Saludo v.

CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

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 carriers 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 mothers remains. But she was told they did
not know anything about it. She then called Pomierski that her mothers
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.
=============================================
=========================

After the death of Crispina Galdo Saludo, mother of

Aniceto G. Saludo Jr., Maria Salvacion Saludo, Leopoldo G.
Saludo, and Saturnino G. Saludo, in Chicago, Illinois, on 23
October 1976, Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of
Chicago,
made
the
necessary
preparations
and
arrangements for the shipment of the remains from
Chicago to the Philippines.
i.

ii.

The funeral home had the remains embalmed and

secured a permit for the disposition of dead human
body on 25 October 1976.
Philippine Vice Consul in Chicago, Illinois, Bienvenido M.
Llaneta, at 3:00 p.m. on 26 October 1976 at the Pomierski &
Son Funeral Home, sealed the shipping case containing
a hermetically sealed casket that is airtight and

iii.

waterproof wherein was contained the remains of

Crispina Galdo Saludo.
On the same date, 26 October 1976, Pomierski brought the
remains to C.M.A.S. (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at the
airport (Chicago) which made the necessary arrangements
such as flights, transfers, etc.; C.M.A.S. is a national service
used by undertakers throughout the nation (U.S.A.), they
furnish the air pouch which the casket is enclosed in, and they
see that the remains are taken to the proper air freight
terminal. C.M.A.S. booked the shipment with PAL thru the
carriers agent Air Care International, with Pomierski F.H. as the
shipper and Mario (Maria) Saludo as the consignee.

PAL Airway Bill 079 01180454 Ordinary was issued

wherein the requested routing was from Chicago to San
Francisco on board TWA Flight 131 of 27 October 1976, and
from San Francisco to Manila on board PAL Flight 107 of the
same date, and from Manila to Cebu on board PAL Flight 149 of
29 October 1976.
In the meantime, Maria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino
Saludo, thru a travel agent, were booked with United Airlines
from Chicago to California, and with PAL from California to
Manila.
i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

She then went to the funeral director of Pomierski Funeral

Home who had her mothers remains and she told the director
that they were booked with United Airlines. But the director
told her that the remains were booked with TWA flight
to California.
This upset her, and she and her brother had to change
reservations from UA to the TWA flight after she
confirmed by phone that her mothers remains would be
on that TWA flight.
They went to the airport and watched from the look-out area.
She saw no body being brought. So, she went to the TWA
counter again, and she was told there was no body on that
flight.
Reluctantly, they took the TWA flight upon assurance of her
cousin, Ani Bantug, that he would look into the matter and
inform her about it on the plane or have it radioed to her. But
no confirmation from her cousin reached her that her
mother was on the West Coast.
Upon arrival at San Francisco at about 5:00 p.m., she went to
the TWA counter there to inquire about her mothers remains.
She was told they did not know anything about it.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated
vi.
She then called Pomierski that her mothers remains were not
remains of the late Crispina Saludo, and of the discourtesy of its
at the West Coast terminal, and Pomierski immediately called
employees to Maria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino Saludo.
C.M.A.S., which in a matter of 10 minutes informed him that
In a separate letter on 10 June 1977 addressed to
the remains were on a place to Mexico City, that there were
Philippine Airlines (PAL), the Saludos stated that they
two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were switched;
were holding PAL liable for said delay in delivery and
he relayed this information to Miss Saludo in California; later
would commence judicial action should no favorable
C.M.A.S. called and told him they were sending the remains
explanation be given.
back to California via Texas.

