Title
Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 95536
Decision Date
Mar 23, 1992
Petitioners sued TWA and PAL for mishandling their mother’s remains, delayed due to a mix-up. SC held TWA liable for nominal damages for employee discourtesy; PAL absolved.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95536)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Death and Preparation of Remains
    • October 23, 1976: Crispina Galdo Saludo dies in Chicago; Pomierski & Son Funeral Home embalm and prepare remains; obtain disposition permit; Philippine Vice Consul seals hermetic casket.
    • Pomierski delivers sealed casket to Continental Mortuary Air Services (CMAS) for air‐freight arrangements.
  • Booking and Mismatching of Shipment
    • CMAS books shipment via Air Care International: requested routing Chicago–San Francisco (TWA Flight 131, Oct. 27), San Francisco–Manila (PAL Flight 107, Oct. 27), Manila–Cebu (PAL Flight 149, Oct. 29); PAL issues Airway Bill No. 079-01180454.
    • October 27, 1976: TWA boards a corpse on Flight 603 (10 hours earlier)—due to CMAS switch, the wrong casket is loaded; TWA transfers it to PAL at 2:00 PM; CMAS withdraws it at 6:05 PM.
    • October 28, 1976, 7:45 PM: Correct casket arrives via American Airlines; PAL loads remains on evening Flight 107 to Manila, arriving October 30.
  • Litigation and Procedural History
    • December 15, 1976 and June 10, 1977: Petitioners demand explanation and threaten suit against TWA and PAL for delay, disrespect.
    • Petitioners file damage suit in CFI Leyte Branch III (Civil Case No. R-2101) seeking actual (₱50,000), moral (₱1,000,000), exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, costs.
    • Trial court dismisses for lack of evidence; Court of Appeals affirms in CA-G.R. CV No. 20951; SC grant of certiorari limited to questions of law.

Issues:

  • Did TWA or PAL fail to exercise the extraordinary diligence required, causing the misdelivery and delay of the remains?
  • Does the one-day delay constitute a contractual breach entitling petitioners to damages?
  • Are petitioners entitled to damages for alleged humiliating, arrogant or indifferent treatment by airline personnel?
  • Should petitioners recover actual, moral or exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.