80. pan am vs iac.docx
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
1/26
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 70462 August 11, 1988
PAN AMERICAN WORL AIRWA!S,
INC., petitioner,vs.
INTERMEIATE APPELLATE COURT,
RENE ". PANGAN, SOTANG #ASTOS
PROUCTIONS $%& ARC'ER
PROUCTIONS, respondents.
uerrero ! Torres for petitioner.
"ose #. $a%u& for private respondents.
CORTES, (.)
#efore the 'ourt is a petition filed b% an
international air carrier see(in& to li)it its
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
2/26
liabilit% for lost ba&&a&e, containin&
pro)otional and advertisin& )aterials for fil)s
to be e*hibited in ua) and the +.S.., clutch
ba&s, baron& ta&alo&s and personal
belon&in&s, to the a)ount specified in the
airline tic(et absent a declaration of a hi&her
valuation and the pa%)ent of additional
char&es.
The undisputed facts of the case, as found b%
the trial court and adopted b% the appellate
court, are as follo-s
On pril /0, 1234, plaintiff Rene V. Pan&an,
president and &eneral )ana&er of the
plaintiffs Sotan& #astos and rcher
Production -hile in San 5rancisco, 'alifonia
and Pri)o 6uesada of Pri)e 5il)s, San
5rancisco, 'alifornia, entered into an
a&ree)ent 78*h. 9 -hereb% the for)er, for
and in consideration of the a)ount of +S:/,0;;.;; per picture, bound hi)self to suppl%
the latter -ith three fil)s.
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
3/26
'hi(itin& and I(in&,< and ;,
1234.
On his -a% ho)e to the Philippines, plaintiff
Pan&an visited ua) -here he contacted $eo
Slutchnic( of the Hafa dai Or&ani?ation.
Plaintiff Pan&an li(e-ise entered into a verbal
a&ree)ent -ith Slutchnic( for the e*hibition of
t-o of the fil)s above@)entioned at the Hafa
dai Theater in ua) on Ma% >;, 1234 for
the consideration of P3,;;;.;; per picture 7p.11, tsn, "une /;, 12329. Plaintiff Pan&an
undertoo( to provide the necessar%
pro)otional and advertisin& )aterials for said
fil)s on or before the e*hibition date on Ma%
>;,1234.
#% virtue of the above a&ree)ents, plaintiff
Pan&an caused the preparation of the
reAuisite pro)otional handbills and still
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
4/26
pictures for -hich he paid the total su) of
P1/,2;;.;; 78*hs. #, #@1, ' and '19.
$i(e-ise in preparation for his trip abroad to
co)pl% -ith his contracts, plaintiff Pan&an
purchased fourteen clutch ba&s, four capi?
la)ps and four baron& ta&alo&, -ith a total
value of PB,B;;.;; 78*hs. D, D@1, 8, and 59.
On Ma% 14, 1234, plaintiff Pan&an obtained
fro) defendant Pan )/B
78*h. 9 for passa&e fro) Manila to ua) on
defendant
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
5/26
ba&&a&e clai) tic(ets Nos. 2>>> and
2>B2 78*hs. H and H@19. The t-o lu&&a&es
contained the pro)otional and advertisin&
)aterials, the clutch ba&s, baron& ta&alo& and
his personal belon&in&s. SubseAuentl%,
Pan&an -as infor)ed that his na)e -as not
in the )anifest and so he could not ta(e 5li&ht
No. 4B/ in the econo)% class. Since there
-as no space in the econo)% class, plaintiffPan&an too( the first class because he
-anted to be on ti)e in ua) to co)pl% -ith
his co))it)ent, pa%in& an additional su) of
:11/.;;.
Ehen plaintiff Pan&an arrived in ua) on thedate of Ma% /3, 1234, his t-o lu&&a&es did
not arrive -ith his fli&ht, as a conseAuence of
-hich his a&ree)ents -ith Slutchnic( and
6uesada for the e*hibition of the fil)s in
ua) and in the +nited States -ere
cancelled 78*h. $9. Thereafter, he filed a
-ritten clai) 78*h. "9 for his )issin& lu&&a&es.
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
6/26
+pon arrival in the Philippines, Pan&an
contacted his la-%er, -ho )ade the
necessar% representations to protest as to the
treat)ent -hich he received fro) the
e)plo%ees of the defendant and the loss of
his t-o lu&&a&es 78*h. M, O, 6, S, and T9.
Defendant Pan ) assured plaintiff Pan&an
that his &rievances -ould be investi&ated and
&iven its i))ediate consideration 78*hs. N, Pand R9. Due to the defendant
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
7/26
filed, until the sa)e is full% paid, plus the
further su) of P1;,;;;.;; as attorne%.>B, for additional actual
da)a&es, -ith interest thereon at the rate of
1B per annu) fro) Dece)ber , 1234, until
the sa)e is full% paidJ
7>9 Dis)issin& the counterclai) interposed b%
defendant Pan )erican Eorld ir-a%s, Inc.J
and
7B9 Orderin& defendant Pan )erican Eorld
ir-a%s, Inc. to pa% the costs of suit. FRollo,pp. 1;@1;3.G
On appeal, the then Inter)ediate ppellate
'ourt affir)ed the trial court decision.