Both TWA and PAL denied liability.

vii.
The following day, 28 October 1976, the shipment or remains
A damage suit was filed by the Saludos before the then Court of
of Crispina Saludo arrived in San Francisco from Mexico on
board American Airlines.
First Instance, Branch III, Southern Leyte, praying for the award
viii.
This shipment was transferred to or received by PAL at 7:45
of actual damages of P50,000.00, moral damages of
p.m.
P1,000,000.00, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs
ix.
This casket bearing the remains of Crispina Saludo, which was
of suit.
mistakenly sent to Mexico and was opened (there), was

The trial court absolved the two airline companies of

resealed by Crispin F. Padagas for shipment to the Philippines.
x.
The shipment was immediately loaded on PAL flight for Manila
liability.
that same evening and arrived in Manila on 30 October 1976, a
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court in
day after its expected arrival on 29 October 1976.
toto, and in a subsequent resolution, denied the Saludos
In a letter dated 15 December 1976, the counsel of the Saludos
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
informed Trans World Airlines (TWA) of the misshipment and
Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
eventual delay in the delivery of the cargo containing the
=======================================================================================================================
=====================================================================================

Issue: (1) WON

Held: 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.
==========================================================================================================================
====================================================================================

1. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals binding

upon the Supreme Court; Exceptions

Only questions of law may be raised in a petition

filed in the Supreme Court to review on certiorari
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
This being so, the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The rule, however, admits of established
exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is grave abuse

of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded

entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(c) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the
judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a
misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual
findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same are contrary to
the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g)

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked

certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties
and which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion; and (h) where the findings of
fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those
of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without
citation of specific evidence, or where the facts
set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the
respondent, or where the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record.
2. Distinction between question
question of fact; Test to determine

of

law

and

A question of law is one which involves a doubt or

controversy on what the law is on a certain state
of facts; and, a question of fact, contrarily, is one
in which there is a doubt or difference as to the
truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. One test, it
has been held, is whether the appellate court can
determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of
law, otherwise it will be a question of fact.
3. Issues warrant second look at facts

Since it is the soundness of the inferences or

conclusions that may be drawn from the factual
issues which are being assayed, the Court finds
that the issues raised in the present petition
indeed warrant a second look if this litigation is to
come to a reasonable denouement.

A discussion seriatim of said issues will further

reveal that the sequence of the events involved is
in effect disputed.
Likewise to be settled is whether or not the
conclusions of the Court of Appeals subject of the
review indeed find evidentiary and legal support.

4. Nature of bill of lading

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.
The two-fold character of a bill of lading is
all too familiar:
it is a receipt as to the quantity and description of
the goods shipped and a contract to transport the
goods to the consignee or other person therein
designated, on the terms specified in such
instrument.

5. Designation of bill of lading immaterial

The designation is immaterial. Such instrument

may be called a shipping receipt, forwarders
receipt and receipt for transportation.
Freight tickets for bus companies as well as
receipts for cargo transported by all forms of
transportation, whether by sea or land, fall within
the definition. Under the Tariff and Customs Code,
a bill of lading includes airway bills of lading.

6. When bill of lading issued; Inverse order not

prohibited by law

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

Since a bill of lading acknowledges receipt of

goods to be transported, delivery of the goods to
the carrier normally precedes the issuance of the
bill; or, to some extent, delivery of the goods and
issuance of the bill are regarded in commercial
practice as simultaneous acts.
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.

7. Receipt a prima facie evidence of delivery to

carrier

Ordinarily, a receipt is not essential to a complete

delivery of goods to the carrier for transportation
but, when issued, is competent and prima facie,
but not conclusive, evidence of delivery to the
carrier.
A bill of lading, when properly executed and
delivered to a shipper, is evidence that the carrier
has received the goods described therein for
shipment.
Except as modified by statute, it is a general
rule as to the parties to a contract of carriage of
goods in connection with which a bill of lading is
issued reciting that goods have been received for
transportation, that the recital being in essence a

receipt alone, is not conclusive, but may be

explained, varied or contradicted by parol or other
evidence.
8. Bill of lading vis--vis estoppel

An airway bill estops the carrier from denying

receipt of goods of the quantity and quality
described in the bill.
However, a bill of lading may contain constituent
elements of estoppel and thus become something
more than a contract between the shipper and the
carrier.
However, 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 a 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.

