Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs.
CA, Paula San Agustin
Doctrine:
– Art. 1733 of the [Civil] Code provides that from the very nature of their business and by reasons of
public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods transported by them.
– Art. 1735 establishes the presumption that if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
had observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
– The Warsaw Convention denies to the carrier availment ‘of the provisions which exclude or limit his
liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in
accordance with the law of the court seized of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful
misconduct,’ or ‘if the damage is (similarly) caused x x x by any agent of the carrier acting within the
scope of his employment.’
Facts:
 Herein private respondent, Agustin, was a passenger on board of defendant airline originating from
Belgium on her way back to Manila. She checked in her luggage which contained her valuables
costing more than $4k. She stayed overnight in Brussels and her luggage was left on board.
 She arrived at Manila International Airport and immediately submitted her Tag No. 71423 but her
luggage was missing. She was advised to accomplish and submit a property Irregularity Report
which she submitted and filed on the same day but when her luggage could not be found, she filed
a formal complaint with defendant’s Local Manager.
 Subsequently, Agustin was informed her luggage was found and it will be shipped to Manila. But
unfortunately the luggage was lost for the second time.
 Agustin demanded from the defendant the money value of the luggage but defendant refused to
settle the claim. Defendant asserts that while it admits that the plaintiff was a passenger, the loss
of the luggage was due to plaintiff’s sole if not contributory negligence.
 Petitioner insists that being a seasoned international traveler, must have likewise been familiar
with the standard provisions contained in her flight ticket that items of value are required to be
hand-carried by the passenger and that the liability of the airline or loss, delay or damage to
baggage would be limited, in any event, to only US$20.00 per kilo unless a higher value is declared
in advance and corresponding additional charges are paid thereon. At the Casablanca International
Airport, private respondent, in checking in her luggage, evidently did not declare its contents or
value.
 The trial court rendered judgment ordering Sabena Belgian World Airlines to pay private
respondent. Sabena appealed but the CA affirmed in toto the trial court’s judgment, hence the
present petition for review.
Issue:
W/N the airline is liable for the lost luggage
Held:
Yes. Fault or negligence consists in the omission of that diligence which is demanded by the nature of an
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time, and of the place. When
the source of an obligation is derived from a contract, the mere breach or non-fulfillment of the
prestation gives rise to the presumption of fault on the part of the obligor. This rule is not different in
the case of common carriers in the carriage of goods which, indeed, are bound to observe not just the
due diligence of a good father of a family but that of “extraordinary” care in the vigilance over the
goods.
The only exceptions to the foregoing extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier is when the
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is due to any of the following causes:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.’
Not one of the above excepted causes obtains in this case.
The airline cannot invoke the tort doctrine of proximate cause because the private respondent’s luggage
was lost while it was in the custody of petitioner. The “loss of said baggage not only once by
twiceunderscores the wanton negligence and lack of care” on the part of the carrier. The above findings
foreclose whatever rights petitioner might have had to the possible limitation of liabilities enjoyed by
international air carriers under the Warsaw Convention.
In Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court held that “the Warsaw Convention however
denies to the carrier availment ‘of the provisions which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is
caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court
seized of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct,’ or ‘if the damage is (similarly)
caused x x x by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment.’
The Hague Protocol amended the Warsaw Convention by removing the provision that if the airline took
all necessary steps to avoid the damage, it could exculpate itself completely, and declaring the stated
limits of liability not applicable ‘if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the
carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that
damage would probably result.’ The same deletion was effected by the Montreal Agreement of 1966,
with the result that a passenger could recover unlimited damages upon proof of wilful misconduct.
The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of an airline’s
liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It should be deemed a limit of liability only
in those cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or destruction, loss or damage to
property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith,
recklessness or otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier
is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of resulting injury. Decision
appealed from AFFIRMED.

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs.

CA, Paula San Agustin

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(5) Order or act of competent public authority.’

Not one of the above excepted causes obtains in this case.

You might also like