pdf-pan-american-world-airways-inc-v-rapadas-gr-no-60673-may-19-1992 compress
advertisement
Pan American World Airways, Inc., v. Rapadas G.R. No. No. 60673, May 19, 1992 Doctrine: Doct rine: The provi provisio sions ns in th the e plane plane tic ticket ket su sufic ficien ientt to go gover vern n the limita limitatio tions ns o liabilities o the airline or loss o luggage. The passenger, upon contractin contracting g with the airline and recei receivi ving ng the the pla plane ne ticket ticket was expecte expected d to be vig vigila ilant nt ins insoa oarr as his lu lugga ggage ge is concern con cerned. ed. I the passenger passenger ails to adduce adduce evid evidence ence to overcome overcome the stipulati stipulations, ons, he cannot avoid the application application o the liability limitations. It (plane ticket) is what is known as a contract o "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts o adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made orm o 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 ree to reject it entirely; i he adheres, he gives his consent "a contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not ofend against the policy o the law orbidding one rom contracting against his own negligence. Facts On January 16, 1975, private respondent Jose K. Rapadas held Passenger Ticket and Baggage Claim Check No. 026-394830084-5 or petitioner's Flight No. 841 with the route rom Guam to Manila. While standing in line to board the ight at the Guam airport, Rapadas was ordered by petitioner's hand carry control agent to check-in his Samsonite attach att ache e case. case. Rapada Rapadas s protes protested ted point pointin ing g to the act act tha thatt oth other er co-pa co-passe ssenge ngers rs were were permitted to hand carry bulkier baggages. baggages. He stepped out o the line only to go back again at the end o it to try i he can get through without having to register his attache case. However, the same man in charge o hand carry control did not ail to notice him and ordered him again to register his baggage. For ear that he would miss the plane i he insisted and argued on personally taking the valise with him, he acceded to checking it in. He then gave his attache case to his brother who happened to be around and who checked it in or him, but without declaring its contents or the value o its contents. He was given a Baggage Claim Tag No. P-749-713. Upon arriving in Manila on the same date, January 16, 1975, Rapadas claimed and was given all his checked-in baggag baggages es except the attache case. Since Rapadas elt ill on his arrival, he sent his son, Jorge Rapadas to request or the search o the missing luggage. The petitioner petitioner exerted eforts to locate locate the lug luggage gage through through the Pan American American World Airways-Manila Airways-Man ila International International Airport Airport (PAN AM-M AM-MIA) IA) Baggage Service. Rapadas Rapad as recei receive ved d a lette letterr ro rom m th the e petit petitio ioner ner's 's cou counse nsell dat dated ed Au Augu gust st 2, 197 1975 5 ofering to settle the claim or the sum o one hundred sixty dollars ($160.00) representing th the e petiti petition oner' er's s all alleg eged ed limit limit o liabil liability ity or loss loss or dam damage age to a pas passen senger ger's 's person personal al property under the contract o carriage between Rapadas and PAN AM. Reusing to accept this kind o settlement, Rapadas led the instant action or damages on October 1, 1975. He placed the value o the lost attache case and its contents at US$42,403.90. In its answer, petitioner-deendant petitioner-deendant PAN AM acknowledged responsibility or the loss o the attache case but asserted that the claim was subject to the "Notice o Baggage Liability Limitations" allegedly attached to and orming part o the passenger ticket. The petitioner argued that the same notice was also conspicuously posted in its ofices or the guidance o the passengers. The lower court ruled in avor o complainant Rapadas ater nding no stipulation giving notice to the baggage liability limitation. On appeal, the Court o Appeals afirmed the trial court decision Issue: Whether or not a passenger passenger is bound by the te terms rms o a passenger ticket declaring declaring that the limitati limitations ons o liability liability set orth in the Warsaw Conventi Convention on shall apply apply in case o loss, damage or destruction to a registered luggage o a passenger. Ruling: Yes. The Court nds suficient basis under the particular acts o this case or the availment o the liability limitations under the Warsaw Conventio Convention. n. There is no dispute, and the courts below admit, that there was such a Notice appearing on page two (2) o the airline ticket stating that the Warsaw Convention governs in case o death or injury to a passenger or o loss, damage or destruction to a passenger's luggage. The Convention governs the availment o the liability limitations where the baggage check is combined with or incorporated in the passenger ticket which complies with the provisions provision s o Article 3, par. l (c). (Article 4, par. 2). In the case at bar, the baggage check is combined with the passenger ticket in one document o carriage. The passenger ticket complies with Article 3, par. l (c) which provides: (l) In respec respectt o the carri carriage age o pa passe ssenge ngers rs a ticket ticket shall be delive delivered red containing: (a) . . . (b) . . . (c) a notice to the efect that, i the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the country o departure, the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and that the Convention governs and in most cases limits the liability o carriers or death or personal injury and in respect o loss o or damage to baggage. In Ong Yiu v. Court o Appeals, and reiterated in a similar case Pan American World Airways v. Intermediate Appellate Court Court (164 SCR SCRA A 268 [1988]) that: that: It (plane ticket) is what is known as a contract o "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts o adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made orm o 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 ree to reject it entirely; i 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, January 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 ofend against the policy o the law orbidding one rom contracting against his own negligence. Considering, thereore, that petitioner had ailed to declare a higher value or his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess o P100.00 . . . (91 SCRA 223 at page 231) The Court also added that while contracts o adhesion are not entirely prohibited, neither is a blind reliance on them encouraged. In the ace o acts and circumstances showing they should be ignored because o their basically one sided nature, the Court does not hesitate to rule out blind adherence to their terms. (See Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, 83 SCRA 361, 368-369[1978]) The arguments o the petitioner do not belie the act that it was indeed accountable or the loss o the attache case. What the petitioner is concerned about is whether or not the notice, which it did not ail to state in the plane ticket and which it deemed to have been read and accepted by the private respondent will be considered by this Court as adequate adeq uate under the circumsta circumstances nces o this case. As earlier earlier stated, stated, the Court nds the provisions in the plane ticket suficient to govern the limitations o liabilities o the airline or loss o luggage. The passenger, upon contracting with the airline and receiving the pl plane ane ticket ticket,, was expect expected ed to be vigila vigilant nt ins insoa oarr as his lug luggag gage e is concer concerned ned.. I the the passenge pass engerr ails to addu adduce ce evid evidence ence to overcome overcome the stipulat stipulations ions,, he cannot cannot avoi avoid d the application applicatio n o the liability limitations. The lost luggage was declared as weighing around 18 pounds or approximately 8 kilograms. At $20.00 per kilogram, the petitioner ofered to pay $160.00 as a higher value was no nott de decla clared red in advanc advance e and addit addition ional al charge charges s we were re not pai paid. d. The The court court notes notes,, however, that an amount o $400.00 per passenger is allowed or unchecked luggage. Since the checking-in was against the will o the respondent, we treat the lost bag as partaking o in invol volunt untari arily ly and hurri hurriedl edly y check checkeded-in in luggag luggage e and conti continui nuing ng its earlie earlierr status status as unchecked luggage. The air liability under the petitioner's own printed terms is $400.00. Since the trial court ruled out discriminatory acts or bad aith on the part o Pan Am or other reasons warranting damages, there is no actual basis or the grant o P20,000.00 damages. Petition was GRANTED.