Hence, the instant recourse to this 'ourt b%
petitioner.
The petition -as &iven due course and the
parties, as reAuired, sub)itted their respective
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
8/26
)e)oranda. In due ti)e the case -as
sub)itted for decision.
In assailin& the decision of the Inter)ediateppellate 'ourt petitioner assi&ned the
follo-in& errors
1. The respondent court erred as a )atter of
la- in affir)in& the trial court
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
9/26
1. The airline tic(et 78*h. K
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
10/26
KERSE 'ONV8NTIONK )eans the
convention for the +nification of 'ertain Rules
Relatin& to International 'arria&e b% ir
si&ned at Earsa-, 1/th October 12/2, or that
'onvention as a)ended at The Ha&ue, /4th
Septe)ber 1200, -hichever )a% be
applicable.
/. 'arria&e hereunder is subect to the rules
and li)itations relatin& to liabilit% established
b% the Earsa- 'onvention unless such
carria&e is not Kinternational carria&eK as
defined b% that 'onvention.
>. To the e*tent not in conflict -ith the
fore&oin& carria&e and other services
perfor)ed b% each carrier are subect to 7i9
provisions contained in this tic(et, 7ii9
applicable tariffs, 7iii9 carrier
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
11/26
thereof to -hich tariffs in force in those
countries appl%.
*** *** ***
NOTI'8 O5 #8 $I#I$ITC
$IMITTIONS
$iabilit% for loss, dela%, or da)a&e to ba&&a&e
is li)ited as follo-s unless a hi&her value is
declared in advance and additional char&es
are paid 719for )ost international travel
7includin& do)estic portions of international
ourne%s9 to appro*i)atel% :2.;3 per pound
7:/;.;; per (ilo9 for chec(ed ba&&a&e and
:B;; per passen&er for unchec(ed ba&&a&e7/9 for travel -holl% bet-een +.S. points, to
:30; per passen&er on )ost carriers 7a fe-
have lo-er li)its9. 8*cess valuation )a% not
be declared on certain t%pes of valuable
articles. 'arriers assu)e no liabilit% for fra&ile
or perishable articles. 5urther infor)ation )a%
be obtained fro) the carrier. F8)phasis
supplied.G.
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
12/26
On the basis of the fore&oin& stipulations
printed at the bac( of the tic(et, petitioner
contends that its liabilit% for the lost ba&&a&e
of private respondent Pan&an is li)ited to
:;;.;; 7:/;.;; * >; (ilos9 as the latter did
not declare a hi&her value for his ba&&a&e
and pa% the correspondin& additional char&es.
To support this contention, petitioner cites the
case of On& Ciu v. 'ourt of ppeals F.R. No.
$@B;023, "une /2, 1232, 21 S'R //>G,
-here the 'ourt sustained the validit% of a
printed stipulation at the bac( of an airline
tic(et li)itin& the liabilit% of the carrier for lost
ba&&a&e to a specified a)ount and ruled thatthe carrier
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
13/26
Petitioner further contends that respondent
'ourt co))itted &rave error -hen it li)ited
P$
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
14/26
#ut petitioner ar&ues that there is nothin& in
the evidence to sho- that he had actuall%
entered into a contract -ith P$ li)itin& the
latter So.
/d >B.G It is -hat is (no-n as a contract of
Kadhesion,K in re&ards -hich it has been said
that contracts of adhesion -herein one part%i)poses a read% )ade for) of contract on the
other, as the plane tic(et in the case at bar,
are contracts not entirel% prohibited. The one
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
15/26
-ho adheres to the contract is in realit% free to
reect it entirel%J if he adheres, he &ives his
consent,FTolentino, 'ivil 'ode, Vol. IV, 12/
ed., p. B/, citin& Mr. "ustice ".#.$. Re%es,
$a-%er1, 1201, p. B2G. nd
as held in Randolph v. )erican irlines, 1;>
Ohio pp. 13/,1BB N.8. /d 434J Rosenchein
v. Trans Eorld irlines, Inc., >B2 S.E. /d B4>.G
Ka contract li)itin& liabilit% upon an a&reedvaluation does not offend a&ainst the polic% of
the la- forbiddin& one fro) contractin&
a&ainst his o-n ne&li&ence.K
'onsiderin&, therefore, that petitioner had
failed to declare a hi&her value for hisba&&a&e, he cannot be per)itted a recover%
in e*cess of P1;;.;;....
On the other hand, the rulin& in She-ara) v.
Philippine ir $ines, Inc. F.R. No. $@/;;22,
"ul% /, 12, 13 S'R ;G, -here the 'ourtheld that the stipulation li)itin& the carrier
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
16/26
rulin& in said case -as pre)ised on the
findin& that the conditions printed at the bac(
of the tic(et -ere so s)all and hard to read
that the% -ould not -arrant the presu)ption
that the passen&er -as a-are of the
conditions and that he had freel% and fairl%
a&reed thereto. In the instant case, si)ilar
facts that -ould )a(e the case fall under the
e*ception have not been alle&ed, )uch lesssho-n to e*ist.
