Case Digest (G.R. No. 199455)
Facts:
Federal Express Corporation v. Luwalhati R. Antonino and Eliza Bettina Ricasa Antonino, G.R. No. 199455, June 27, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and respondents are Luwalhati R. Antonino and Eliza Bettina Ricasa Antonino. Eliza owned Unit 22‑A in Allegro Condominium, New York; monthly common charges for July–November 2003 became due. On December 15, 2003, while respondents were in the Philippines, they shipped several Citibank checks via FedEx (Account No. x2546‑4948‑1; Tracking No. 8442 4588 4268) addressed to Veronica Z. Sison in New York to pay Maxwell‑Kates, Inc. and the New York County Department of Finance. Sison later reported non‑receipt and, when she inquired with FedEx on February 9, 2004, was told the package had allegedly been delivered to a neighbor though no signed receipt of the actual consignee existed.
After sending a demand letter on March 14, 2004 and receiving no satisfaction, respondents filed suit on April 5, 2004 for damages for non‑delivery. FedEx countered that respondents failed to comply with a condition precedent — filing a written claim within 45 days of acceptance as required by its International Air Waybill — and alternatively argued the shipment contained prohibited items (money or negotiable instruments equivalent to cash) exempting it from liability.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 217, Quezon City) rendered judgment on May 8, 2008 in favor of respondents, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; it found respondents substantially complied with the notice requirement, that checks are not legal tender or negotiable instruments equivalent to cash as barred by the Air Waybill, and that FedEx failed to prove authorized release to the consignee. The Court of Appeals, in an August 31, 2011 Decision, affirmed the RTC, holding that by accepting the package FedEx acquiesced to carriage, checks are not covered by the Air Waybill ban, and ambiguities in the adhesive Air Waybill must be con...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondents substantially comply with the Air Waybill’s condition precedent to file a written claim within 45 days such that they may maintain their action?
- Did FedEx exercise the requisite extraordinary diligence required of common carriers and thus avoid liability for non‑delivery?
- Were the checks shipped by respondents “money” or “negotiable instruments equivalent to cash” within the meaning of FedEx’s Air Waybill, t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)