ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G.

SALUDO
and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS
WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents

G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.

Principles/Doctrines: The carrier has the right to accept shipper's marks as to the contents of
the package offered for transportation and is not bound to inquire particularly about them in
order to take advantage of a false classification and where a shipper expressly represents the
contents of a package to be of a designated character, it is not the duty of the carrier to ask for
a repetition of the statement nor disbelieve it and open the box and see for itself.

FACTS: Crispina Galdo Saludo, mother of the petitioners, died in Chicago, Illinois. Pomierski and
Son Funeral Home of Chicago, made the necessary preparations and arrangements for the
shipment of the remains from Chicago to the Philippines. Pomierski brought the remains to
Continental Mortuary Air Services (CMAS) at the Chicago Airport which made the necessary
arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc. CMAS booked the shipment with PAL thru the
carrier’s agent Air Care International. PAL Airway Bill Ordinary was issued wherein the
requested routing was from Chicago to San Francisco on board Trans World Airline (TWA) and
from San Francisco to Manila on board PAL.

Salvacion (one of the petitioners), upon arrival at San Francisco, went to the TWA to
inquire about her mother’s remains. But she was told they did not know anything about it. She
then called Pomierski that her mother’s remains were not at the West Coast terminal.
Pomierski immediately called CMAS which informed that the remains were on a plane to
Mexico City, that there were two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were switched.
CMAS called and told Pomierski that they were sending the remains back to California via
Texas.

Petitioners filed a complaint against TWA and PAL fir the misshipment and delay in the
delay of the cargo containing the remains of the late Crispina Saludo. Petitioners alleged that
private respondents received the casketed remains of Crispina on October 26, 1976, as
evidenced by the issuance of PAL Airway Bill by Air Care and from said date, private
respondents were charged with the responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence so much
so that the alleged switching of the caskets on October 27, 1976, or one day after the private
respondents received the cargo, the latter must necessarily be liable.

RTC ruling: absolved the two respondent airlines companies of liability.

CA ruling: affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto, and in a subsequent resolution,
denied herein petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, the petition for
review on certiorari to SC.
SC ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, with the modification that an
award or P40,000.00 as and by way of nominal damages is granted in favor of the Saludos to be
paid by TWA.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents is liable for damages for the switching of the two
caskets.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court concluded that the switching occurred or, more accurately, was
discovered on October 27, 1976; and based on the above findings of the Court of appeals, it
happened while the cargo was still with CMAS, well before the same was place in the custody of
private respondents. Verily, no amount of inspection by respondent airline companies could
have guarded against the switching that had already taken place. Or, granting that they could
have opened the casket to inspect its contents, private respondents had no means of
ascertaining whether the body therein contained was indeed that of Crispina Saludo except,
possibly, if the body was that of a male person and such fact was visually apparent upon
opening the casket. However, to repeat, private respondents had no authority to unseal and
open the same nor did they have any reason or justification to resort thereto.

It is the right of the carrier to require good faith on the part of those persons who
deliver goods to be carried, or enter into contracts with it, and inasmuch as the freight may
depend on the value of the article to be carried, the carrier ordinarily has the right to inquire as
to its value. Ordinarily, too, it is the duty of the carrier to make inquiry as to the general nature
of the articles shipped and of their value before it consents to carry them; and its failure to do
so cannot defeat the shipper's right to recovery of the full value of the package if lost, in the
absence of showing of fraud or deceit on the part of the shipper. In the absence of more
definite information, the carrier has a the right to accept shipper's marks as to the contents of
the package offered for transportation and is not bound to inquire particularly about them in
order to take advantage of a false classification and where a shipper expressly represents the
contents of a package to be of a designated character, it is not the duty of the carrier to ask for
a repetition of the statement nor disbelieve it and open the box and see for itself. However,
where a common carrier has reasonable ground to suspect that the offered goods are of a
dangerous or illegal character, the carrier has the right to know the character of such goods and
to insist on an inspection, if reasonable and practical under the circumstances, as a condition of
receiving and transporting such goods.

It can safely be said then that a common carrier is entitled to fair representation of the
nature and value of the goods to be carried, with the concomitant right to rely thereon, and
further noting at this juncture that a carrier has no obligation to inquire into the correctness or
sufficiency of such information. The consequent duty to conduct an inspection thereof arises in
the event that there should be reason to doubt the veracity of such representations. Therefore,
to be subjected to unusual search, other than the routinary inspection procedure customarily
undertaken, there must exist proof that would justify cause for apprehension that the baggage
is dangerous as to warrant exhaustive inspection, or even refusal to accept carriage of the
same; and it is the failure of the carrier to act accordingly in the face of such proof that
constitutes the basis of the common carrier's liability.

In the case at bar, private respondents had no reason whatsoever to doubt the truth of
the shipper's representations. The airway bill expressly providing that "carrier certifies goods
received below were received for carriage," and that the cargo contained "casketed human
remains of Crispina Saludo," was issued on the basis of such representations. The reliance
thereon by private respondents was reasonable and, for so doing, they cannot be said to have
acted negligently. Likewise, no evidence was adduced to suggest even an iota of suspicion that
the cargo presented for transportation was anything other than what it was declared to be, as
would require more than routine inspection or call for the carrier to insist that the same be
opened for scrutiny of its contents per declaration.

Nonetheless, the facts show that petitioners' right to be treated with due courtesy in
accordance with the degree of diligence required by law to be exercised by every common
carrier was violated by TWA and this entitles them, at least, to nominal damages from TWA
alone. Articles 2221 and 2222 of the Civil Code make it clear that nominal damages are not
intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right
violated of invaded.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that an award of P40,000.00 as and by way of nominal
damages is hereby granted in favor of petitioners to be paid by respondent Trans World
Airlines, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

Note: A bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods and an agreement
to transport and deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his order. According
to foreign and local jurisprudence,

"the issuance of a bill of lading carries the presumption that the goods were delivered to the
carrier issuing the bill, for immediate shipment, and it is nowhere questioned that a bill of
lading is prima facie evidence of the receipt of the goods by the carrier. In the absence of
convincing testimony establishing mistake, recitals in the bill of lading showing that the carrier
received the goods for shipment on a specified date controls.

However, except as may be prohibited by law, there is nothing to prevent an inverse

order of events, that is, the execution of the bill of lading even prior to actual possession and
control by the carrier of the cargo to be transported. There is no law which requires that the
delivery of the goods for carriage and the issuance of the covering bill of lading must coincide in
point of time or, for that matter, that the former should precede the latter.

As between the shipper and the carrier, when no goods have been delivered for
shipment no recitals in the bill can estop the carrier from showing the true facts. Between the
consignor of goods and receiving carrier, recitals in a bill of lading as to the goods shipped raise
only a rebuttable presumption that such goods were delivered for shipment. As between the
consignor and a receiving carrier, the fact must outweigh the recital."