation from Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca [G.R. No. L-22425, August 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 1063] to sustain the view that "to apply the Warsaw Convention which limits a carrier's liability to US$9.07 per pound or US$20.00 per kilo in cases of contractual breach of carriage ** is against public policy" is utterly misplaced, to say the least. In said case, while the Court, as quoted in the Intermediate Appellate Court's decision, said: Petitioner argues that pursuant to those provisions, an air "carrier is liable only" in the event of death of a passenger or injury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of, or damages to any checked baggage or any goods, or of delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods. This pretense is not borne out by the language of said Articles. The same merely declare the carrier liable for damages in enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. Neither said provisions nor others in the aforementioned Convention regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier. Under petitioner's theory, an air carrier would be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd. it prefaced this statement by explaining that: ...The case is now before us on petition for review by certiorari, upon the ground that the lower court has erred: (1) in holding that the Warsaw Convention of October 12, 1929, relative to transportation by air is not in force in the Philippines: (2) in not holding that respondent has no cause of action; and (3) in awarding P20,000 as nominal damages. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the First assignment of error because the same is the basis of the second assignment of error, and the latter is devoid of merit, even if we assumed the former to be well taken. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, it is quite clear that the Court never intended to, and in fact never did, rule against the validity of provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Consequently, by no stretch of the imagination may said quotation from Northwest be considered as supportive of the appellate court's statement that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention limited a carrier's liability are against public policy. 2. The Court finds itself unable to agree with the decision of the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, awarding private respondents damages as and for lost profits when their contracts to show the films in Guam and San Francisco, California were cancelled. The rule laid down in Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [90 Phil. 836 (1952)] cannot be any clearer: ...Under Art.1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith like the defendant herein, may be held liable only for damages that were foreseen or might have been foreseen at the time the contract of transportation was entered

into. The trial court correctly found that the defendant company could not have foreseen the damages that would be suffered by Mendoza upon failure to deliver the can of film on the 17th of September, 1948 for the reason that the plans of Mendoza to exhibit that film during the town fiesta and his preparations, specially the announcement of said exhibition by posters and advertisement in the newspaper, were not called to the defendant's attention. In our research for authorities we have found a case very similar to the one under consideration. In the case of Chapman vs. Fargo, L.R.A. (1918 F) p. 1049, the plaintiff in Troy, New York, delivered motion picture films to the defendant Fargo, an express company, consigned and to be delivered to him in Utica. At the time of shipment the attention of the express company was called to the fact that the shipment involved motion picture films to be exhibited in Utica, and that they should be sent to their destination, rush. There was delay in their delivery and it was found that the plaintiff because of his failure to exhibit the film in Utica due to the delay suffered damages or loss of profits. But the highest court in the State of New York refused to award him special damages. Said appellate court observed: But before defendant could be held to special damages, such as the present alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of delivery, it must have appeared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular circumstances attending the shipment, and which probably would lead to such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the rule has been stated in another form, in order to purpose on the defaulting party further liability than for damages naturally and directly, i.e., in the ordinary course of things, arising from a breach of contract, such unusual or extraordinary damages must have been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of breach at the time of or prior to contracting. Generally, notice then of any special circumstances which will show that the damages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced has been held sufficient for this effect. As may be seen, that New York case is a stronger one than the present case for the reason that the attention of the common carrier in said case was called to the nature of the articles shipped, the purpose of shipment, and the desire to rush the shipment, circumstances and facts absent in the present case. [Emphasis supplied.] Thus, applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, in the absence of a showing that petitioner's attention was called to the special circumstances requiring prompt delivery of private respondent Pangan's luggages, petitioner cannot be held liable for the cancellation of private respondents' contracts as it could not have foreseen such an eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit. The Court is unable to uphold the Intermediate Appellate Court's disregard of the rule laid down in Mendoza and affirmance of the trial court's conclusion that petitioner is liable for damages based on the finding that "[tlhe undisputed fact is that the contracts of the plaintiffs for the exhibition of the films in Guam and California were cancelled because of the loss of the two luggages in question." [Rollo, p. 36] The evidence reveals that the proximate cause of the cancellation of the contracts was private respondent Pangan's failure to deliver the promotional and advertising materials on the dates agreed upon. For this petitioner cannot be held liable. Private respondent Pangan had not declared the value of the two luggages he had checked in and paid additional charges. Neither was petitioner privy to respondents' contracts nor was its attention called to the condition therein requiring delivery of the promotional and advertising materials on or before a certain date. 3. With the Court's holding that petitioner's liability is limited to the amount stated in the ticket, the award of attorney's fees, which is grounded on the alleged unjustified refusal of petitioner to satisfy private respondent's just and valid claim, loses support and must be set aside. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the Decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is SET ASIDE and a new judgment is rendered ordering petitioner to pay private respondents damages in the amount of US $600.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Feliciano and Bidin JJ., concur. Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.

