 On the same date, Pomierski brought the remains to C.M.A.S.

13 ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at the Chicago airport which
G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, made the necessary arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc.
vs. C.M.A.S. booked the shipment with PAL thru the carrier's agent Air
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and Care International, with Pomierski F.H. as the shipper and Maria
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. Saludo as the consignee.

March 23, 1992  PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454 Ordinary was issued wherein the
G.R. No. 95536 requested routing was from Chicago to San Francisco on board TWA
207 SCRA 498 (Trans World Airlines) Flight 131 of October 27, 1976 and from San
REGALADO, J. Francisco to Manila on board PAL Flight No. 107 of the same date,
and from Manila to Cebu on board PAL Flight 149 of October 29, 1976.
PRINCIPLES INVOLVED: The extraordinary responsibility of the common  Maria Saludo and her brother Saturnino Saludo went to the airport and
carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. This watched from the look-out area. She saw no body being brought. So,
responsibility remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily she went to the TWA counter again, and she was told there was no
unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner exercises the right body on that flight.
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  Upon arrival at San Francisco at about 5:00 p.m., she went to the
entitled to receive them. And, there is delivery to the carrier when the goods TWA counter there to inquire about her mother's remains. She
are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive possession, custody and was told they did not know anything about it.
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  She then called Pomierski which immediately called C.M.A.S. They
the carrier, the liability of the common carrier commences eo instanti. informed him that the remains were on a plane to Mexico City, that
there were two bodies at the terminal, and somehow they were
The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's liability for delay is that in the switched; he relayed this information to Miss Saludo in
absence of a special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against delay in California; later C.M.A.S. called and told him they were sending
transportation of goods. When a common carrier undertakes to convey goods, the remains back to California via Texas.
the law implies a contract that they shall be delivered at destination within a  It turned out that TWA had carried a shipment under PAL Airway
reasonable time, in the absence, of any agreement as to the time of delivery. Bill No. 079-ORD-01180454 on TWA Flight 603 of October 27,
But where a carrier has made an express contract to transport and deliver 1976, a flight earlier than TWA Flight 131 of the same date. TWA
property within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for delivered or transferred the said shipment said to contain human
any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen. remains to PAL at 1400H or 2:00 p.m. of the same date, October
27, 1976. "Due to a switch(ing) in Chicago", this shipment was
RELEVANT LAWS CITED: Articles 1736, 2221, and 2222 of the Civil Code withdrawn from PAL by CMAS at 1805H (or 6:05 p.m.) of the same
date.
_____________________________________________________________
 The following day October 28, 1976, the shipment or remains of
FACTS Crispina Saludo arrived in San Francisco from Mexico on board
 After the death of plaintiffs' mother, Crispina Galdo Saludo, in Chicago American Airlines. This shipment was transferred to or received by
Illinois, on October 23, 1976, Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of PAL at 1945H or 7:45 p.m. This casket bearing the remains of Crispina
Chicago, made the necessary preparations and arrangements for the Saludo, which was mistakenly sent to Mexico and was opened (there),
shipment, of the remains from Chicago to the Philippines. The funeral was resealed by Crispin F. Patagas for shipment to the Philippines
home had the remains embalmed and secured a permit for the (See Exh. B-1). The shipment was immediately loaded on PAL flight
disposition of dead human body, sealed the shipping case containing for Manila that same evening and arrived in Manila on October 30,
a hermetically sealed casket that is airtight and waterproof wherein 1976, a day after its expected arrival on October 29, 1976.
was contained the remains.
  In a letter, petitioners' counsel informed private respondent TWA of shipping case containing a hermetically sealed casket that is airtight and
waterproof wherein was contained the remains of Crispina Saludo Galdo (sic)
the misshipment and eventual delay in the delivery of the cargo (Exh. B). On the same date October 26, 1976, Pomierski brought the remains
containing the remains of the late Crispin Saludo, and of the to C.M.A.S. (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at the airport (Chicago) which
discourtesy of its employees to petitioners Maria Salvacion Saludo made the necessary arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc; C.M.A.S. is
and Saturnino Saludo. In a separate letter to co-respondent Philippine 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
Airlines (PAL), petitioners stated that they were holding PAL liable for remains are taken to the proper air freight terminal (Exh. G-TWA). C.M.A.S.
said delay in delivery and would commence judicial action should no booked the shipment with PAL thru the carrier's agent Air Care International,
favorable explanation be given. with Pomierski F.H. as the shipper and Mario (Maria) Saludo as the
consignee. PAL Airway Bill No. 079- 01180454 Ordinary was issued wherein
 A damage suit was filed by petitioners before the then CFI of Leyte, the requested routing was from Chicago to San Francisco on board TWA
Flight-131 of October 27;1976, and from San Francisco to Manila on board
praying for the award of actual damages of P50,000.00, moral PAL Flight No. 107 of the same date, and from Manila to Cebu on board PAL
damages of P1,000,000.00, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and Flight 149 of October 29, 1976 (See Exh. E, also Exh. 1-PAL).
costs of suit.
Moreover, we are persuaded to believe private respondent PAL's account as
RTC: it absolved the two respondent airlines companies of liability. to what transpired October 26, 1976:
CA: affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto,
. . . Pursuant thereto, on 26 October 1976, CMAS acting upon the instruction
of Pomierski, F.H., the shipper requested booking of the casketed remains of
ISSUES/RULING: Mrs. Cristina (sic) Saludo on board PAL's San Francisco-Manila Flight No.
PR 107 on October 27, 1976.
1. Whether or not the delay in the delivery of the casketed remains of
petitioners' mother was due to the fault of respondent airline 2. To signify acceptance and confirmation of said booking, PAL issued to said
companies. Pomierski F.H., PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454 dated October 27, 1976
(sic, "10/26/76"). PAL confirmed the booking and transporting of the shipment
on board of its Flight PR 107 on October 27, 1976 on the basis of the
NO. representation of the shipper and/or CMAS that the said cargo would arrive
in San Francisco from Chicago on board United Airlines Flight US 121 on 27
While we agree with petitioners' statement that "an airway bill estops the October 1976.
carrier from denying receipt of goods of the quantity and quality
described in the bill," a further reading and a more faithful quotation of In other words, on October 26, 1976 the cargo containing the casketed
the authority cited would reveal that "(a) bill of lading may contain remains of Crispina Saludo was booked for PAL Flight Number PR-107 leaving
constituent elements of estoppel and thus become something more than San Francisco for Manila on October 27, 1976, PAL Airway Bill No. 079-
a contract between the shipper and the carrier. . . . (However), as between 01180454 was issued, not as evidence of receipt of delivery of the cargo on
the shipper and the carrier, when no goods have been delivered for October 26, 1976, but merely as a confirmation of the booking thus made for
shipment no recitals in the bill can estop the carrier from showing the the San Francisco-Manila flight scheduled on October 27, 1976. Actually, it
true facts . . . Between the consignor of goods and receiving carrier, was not until October 28, 1976 that PAL received physical delivery of the body
recitals in a bill of lading as to the goods shipped raise only a rebuttable at San Francisco, as duly evidenced by the Interline Freight Transfer Manifest
presumption that such goods were delivered for shipment. As between of the American Airline Freight System and signed for by Virgilio Rosales at
the consignor and a receiving carrier, the fact must outweigh the recital." 1945H, or 7:45 P.M. on said date.