9. Explanation overcoming presumption that

remains were delivered and received by TWA and
PAL

Herein, Philippine Vice Consul in Chicago, Illinois,

Bienvenido M. Llaneta, at 3:00 p.m. on 26 October
1976 at the Pomierski & Son Funeral Home, sealed
the shipping case containing a hermetically sealed
casket that is airtight and waterproof wherein was
contained the remains of Crispina Galdo Saludo.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

On the same date, Pomierski brought the remains

to C.M.A.S. (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at
the airport (Chicago) which made the necessary
arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc;
C.M.A.S. is a national service used by undertakers
throughout the nation (U.S.A.), they furnish the air
pouch which the casket is enclosed in, and they
see that the remains are taken to the proper air
freight terminal.
C.M.A.S. booked the shipment with PAL thru the
carriers agent Air Care International, with
Pomierski F.H. as the shipper and Mario (Maria)
Saludo as the consignee. PAL Airway Bill 07901180454 Ordinary was issued wherein the
requested routing was from Chicago to San
Francisco on board TWA Flight 131 of 27 October
1976, and from San Francisco to Manila on board
PAL Flight 107 of the same date, and from Manila
to Cebu on board PAL Flight 149 of 29 October
1976.

10. PALs explanation

On 26 October 1976 the cargo containing the

casketed remains of Crispina Saludo was booked
for PAL Flight PR-107 leaving San Francisco for
Manila on 27 October 1976.
PAL Airway Bill 079 01180454 was issued, not as
evidence of receipt of delivery of the Cargo on 26
October 1976, but merely as a confirmation of the
booking thus made for the San Francisco-Manila
flight scheduled on 27 October 1976.

Actually, it was not until 28 October 1976 that PAL

received physical delivery of the body at San
Francisco, as duly evidenced by the Interline
Freight Transfer Manifest of the American Airline
Freight System and signed for by Virgilio Rosales
at 7:45 p.m. on said date. 11.

Article 1736 NCC; Period where extraordinary

responsibility observed by common carrier;
When delivery made Explicit is the rule under
Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the
extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier
begins from the time the goods are delivered to
the carrier.
This responsibility remains in full force
and effect even when they are temporarily
unloaded or stored in transit, unless the
shipper or owner exercises the right of
stoppage in transitu, and terminates only
after the lapse of a reasonable time for the
acceptance of the goods by the consignee or
such other person entitled to receive them.
And, there is delivery to the carrier when the
goods are ready for and have been placed in the
exclusive possession, custody and control of the
carrier for the purpose of their immediate
transportation and the carrier has accepted them.
Where such a delivery has thus been accepted by
the carrier, the liability of the common carrier
commences eo instanti.

12. PAL and TWA not liable for switching of

caskets prior to their receipt of agreed cargo

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

Vice-Consul in Chicago and in an air pouch of

C.M.A.S.,
to the effect that Air Care International and/or
TWA had to rely on the information furnished by
the shipper regarding the cargos content. Neither
could Air Care International and/or TWA open the
casket for further verification, since they were not
only without authority to do so, but even
prohibited.

While the extraordinary diligence statutorily

required to be observed by the carrier
instantaneously commences upon delivery of the
goods thereto, for such duty to commence there
must in fact have been delivery of the cargo
subject of the contract of carriage; only when such
fact of delivery has been unequivocally
established can the liability for loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods in the custody of the
carrier, absent the excepting causes under
Article 1734, attach and the presumption of
fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be
invoked.
Herein, the body intended to be shipped as
agreed upon was really placed in the possession
and control of PAL on 28 October 1976 and it was
from that date that TWA and PAL became
responsible for the agreed cargo under their
undertakings in PAL Airway Bill 079-01180454.
Consequently, for the switching of caskets prior
thereto which was not caused by them., and
subsequent events caused thereby, TWA and PAL
cannot be held liable.
13. TWA without authority, even prohibited, to
verify contents of casket