Footnotes * Art. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.

** The Warsaw Convention actually provides that "[i]n the transportation of checked baggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier shall be limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value of delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case, the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery.... The sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer to the French franc consisting of 65-1/2 milligrams of gold at the standard of fineness of nine hundred thousandths. These sums may be converted into any national currency in round figures. [51 O.G. 5084, 5091.] Proclamation No. 201, (September 23, 1955) made public the adherence of the Republic of the Philippines to the Warsaw Convention. [51 O.G. 4933.] CATHAY PACIFIC V. CA

G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS L. ALCANTARA, respondents. Siguion-Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako and Tomacruz, Manguiat & Associates for petitioner. Tanjuatco, Oreta, Tanjuatco, Berenger & Corpus for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; BREACH THEREOF; PETITIONER BREACHED ITS CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHEN IT FAILED TO DELIVER HIS LUGGAGE AT THE DESIGNATED PLACE AND TIME. Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, and the evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 2. DAMAGES; MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PREDICATED UPON A BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; RECOVERABLE ONLY IN INSTANCES WHERE THE MISHAP RESULTS IN DEATH OF A PASSENGER, OR WHERE THE CARRIER IS GUILTY OF FRAUD OR BAD FAITH; THE CONDUCT OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE TOWARDS RESPONDENT JUSTIFIES THE GRANT OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN CASE AT BAR. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the mishap results in death of a passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. The language and conduct of petitioner's representative towards respondent Alcantara was discourteous or arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages. The CATHAY representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was also rude and insulting. He simply advised Alcantara to buy anything he wanted. But even that was not sincere because the representative knew that the passenger was limited only to $20.00 which, certainly, was not enough to purchase comfortable clothings appropriate for an executive conference. Considering that Alcantara was not only a revenue passenger but even paid for a first class airline accommodation and accompanied at the time by the Commercial Attache of the Philippine Embassy who was assisting him in his problem, petitioner or its agents should have been more courteous and accommodating to private respondent, instead of giving him a curt reply, "What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything . . . Anyhow, you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay Pacific." Where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include moral and exemplary damages. Conversely, if the defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. 3. TEMPERATE DAMAGES; RECOVERABLE ONLY UPON PROOF THAT THE CLAIMANT SUSTAINED SOME PECUNIARY LOSS. However, respondent Alcantara is not entitled to temperate damages, contrary to the ruling of the court a quo, in the absence of any showing that he sustained some pecuniary loss. It cannot be gainsaid that respondent's luggage was ultimately delivered to him without serious or appreciable damage. 4. WARSAW CONVENTION; DOES NOT OPERATE AS AN EXCLUSIVE ENUMERATION OF THE INSTANCES FOR DECLARING A CARRIER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OR AS AN ABSOLUTE LIMIT OF THE EXTENT OF THAT LIABILITY; DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OPERATION OF THE CIVIL CODE AND OTHER PERTINENT LAWS. As We have repeatedly held, although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country, being a treaty commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain

limitations. However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if wilfull misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or established, which is clearly the case before Us. DECISION BELLOSILLO, J p: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification that of the trial court by increasing the award of damages in favor of private respondent Tomas L. Alcantara. The facts are undisputed: On 19 October 1975, respondent Tomas L. Alcantara was a first class passenger of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CATHAY for brevity) on its Flight No. CX-900 from Manila to Hongkong and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta on Flight No. CX-711. The purpose of his trip was to attend the following day, 20 October 1975, a conference with the Director General of Trade of Indonesia, Alcantara being the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of Iligan Cement Corporation, Chairman of the Export Committee of the Philippine Cement Corporation, and representative of the Cement Industry Authority and the Philippine Cement Corporation. He checked in his luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles for personal use but also papers and documents he needed for the conference. Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that his luggage was missing. When he inquired about his luggage from CATHAY's representative in Jakarta, private respondent was told that his luggage was left behind in Hongkong. For this, respondent Alcantara was offered $20.00 as "inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs until the luggage could be delivered to him. His luggage finally reached Jakarta more than twenty four (24) hours after his arrival. However, it was not delivered to him at his hotel but was required by petitioner to be picked up by an official of the Philippine Embassy. On 1 March 1976, respondent filed his complaint against petitioner with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Lanao del Norte praying for temperate, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees. On 18 April 1976, the trial court rendered its decision ordering CATHAY to pay Plaintiff P20,000.00 for moral damages, P5,000.00 for temperate damages, P10,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 for attorney's fees, and the costs. 1 Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. CATHAY assailed the conclusion of the trial court that it was accountable for breach of contract and questioned the non-application by the court of the Warsaw Convention as well as the excessive damages awarded on the basis of its finding that respondent Alcantara was rudely treated by petitioner's employees during the time that his luggage could not be found. For his part, respondent Alcantara assigned as error the failure of the trial court to grant the full amount of damages sought in his complaint. On 11 November 1981, respondent Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming the findings of fact of the trial court but modifying its award by increasing the moral damages to P80,000.00, exemplary damages to P20,000.00 and temperate or moderate damages to P10,000.00. The award of P25,000.00 for attorney's fees was maintained. The same grounds raised by petitioner in the Court of Appeals are reiterated before Us. CATHAY contends that: (1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner liable to respondent Alcantara for moral, exemplary and temperate damages as well as attorney's fees; and, (2) the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the Warsaw Convention on the liability of a carrier to its passengers. On its first assigned error, CATHAY argues that although it failed to transport respondent Alcantara's luggage on time, the oneday delay was not made in bad faith so as to justify moral, exemplary and temperate damages. It submits that the conclusion of respondent appellate court that private respondent was treated rudely and arrogantly when he sought assistance from CATHAY's employees has no factual basis, hence, the award of moral damages has no leg to stand on. Petitioner's first assigned error involves findings of fact which are not reviewable by this Court. 2 At any rate, it is not impressed with merit. Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, 3 and the evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the mishap results in death of a passenger, 4 or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. 5

In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate court found that CATHAY was grossly negligent and reckless when it failed to deliver the luggage of petitioner at the appointed place and time. We agree. CATHAY alleges that as a result of mechanical trouble, all pieces of luggage on board the first aircraft bound for Jakarta were unloaded and transferred to the second aircraft which departed an hour and a half later. Yet, as the Court of Appeals noted, petitioner was not even aware that it left behind private respondent's luggage until its attention was called by the Hongkong Customs authorities. More, bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be attributed to the employees of petitioner. While the mere failure of CATHAY to deliver respondent's luggage at the agreed place and time did not ipso facto amount to willful misconduct since the luggage was eventually delivered to private respondent, albeit belatedly, 6 We are persuaded that the employees of CATHAY acted in bad faith. We refer to the deposition of Romulo Palma, Commercial Attache of the Philippine Embassy at Jakarta, who was with respondent Alcantara when the latter sought assistance from the employees of CATHAY. This deposition was the basis of the findings of the lower courts when both awarded moral damages to private respondent. Hereunder is part of Palma's testimony "Q: What did Mr. Alcantara say, if any? A. Mr. Alcantara was of course . . . . I could understand his position. He was furious for the experience because probably he was thinking he was going to meet the Director-General the following day and, well, he was with no change of proper clothes and so, I would say, he was not happy about the situation. Q: What did Mr. Alcantara say? A: He was trying to press the fellow to make the report and if possible make the delivery of his baggage as soon as possible. Q: And what did the agent or duty officer say, if any? A: The duty officer, of course, answered back saying 'What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything.' something like it. 'Anyhow you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay Pacific.' Q: What was the demeanor or comportment of the duty officer of Cathay Pacific when he said to Mr. Alcantara 'You can buy anything chargeable to Cathay Pacific'? A: If I had to look at it objectively, the duty officer would like to dismiss the affair as soon as possible by saying indifferently 'Don't worry. It can be found.'" 7 Indeed, the aforequoted testimony shows that the language and conduct of petitioner's representative towards respondent Alcantara was discourteous or arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages. The CATHAY representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was also rude and insulting. He simply advised Alcantara to buy anything he wanted. But even that was not sincere because the representative knew that the passenger was limited only to $20.00 which, certainly, was not enough to purchase comfortable clothings appropriate for an executive conference. Considering that Alcantara was not only a revenue passenger but even paid for a first class airline accommodation and accompanied at the time by the Commercial Attache of the Philippine Embassy who was assisting him in his problem, petitioner or its agents should have been more courteous and accommodating to private respondent, instead of giving him a curt reply, "What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything . . . Anyhow, you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay Pacific." CATHAY's employees should have been more solicitous to a passenger in distress and assuaged his anxieties and apprehensions. To compound matters, CATHAY refused to have the luggage of Alcantara delivered to him at his hotel; instead, he was required to pick it up himself and an official of the Philippine Embassy. Under the circumstances, it is evident that petitioner was remiss in its duty to provide proper and adequate assistance to a paying passenger, more so one with first class accommodation. Where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include moral and exemplary damages. 8 Conversely, if the defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. However, respondent Alcantara is not entitled to temperate damages, contrary to the ruling of the court a quo, in the absence of any showing that he sustained some pecuniary loss. 9 It cannot be gainsaid that respondent's luggage was ultimately delivered to him without serious or appreciable damage. As regards its second assigned error, petitioner airline contends that the extent of its liability for breach of contract should be limited absolutely to that set forth in the Warsaw Convention. We do not agree. As We have repeatedly held, although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country, being a treaty commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. 10 The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations. 11 However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, 12 especially if wilfull misconduct on the part of the carrier's

