009 SALUDO, Jr. vs. CA[G.R. No. 122494. October 8, 1998]TOPIC: When duty to deliver commencesPONENTE: RegaladoAUTHOR: Lim, Ronwell Tristan F.

FACTS:

1. Crispina Saludo, mother of the petitioners, died in Chicago, Illinois.

2. The funeral home made the necessary preparations for the shipment of her remains to the Philippines, and brought said remains to Continental Mortuary Air Services (CMAS) at the Chicago Airport, who made made the necessary arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc, and booked the shipment with PAL thru the carriers agent, Air Care International.

3. Thereafter, PAL Airway Bill Ordinary was issued wherein the requested route was from Chicago to San Francisco on board Trans World Airline (TWA) and from San Francisco to Manila on board PAL.

4. One of the petitioners, upon arrival at San Francisco, went to TWA to inquire about her mothers remains. But she was told that they did not know anything about it. She then called the funeral homes to tell them that her mothers remains were not at the terminal, and the latter immediately called CMAS.

6. They were informed that the remains were on a plane to Mexico City. It appears that there were two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were switched. CMAS told them that they were sending the remains back to California via Texas.

7. The shipment was immediately loaded on another PAL flight and it arrived on Oct 28, a day after the expected arrival.

8. Thus, the petitioners filed a complaint against TWA and PAL for the wrong shipment and delay in the delay of the cargo containing the remains of their mother.

9. Petitioners argued that the private respondents received the casketed remains of their mother on October 26, as evidenced by the issuance of PAL Airway Bill by Air Care and from said date. Thus, private respondents had the responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence. Therefore, when the switching of the caskets on Oct 27, or one day after the private respondents received the cargo occurred, the respondents must be liable.

ISSUE(S):

WON the PALs duty to deliver commences upon the mere issuance of the airway bill?

HELD:

No. For such duty to commence, there must, in fact, have been a delivery of the cargo subject of the contract of carriage. Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally established can there be liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier.

RATIO:

No. Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. There is delivery to the carrier when the goods are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive possession, custody and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them. Where the carrier has accepted such delivery, the liability of the common carrier commences. This responsibility also remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage.

Hence, while the court agrees with petitioners that the extraordinary diligence statutorily required to be observed by the carrier instantaneously commences upon delivery of the goods thereto, for such duty to commence there must in fact have been delivery of the cargo subject of the contract of carriage. Only when such fact of delivery has been established can the liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier, absent the excepting causes under Article 1734, attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be invoked.

In this case, there was no delivery of cargo to the carrier on October 26. Rather the body that was intended to be shipped was only placed in the possession and control of PAL on October 28, and it was from that date that private respondents became responsible for the agreed cargo under their undertakings in the issued PAL Airway Bill.

Consequently, for the switching of caskets prior thereto which was not caused by them, and subsequent events caused thereby, private respondents cannot be held liable

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

ARTICLE 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):