When the cargo was received from C.M.A.S. at the

Chicago airport terminal for shipment, which was
supposed to contain the remains of Crispina
Saludo, Air Care International and/or TWA, had no
way of determining its actual contents, since the
casket was hermetically sealed by the Philippine

14. Pomierski & Son delivered casket to CMAS,

and not to TWA

It was not to TWA, but to C.M.A.S. that the

Pomierski & Son Funeral Home delivered the
casket containing the remains of Crispina Saludo.
TWA would have no knowledge therefore that the
remains of Crispina Saludo were not the ones
inside the casket that was being presented to it
for shipment.
TWA would have to rely on the representations of
C.M.A.S. The casket was hermetically sealed and
also sealed by the Philippine Vice Consul in
Chicago.
TWA or any airline for that matter would not have
opened such sealed casket just for the purpose of
ascertaining whose body was inside and to make
sure that the remains inside were those of the
particular person indicated to be by C.M.A.S.
TWA had to accept whatever information was
being furnished by the shipper or by the one
presenting the casket for shipment.
And so as a matter of fact, TWA carried to San
Francisco and transferred to defendant PAL a

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

shipment covered by or under PAL Airway Bill 079ORD-01180454, the airway bill for the shipment of
the casketed remains of Crispina Saludo.
Only, it turned out later, while the casket was
already with PAL, that what was inside the casket
was not the body of Crispina Saludo so much so
that it had to be withdrawn by C.M.A.S. from PAL.
The body of Crispina Saludo had been shipped to
Mexico.
The casket containing the remains of Crispina
Saludo was transshipped from Mexico and arrived
in San Francisco the following day on board
American Airlines. It was immediately loaded by
PAL on its flight for Manila.
The foregoing points at C.M.A.S. as the one
responsible for the switching or mix-up of
the two bodies at the Chicago Airport
terminal, and started a chain reaction of the
misshipment of the body of Crispina Saludo
and a one-day delay in the delivery thereof
to its destination.

15. Right of carrier to require good faith on part

of persons delivering goods; Right of carrier to
know contents when it has reasonable ground to
suspect goods are dangerous or of illegal
character

It is the right of the carrier to require good faith on

the part of those persons who deliver goods to be
carried, and 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 shippers 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 the right to accept shippers 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.

16. Common carrier entitled to fair representation

of nature and value of goods to be carried; Right
of carrier to conduct an inspection

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

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 carriers
liability.

17. CMAS classified as forwarder, is an agent of

the shipper and not of the carrier

While the actual participation of CMAS has been

sufficiently and correctly established, to hold that
it acted as agent for TWA and PAL would be both
an inaccurate appraisal and an unwarranted
categorization of the legal position it held in the
entire transaction.
It bears repeating that CMAS was hired to handle
all the necessary shipping arrangements for the

transportation of the human remains of Crispina

Saludo to Manila.
Hence, it was to CMAS that the Pomierski & Son Funeral
Home, as shipper, brought the remains of Saludo for
shipment, with Maria Saludo as consignee.
Thereafter, CMAS booked the shipment with PAL
through the carriers agent, Air Care International.
With its functions, CMAS may accordingly be
classified as a forwarder which, by accepted commercial
practice, is regarded as an agent of the shipper and not
of the carrier.
As such, it merely contracts for the transportation of
goods by carriers, and has no interest in the freight but
receives compensation from the shipper as his agent.

18. CMAS is actual culprit

The facts of the case would point to CMAS as the

culprit. Equally telling of the more likely possibility
of CMAS liability is the Saludos letter to and
demanding an explanation from CMAS, regarding
the statement of TWA and PAL laying the blame
on CMAS for the incident, clearly allude to CMAS
as the party at fault.
This is tantamount to an admission by the Saludos
that they consider TWA and PAL without fault, or is

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

i.

at the very least indicative of the fact that the

Saludos entertained serious doubts as to whether
TWA and PAL were responsible for the unfortunate
turn of events.

ii.