employees is found or established, which is clearly the case before Us. For, the Warsaw Convention itself provides in Art. 25 that "(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilfull misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to wilfull misconduct." (2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused under the same circumstances by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment." When petitioner airline misplaced respondent's luggage and failed to deliver it to its passenger at the appointed place and time, some special species of injury must have been caused to him. For sure, the latter underwent profound distress and anxiety, and the fear of losing the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of his trip. In fact, for want of appropriate clothings for the occasion brought about by the delay of the arrival of his luggage, to his embarrassment and consternation respondent Alcantara had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged conference with the Director General of Trade of the host country. In one case, 13 this Court observed that a traveller would naturally suffer mental anguish, anxiety and shock when he finds that his luggage did not travel with him and he finds himself in a foreign land without any article of clothing other than what he has on. Thus, respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. We however find the award by the Court of Appeals of P80,000.00 for moral damages excessive, hence, We reduce the amount to P30,000.00. The exemplary damages of P20,000.00 being reasonable is maintained, as well as the attorney's fees of P25,000.00 considering that petitioner's act or omission has compelled Alcantara to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. 14 WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the exception of the award of temperate damages of P10,000.00 which is deleted, while the award of moral damages of P80,000.00 is reduced to P30,000.00. The award of P20,000.00 for exemplary damages is maintained as reasonable together with the attorney's fees of P25,000.00. The moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the legal rate from 1 March 1976 when the complaint was filed until full payment. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Quiason, JJ ., concur. Footnotes 1. Record on Appeal, pp. 12-23; Rollo, p. 30. 2. Philippine Air Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92501, 6 March 1992, 207 SCRA 100. 3. Tan Liao v. American President Lines, 98 Phil 203. 4. Arts. 1764 and 2206, New Civil Code. 5. Art. 2220, New Civil Code; China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73835, 17 January 1989, 169 SCRA 226. 6. Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929, 4 December 1990, 192 SCRA 9. 7. Records, pp. 12-13. 8. China Airlines Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94590, 29 July 1992. 9. Art. 2224, New Civil Code. 10. See Note 6; Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, No. L-22425, 31 August 1965, 14 SCRA 1063. 11. Art. 22. 1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 250,000 francs. . . . Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. "2.a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogramme, unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier

will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery. "2.b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or delay of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same baggage check or the same air way bill, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability." 12. See Note 6. 13. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 68988, 21 June 1990, 186 SCRA 687. 14. Art. 2208, par. (2), New Civil Code.