Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    Ong Yiu VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    Ong Yui was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. His luggage, containing important documents for a trial the next day, was misplaced upon arrival in Butuan City. PAL located the luggage, which had been sent to Manila by mistake, and arranged for it to be forwarded to Butuan the following day. However, Ong Yui demanded delivery that same day due to his urgent need for the documents. The luggage did arrive on the morning flight as scheduled, but Ong Yiu had already left the airport. When the luggage was delivered to him, the important documents were found to be missing. The court found that PAL was only guilty of simple negligence, not gross

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ong Yiu VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    259 views1 page
    Ong Yui was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. His luggage, containing important documents for a trial the next day, was misplaced upon arrival in Butuan City. PAL located the luggage, which had been sent to Manila by mistake, and arranged for it to be forwarded to Butuan the following day. However, Ong Yui demanded delivery that same day due to his urgent need for the documents. The luggage did arrive on the morning flight as scheduled, but Ong Yiu had already left the airport. When the luggage was delivered to him, the important documents were found to be missing. The court found that PAL was only guilty of simple negligence, not gross

    Original Title

    ONG YIU VS CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ong Yui was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. His luggage, containing important documents for a trial the next day, was misplaced upon arrival in Butuan City. PAL located the luggage, which had been sent to Manila by mistake, and arranged for it to be forwarded to Butuan the following day. However, Ong Yui demanded delivery that same day due to his urgent need for the documents. The luggage did arrive on the morning flight as scheduled, but Ong Yiu had already left the airport. When the luggage was delivered to him, the important documents were found to be missing. The court found that PAL was only guilty of simple negligence, not gross

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    259 views1 page

    Ong Yiu VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    Ong Yui was a passenger on a PAL flight from Cebu to Butuan City. His luggage, containing important documents for a trial the next day, was misplaced upon arrival in Butuan City. PAL located the luggage, which had been sent to Manila by mistake, and arranged for it to be forwarded to Butuan the following day. However, Ong Yui demanded delivery that same day due to his urgent need for the documents. The luggage did arrive on the morning flight as scheduled, but Ong Yiu had already left the airport. When the luggage was delivered to him, the important documents were found to be missing. The court found that PAL was only guilty of simple negligence, not gross

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ong Yui vs.

    CA Case Digest
    Ong Yui vs. Court of Appeals
    (91 SCRA 223)

    Facts: On august 26, 1967, Ong Yiu was a fare paying passenger of respondent PAL from Mactan,
    Cebu to Butuan City wherein he was scheduled to attend a trial. As a passenger, he checked in one
    piece of luggae, blue maleta for which he was issued a claim ticket. Upon arrival at Butuan City,
    petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found. PAL Butuan sent a message to PAL Cebu
    which in turn sent a message to PAL Manila that same afternoon. PAL Manila advised PAL Cebu that
    the luggage has been overcarried to Manila and that it would be forwarded to PAL Cebu that same
    day. PAL Cebu then advised PAL Butuan that the luggage will be forwarded the following day, on
    scheduled morning flight. This message was not received by PAL Butuan as all the personnel had
    already gone for the day. Meanwhile, Ong Yiu was worried about the missing luggage because it
    contained vital documents needed for the trial the next day so he wired PAL Cebu demanding
    delivery of his luggage before noon that next day or he would hold PAL liable for damages based on
    gross negligence. Early morning, petitioner went to the Butuan Airport to inquire about the luggage
    but did not wait for the arrival of the morning flight at 10:00am. which carried his luggage. A certain
    Dagorro, a driver of a colorum car, who also used to drive the petitioner volunteered to take the
    luggage to the petitioner. He revelaed that the documents were lost. Ong Yiu demanded from PAL
    Cebu actual and compensatory damages as an incident of breach of contract of carriage.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not PAL is guilty of only simple negligence and not gross negligence?
    2. Whether the doctrine of limited liability doctrine applies in the instant case?

    Held: PAL had not acted in bad faith. It exercised due diligence in looking for petitioner’s luggage
    which had been miscarried. Had petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the airport for the
    arrival of the morning flight which carried his luggage, he would have been able to retrieve his
    luggage sooner. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud, the petitioner is not entitled to
    moral damages. Neither is he entitled to exemplary damages absent any proof that the defendant
    acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless manner.

    The limited liability applies in this case. On the presumed negligence of PAL, its liability for the loss
    however, is limited on the stipulation written on the back of the plane

    Ticket which is P100 per baggage. The petitioner not having declared a greater value and not having
    called the attention of PAL on its true value and paid the tariff therefore. The stipulation is printed in
    reasonably and fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a frequent
    passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he being a lawyer and a businessman,
    must be fully aware of these conditions.

    You might also like