19. Court cannot grant damages at expense of

TWA and PAL; Possible liability of CMAS best
deferred to another time and addressed to
another forum

The Saludos grief over the death of their mother

was
aggravated
by
the
unnecessary
inconvenience and anxiety that attended their
efforts to bring her body home for a decent burial.
But, as much as the Court would like to give them
consolation for their undeserved distress, the
Court is barred by the inequity of allowing
recovery of the damages prayed for by them at
the expense of TWA and PAL whose fault or
negligence in the very acts imputed to them has
not been convincingly and legally demonstrated.
Neither was the Court prepared to delve into,
much less definitively rule on, the possible liability
of CMAS as the evaluation and adjudication of the
same is not what is presently at issue and is best
deferred to another time and addressed to
another forum.

20. Carrier did not undertake to carry cargo

aboard any specified aircraft

The carrier did not undertake to carry the cargo aboard

any specified aircraft, in view of the condition on the
back of the airway bill which provides that:

iii.

It is agreed that no time is fixed for the

completion of carriage hereunder and that
Carrier may without notice substitute alternate
carriers or aircraft.
Carrier assumes no obligation to carry the
goods by any specified aircraft or over any
particular route or routes or to make connection
at any point according to any particular
schedule, and
Carrier is hereby authorized to select, or
deviate from the route or routes of shipment,
notwithstanding that the same may be stated
on the face hereof. The shipper guarantees
payment of all charges and advances.

Hence, when TWA shipped the body on an earlier

flight and on a different aircraft, it was acting well
within its rights. TWA can use substitute aircraft
even without notice and without the assumption
of any obligation whatsoever to carry the goods
on any specified aircraft is clearly sanctioned by
the contract of carriage as specifically provided
for under the conditions thereof.

21. Terms clear, no interpretation needed

The terms are clear enough as to preclude the

necessity to probe beyond the apparent
intendment of the contractual provisions.
There is no ambiguity in the terms of the airway
bill to warrant the application of the rules on
interpretation of contracts and documents.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

22. Interpretation of contracts

The hornbook rule on interpretation of contracts

consecrates the primacy of the intention of the
parties, the same having the force of law between
them.
i. When the terms of the agreement are
clear and explicit, that they do not
justify an attempt to read into any
alleged intention of the parties, the
terms are to be understood literally just as
they appear on the face of the contract.
ii.
The various stipulations of a contract
shall be interpreted together and such a
construction is to be adopted as will give
effect to all provisions thereof.
iii.
A contract cannot be construed by
parts, but its clauses should be interpreted
in relation to one another.
iv.
The
whole
contract
must
be
interpreted or read together in order to
arrive at its true meaning.
v. Certain
stipulations
cannot
be
segregated and then made to control;
neither do particular words or phrases
necessarily determine the character of a
contract.
vi.
The legal effect of the contract is not
to be determined alone by any
particular provision disconnected from
all others, but in the ruling intention of the
parties as gathered from all the language
they
have
used
and
from
their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts.

23. Interpretative rule in Rules of Court applies

only if there is inconsistency between written and
printed words

The interpretative rule in the Rules of Court

that written words control printed words in
documents may be considered only when there is
inconsistency between the written and printed
words of the contract.
i. As previously stated, there was no ambiguity in
the contract subject of this case that would call
for the application of said rule.
ii.
In any event, the contract has provided for
such a situation by explicitly stating that the
condition remains effective notwithstanding
that the same (fixed time for completion of
carriage, specified aircraft, or any particular
route or schedule) may be stated on the face
hereof.
iii.
Herein, the typewritten specifications of the
flight, routes and dates of departures and
arrivals on the face of the airway bill does not
constitute a special contract which modifies the
printed conditions at the back thereof.

