Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8611)
Mishandling at Chicago Airport
On October 27, two sealed caskets at the Chicago terminal were inadvertently switched by CMAS personnel, resulting in petitioners’ mother’s remains being flown to Mexico City on TWA Flight 603. CMAS promptly retrieved the misshipped casket and sent it to San Francisco, where PAL received it on October 28 at 7:45 PM.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed suit for actual, moral, and exemplary damages against TWA and PAL for delay and alleged negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners then sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court, raising questions of law as to carrier liability, contractual breach, tortious conduct, and entitlement to damages.
Carrier Liability and Delivery of Goods
Under Civil Code Articles 1734–1738, a common carrier’s “extraordinary diligence” begins only upon actual delivery of goods into its custody for immediate transport. Although the airway bill was issued on October 26, PAL did not physically receive the remains until October 28. Consequently, neither airline was liable for the switch that occurred while CMAS retained custody.
Role of CMAS as Forwarder
CMAS acted as agent of the shipper, not of the carriers. It arranged flights, transfers, and packaging, and represented the contents of the sealed casket. Both TWA and PAL reasonably relied on CMAS’s representations and could not lawfully or practically unseal the casket to verify contents. The courts found CMAS exclusively at fault for the mix-up.
Contractual Terms and Alleged Breach
The airway bill’s reverse side expressly authorized the carrier to substitute aircraft, routes, or schedules without notice and fixed no specific delivery time. TWA’s decision to board the remains on an earlier flight fell within those agreed terms. Petitioners’ invocation of typewritten flight details did not override the printed conditions. No special contract for prompt delivery was shown.
Treatment of Petitioners at San Francisco
Although petitioners endured distress at not immediately
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-8611)
Facts
- October 23, 1976: Crispina Galdo Saludo dies in Chicago, Illinois; Pomierski & Son Funeral Home embalm remains, secure disposition permit on October 25, 1976, and seal hermetically the casket on October 26, 1976 under Philippine Vice Consul’s supervision (Exhs. A, C, D, B).
- Pomierski delivers sealed casket to Continental Mortuary Air Services (CMAS), which arranges air pouch, flights, transfers, and books shipment with Philippine Airlines (PAL) through agent Air Care International; Pomierski F.H. as shipper, Maria Saludo as consignee; PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454 issued for routing via TWA Flight 131 (Chicago→San Francisco) and PAL Flights 107 (San Francisco→Manila) and 149 (Manila→Cebu) (Exhs. 6-TWA; 1-PAL; E).
- Simultaneously, Maria and Saturnino Saludo book passage via United Airlines but change to TWA on learning mother’s remains also on TWA; upon reaching Chicago airport, discover no body loaded; TWA staff deny knowledge; flight to San Francisco proceeds without remains.
- San Francisco, October 27, 1976: CMAS reports casket mistakenly sent to Mexico City due to switching of two bodies at Chicago terminal; the correct remains returned to San Francisco via American Airlines on October 28, 1976 at 19:45 H, resealed, and loaded on PAL flight that evening, arriving Manila October 30, 1976.
Procedural History
- Petitioners file complaint in CFI Southern Leyte, Branch I (Civil Case No. R-2101) for P50,000 actual, P1,000,000 moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- Trial court dismisses complaint for lack of evidence (Judge Lucio F. Saavedra).
- Court of Appeals (Second Division) affirms in CA-G.R. CV No. 20951 (Justice Jorge S. Imperial, ponente; May 1, 1989 resolution denying reconsideration).
- Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether delay in delivery of casketed remains was due to fault of TWA and PAL.
- Whether one-day delay constitutes contractual breach entitling petitioners to damages.
- Whether petitioners may recover damages for humiliating or indifferent conduct of airline personnel.
- Whether actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses are recoverable.
Fact-Finding and Exceptions to Finality
- Supreme Court limited to questions of law; factual findings of Court of Appeals final unless excepti