In vie- thereof petitionerG to sustain the vie- that Kto
appl% the Earsa- 'onvention -hich li)its a
carrier
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
17/26
+S:/;.;; per (ilo in cases of contractual
breach of carria&e **is a&ainst public polic%K is utterl% )isplaced, to sa% the least. In said case,-hile the 'ourt, as Auoted in the Inter)ediate ppellate 'ourt
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
18/26
...The case is no- before us on petition for
revie- b% certiorari, upon the &round that the
lo-er court has erred 719 in holdin& that the
Earsa- 'onvention of October 1/, 12/2,
relative to transportation b% air is not in force
in the Philippines 7/9 in not holdin& that
respondent has no cause of actionJ and 7>9 in
a-ardin& P/;,;;; as no)inal da)a&es.
Ee dee) it unnecessar% to pass upon the
5irst assi&n)ent of error because the sa)e is
the basis of the second assi&n)ent of error,
and the latter is devoid of )erit, even if -e
assu)ed the for)er to be -ell
ta(en. 78)phasis supplied.9
Thus, it is Auite clear that the 'ourt never
intended to, and in fact never did, rule a&ainst
the validit% of provisions of the Earsa-
'onvention. 'onseAuentl%, b% no stretch of
the i)a&ination )a% said Auotationfro) North-est be considered as supportive
of the appellate court
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
19/26
provisions of the Earsa- 'onvention li)ited a
carrier
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
20/26
fil) on the 13th of Septe)ber, 12B4 for the
reason that the plans of Mendo?a to e*hibit
that fil) durin& the to-n fiesta and his
preparations, speciall% the announce)ent of
said e*hibition b% posters and advertise)ent
in the ne-spaper, -ere not called to the
defendant
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
21/26
da)a&es or loss of profits. #ut the hi&hest
court in the State of Ne- Cor( refused to
a-ard hi) special da)a&es. Said appellate
court observed
#ut before defendant could be held to special
da)a&es, such as the present alle&ed loss of
profits on account of dela% or failure of
deliver%, it )ust have appeared that he had
notice at the ti)e of deliver% to hi) of the
particular circu)stances attendin& the
ship)ent, and -hich probabl% -ould lead to
such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the
rule has been stated in another for), in order
to purpose on the defaultin& part% furtherliabilit% than for da)a&es naturall% and
directl%, i.e., in the ordinar% course of thin&s,
arisin& fro) a breach of contract, such
unusual or e*traordinar% da)a&es )ust have
been brou&ht -ithin the conte)plation of the
parties as the probable result of breach at the
ti)e of or prior to contractin&. enerall%,
notice then of an% special circu)stances
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
22/26
-hich -ill sho- that the da)a&es to be
anticipated fro) a breach -ould be enhanced
has been held sufficient for this effect.
s )a% be seen, that Ne- Cor( case is a
stron&er one than the present case for the
reason that the attention of the co))on
carrier in said case -as called to the nature of
the articles shipped, the purpose of ship)ent,
and the desire to rush the ship)ent,
circu)stances and facts absent in the present
case. F8)phasis supplied.G
Thus, appl%in& the fore&oin& rulin& to the facts
of the instant case, in the absence of a
sho-in& that petitioner
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
23/26
The 'ourt is unable to uphold the
Inter)ediate ppellate 'ourt
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
24/26
>. Eith the 'ourt
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
25/26
L rt. 130;. contract fi*in& the su) that )a%
be recovered b% the o-ner or shipper for the
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the &oods
is valid, if it is reasonable and ust under the
circu)stances, and has been fairl% and freel%
a&reed upon.
LL The Earsa- 'onvention actuall% provides
that KFiGn the transportation of chec(ed
ba&&a&e and of &oods, the liabilit% of the
carrier shall be li)ited to a su) of /0; francs
per (ilo&ra), unless the consi&nor has )ade,
at the ti)e -hen the pac(a&e -as handed
over to the carrier, a special declaration of the
value of deliver% and has paid asupple)entar% su) if the case so reAuires. In
that case, the carrier -ill be liable to pa% a
su) not e*ceedin& the declared su), unless
he proves that the su) is &reater than the
actual value to the consi&nor at deliver%....
The su)s )entioned above shall be dee)ed
to refer to the 5rench franc consistin& of 0@
1/ )illi&ra)s of &old at the standard of
-
7/26/2019 80. pan am vs iac.docx
26/26
fineness of nine hundred thousandths. These
su)s )a% be converted into an% national
currenc% in round fi&ures. F01 O.. 0;4B,
0;21.G
Procla)ation No. /;1, 7Septe)ber />, 12009
)ade public the adherence of the Republic of
the Philippines to the Earsa- 'onvention. F01
O.. B2>>.G