The typewritten provisions of the contract are to

be read and understood subject to and in view of
the printed conditions, fully reconciling and
giving effect to the manifest intention of the
parties to the agreement.
24. Statement on the face of the airway bill
The statement on the face of the airway bill properly
and completely reads Carrier certifies goods described

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

below were received for carriage subject to the

Conditions on the reverse hereof the goods then being
in apparent good order and condition except as noted
hereon.
25. Carrier not an insurer against delay in
transportation of goods in absence of a special
contract

The oft-repeated rule regarding a carriers

liability for delay is that in the absence of a
special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against
delay in transportation of goods.
When a common carrier undertakes to convey
goods, the law implies a contract that they shall
be delivered at destination within a reasonable
time, in the absence of any agreement as to the
time of delivery.
But where a carrier has made an express
contract to transport and deliver property within a
specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and
is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause
it may have arisen.
This result logically follows from the well-settled
rule that where the law creates a duty or charge,
and the party is disabled from performing it
without any default in himself, and has no remedy
over, then the law will excuse him, but where the
party by his own contract creates a duty or charge
upon himself, he is bound to make it good
notwithstanding any accident or delay by
inevitable necessity because he might have
provided against it by contract.

Whether or not there has been such an

undertaking on the part of the carrier is to be
determined from the circumstances surrounding
the case and by application of the ordinary rules
for the interpretation of contracts.

26. Mendoza vs. PAL; Delayed delivery of air

cargo

In a similar case of delayed delivery of air cargo

under a very similar stipulation contained in the
airway bill which reads:
The carrier does not obligate itself to carry
the goods by any specified aircraft or on a
specified time. Said carrier being hereby
authorized to deviate from the route of the
shipment without any liability therefore,
the Supreme Court ruled that
common carriers are not obligated by
law
to
carry
and
to
deliver
merchandise, and persons are not
vested with the right to prompt
delivery, unless such common carriers
previously assume the obligation. Said
rights and obligations are created by a
specific contract entered into by the
parties (Mendoza vs. PAL, 90 Phil.
836).

27. Specification of flights does not constitute a

special contract

To countenance a postulate that the specification

of the flights and dates of departures and arrivals

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

constitute a special contract (that would prevail

over the printed stipulations at the back of the
airway bill)
would unduly burden the common carrier for
that would have the effect of unilaterally
transforming every single bill of lading or trip
ticket into a special contract by the simple
expedient of filling it up with the particulars of the
flight, trip or voyage, and thereby imposing upon
the carrier duties and/or obligations which it may
not have been ready or willing to assume had it
been timely advised thereof.
28. Ordinary prudence
entering in contract

required

of

person

The fact that the challenged condition 5 was

printed at the back of the airway bill militate
against its binding effect on the Saludos as parties
to the contract, for there were sufficient
indications on the face of said bill that would alert
them to the presence of such additional condition
to put them on their guard.
Ordinary prudence on the part of any person
entering or contemplating to enter into a contract
would prompt even a cursory examination of any
such conditions, terms and/or stipulations.

29. Acceptance of bill of lading without dissent

raises presumption that all terms brought to
knowledge of shipper and agreed to by him

The acceptance of a bill of lading without dissent

raises a presumption that all terms therein were

brought to the knowledge of the shipper and

agreed to by him, and in the absence of fraud or
mistake, he is estopped from thereafter denying
that he assented to such terms.
This rule applies with particular force where a
shipper accepts a bill of lading with full knowledge
of its contents, and acceptance, under such
circumstances makes it a binding contract.
In order that any presumption of assent to a
stipulation in a bill of lading limiting the liability of
a carrier may arise, it must appear that the clause
containing this exemption from liability plainly
formed a part of the contract contained in the bill
of lading.
A stipulation printed on the back of a receipt or
bill of lading or on papers attached to such receipt
will be quite as effective as if printed on its face, if
it is shown that the consignor knew of its terms.
Thus, where a shipper accepts a receipt which
states that its conditions are to be found on the
back, such receipt comes within the general rule,
and the shipper is held to have accepted and to
be bound by the conditions there to be found.

