153 Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-40597 (June 29, 1979) opened, Gomez took a look at its contents, but did not touch them.
Topic: Available Defense
FACTS:
1. 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 is scheduled to attend a hearing. As a passenger, he
checked in 1pc of luggage, a "maleta" for which he was issued
Claim Check.
2. The plane left Mactan Airport, Cebu, at about 1:00P.M and arrived at
Bancasi airport, Butuan City, at past 2P.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 which however, the latter denies, At about 3PM 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.
3. 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. PAL Cebu sent a message to PAL Butuan that the
luggage would be forwarded on Fright No. 963 the following day.
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.
4. Petitioner wired PAL Cebu demanding the delivery of his baggage
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. The Cebu PAL supervisor received this
telegram 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.
5. 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.
6. Dagorro, a driver, who also used to drive for petitioner, volunteered to
take the luggage to petitioner. Dagorro examined the lock and opened
it. After calling the attention of Maximo Gomez, the "maleta" was
Dagorro then delivered the "maleta" to petitioner, with the information
that the lock was open. Upon inspection, petitioner found that a
folder containing transcripts and private documents in Civil Case
No were missing. Petitioner refused to accept the luggage. Thus,
the postponement of the hearing.
7. Petitioner called attention to his telegram (addressing to PAL, Cebu)
demanded that his luggage be produced intact, and that he be
compensated in the sum of P250k for actual and moral damages.
8. Petitioner sent a tracer letter to PAL Cebu inquiring about the results of
the investigation. This is to pinpoint who is responsible for the
unauthorized opening of Maleta.
9. Petitioner filed a complaint against PAL for breach of contract of
transporation with CFI. Granted for acted with malice and bad faith
thus entitles to damages (moral and exemplary).
10. CA – ruled that PAL only committed simple negligence. Thus petitioner
not entitled to damages. It 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.
ISSUE:
1. WON the CA is correct in concluding 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.
YES
2. WON PAL is only liable to pay plaintiff the amount of P100.00 as
the amount printed at the back of the ticket? YES
HELD:
Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill
will. 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.
Neither was the failure of PAL Cebu to reply to petitioner's rush telegram
indicative of bad faith, The telegram 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. 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.

While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket, the
provisions thereof nevertheless bind him. "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". 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

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”.