30. When contract

unenforceable

of

adhesion

void

and

A contract of adhesion may be struck down as

void and unenforceable, for being subversive of
public policy, only when the weaker party is
imposed upon in dealing with the dominant
bargaining party and is reduced to the alternative
of taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of
the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

from liability in the exculpatory sanctuary of

Condition 5 or arbitrarily vary routes, flights and
schedules to the prejudice of their customers.

31. Ong Yiu vs. CA; Contracts of adhesion not

entirely prohibited

The case of Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, et

al. instructs that contracts of adhesion are not
entirely prohibited.
The one who adheres to the contract is in reality
free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his
consent.
Herein, the Saludos, far from being the weaker
party in the situation, duly signified their
presumed assent to all terms of the contract
through their acceptance of the airway bill and are
consequently bound thereby.
It cannot be gainsaid that the Saludos were not
without several choices as to carriers in Chicago
with its numerous airways and airlines servicing
the same.

32. Condition serves as insulation to liability

when flight routes and schedules change;
Changes should be justified

Although Condition 5 of the airway bill is binding

upon the parties to and fully operative in the
present transaction, it does not mean, that the
carriers can at all times whimsically seek refuge

This condition only serves to insulate the carrier

from liability in those instances when changes in
routes, flights and schedules are clearly justified
by the peculiar circumstances of a particular case,
or by general transportation practices, customs
and usages, or by contingencies or emergencies
in aviation such as weather turbulence,
mechanical failure, requirements of national
security and the like.
And even as it is conceded that specific routing
and other navigational arrangements for a trip,
flight or voyage, or variations therein, generally lie
within the discretion of the carrier in the absence
of specific routing instructions or directions by the
shipper, it is plainly incumbent upon the carrier to
exercise its rights with due deference to the
rights, interests and convenience of its customers.

33. Common carrier has implicit duty to carry

property within reasonable time and guard
against delay; Liability of carrier for unreasonable
delay

A common carrier undertaking to transport

property has the implicit duty to carry and deliver
it within a reasonable time, absent any particular
stipulation regarding time of delivery, and to
guard against delay.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

In case of any unreasonable delay, the

carrier shall be liable for damages immediately
and proximately resulting from such neglect of
duty.

35. No showing that personnel treated the

Saludos in humiliating or arrogant manner; What
constitutes rude or discourteous conduct

Herein, the delay in the delivery of the remains of

Crispina Saludo, undeniable and regrettable as it
was, cannot be attributed to the fault, negligence
or malice of PAL and TWA.

34. TWA knew urgency of shipment and actually

carried the remains on earlier flight

Herein, TWA knew of the urgency of the shipment

by reason of this notation on the lower portion of
the airway bill:
All documents have been certified.
Human remains of Cristina (sic) Saludo. Please
return bag first available flight to SFO.
Accordingly, TWA took it upon itself to carry the
remains of Crispina Saludo on an earlier flight,
which it could do under the terms of the airway
bill, to make sure that there would be enough time
for loading said remains on the transfer flight on
board PAL.

There was no showing of any humiliating or

arrogant manner with which the personnel of both
TWA and PAL treated the Saludos.
Even their alleged indifference is not clearly
established.
The initial answer of the TWA personnel at the
counter that they did not know anything about the
remains, and later, their answer that they have
not heard anything about the remains, and the
inability of the TWA counter personnel to inform
the Saludos of the whereabouts of the remains,
cannot be said to be total or complete indifference
to the latter.
At any rate, it is any rude or discourteous conduct,
malfeasance or neglect, the use of abusive or
insulting language calculated to humiliate and
shame passenger or bad faith by or on the part of
the employees of the carrier that gives the
passenger an action for damages against the
carrier, and none of the above is obtaining in the
present case.

36. Although not in bad faith, actuations of TWAs

employees leave must to be desired

The manner in which TWAs employees dealt with

the Saludos was not grossly humiliating, arrogant
or indifferent as would assume the proportions of
malice or bad faith and lay the basis for an award
of the damages claimed. It must however, be

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

pointed out that the lamentable actuations of

TWAs employees leave much to be desired,
particularly so in the face of the Saludos grief
over the death of their mother, exacerbated by
the tension and anxiety wrought by the impasse
and confusion over the failure to ascertain over an
appreciable period of time what happened to her
remains.
37. Airline companies admonished to require
personnel to be more accommodating towards
customers and general public; Contract of
carriage
different
from
other
contractual
relations, and is not a mere contract for
transportation but also treatment with courtesy
and consideration

Airline companies are hereby sternly admonished

that it is their duty not only to cursorily instruct
but to strictly require their personnel to be more
accommodating towards customers, passengers
and the general public.
After all, common carriers such as airline
companies are in the business of rendering public
service, which is the primary reason for their
enfranchisement and recognition in our law.
Because the passengers in a contract of carriage
do not contract merely for transportation, they
have a right to be treated with kindness, respect,
courtesy and consideration.
A contract to transport passengers is quite
different in kind and degree from any other
contractual relation, and generates a relation
attended with public duty.

The operation of a common carrier is a business

affected with public interest and must be directed
to serve the comfort and convenience of
passengers.
Passengers are human beings with human feelings
and emotions; they should not be treated as mere
numbers or statistics for revenue.

38. Apathy not legally

morally deplorable

reprehensible

but

is

Herein, the Saludos were not to be regaled with

extra special attention.
They were, however, entitled to the understanding
and humane consideration called for by and
commensurate with the extraordinary diligence
required of common carriers, and not the cold
insensitivity to their predicament.
The airlines counter personnel were totally
helpless about the situation.
Common Sense could and should have dictated
that they exert a little extra effort in making a
more extensive inquiry, by themselves or through
their superiors, rather than just shrug off the
problem with a callous and uncaring remark that
they had no knowledge about it.
With all the modern communications equipment
readily available to them, which could have easily
facilitated said inquiry and which are used as a
matter of course by airline companies in their
daily operations, their apathetic stance while not
legally reprehensible is morally deplorable.

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

39. No attribution of discourtesy or indifference

against PAL

No attribution of discourtesy or indifference has

been made against PAL by the Saludos and, in
fact, Maria Saludo testified that it was to PAL that
they repaired after failing to receive proper
attention from TWA.
It was from PAL that they received confirmation
that their mothers remains would be on the same
flight to Manila with them.

40. When moral and exemplary damages, or

attorneys fees, awarded

Moral damages may be awarded for willful or

fraudulent breach of contract or when such breach
is attended by malice or bad faith.
However, in the absence of strong and positive
evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith, said
damages cannot be awarded.
Neither can, there be an award of exemplary
damages nor of attorneys fees as an item of
damages in the absence of proof that defendant
acted with malice, fraud or bad faith.

41. Censurable conduct of TWA employees do not

approximate dimensions of fraud, malice or good
faith

The censurable conduct of TWAs employees

cannot, however, be said to have approximated
the dimensions of fraud, malice or bad faith.
It can be said to be more of a lethargic reaction
produced and engrained in some people by the
mechanically routine nature of their work and a
racial or societal culture which stultifies what
would have been their accustomed human
response to a human need under a former and
different ambience.

42. Award of nominal damages

Articles 2221 and 2222 NCC

warranted;

The facts show that the Saludos 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 or
invaded.
They are recoverable where some injury has been
done but the amount of which the evidence fails
to show, the assessment of damages being left to
the discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of the case.
In the exercise of the Courts discretion, the Court find
an
award of P40,000.00 as nominal damages in favor of the

Saludo v. CA

GR No. 95536 (207 SCRA 498); March 23, 1992; 2nd Division- Regalado, J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

D. Damages Recoverable from Common Carriers; (5) Nominal, Temperate and Liquidated

Salufos to be a reasonable amount

circumstances of the present case.

under

the