The findings of the trial court, as favorably adopted by the Court of Appeals Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the
provide us with the explanation that sufficiently over comes the presumption extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier begins from the time
relied on by petitioners in insisting that the remains of their mother were the goods are delivered to the carrier. This responsibility remains in full
delivered to and received by private respondents on October 26, 1976. Thus 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
. . . Philippine Vice Consul in Chicago, Illinois, Bienvenido M. Llaneta, at 3:00 acceptance, of the goods by the consignee or such other person entitled
p.m. on October 26, 1976 at the Pomierski & Son Funeral Home, sealed the 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 suggest even an iota of suspicion that the cargo presented for
control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation transportation was anything other than what it was declared to be, as
and the carrier has accepted them. Where such a delivery has thus been would require more than routine inspection or call for the carrier to insist
accepted by the carrier, the liability of the common carrier commences that the same be opened for scrutiny of its contents per declaration.
eo instanti.

Hence, while we agree with petitioners that the extraordinary diligence 2. Whether or not the one-day delay in the delivery of the same
statutorily required to be observed by the carrier instantaneously commences constitutes contractual breach as would entitle petitioners to damages.
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. NO.
Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally established can
the liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody
Having duly delivered or transferred the cargo to its co-respondent PAL
of the carrier, absent the excepting causes under Article 1734, attach and on October 27, 1976 at 2:00 P.M., as supported by the TWA Transfer
the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be invoked. Manifest, TWA faithfully complied with its obligation under the airway
bill. Said faithful compliance was not affected by the fact that the remains
As already demonstrated, the facts in the case at bar belie the averment that were shipped on an earlier flight as there was no fixed time for
there was delivery of the cargo to the carrier on October 26, 1976. Rather, as completion of carriage stipulated on. Moreover, the carrier did not
earlier explained, the body intended to be shipped as agreed upon was really undertake to carry the cargo aboard any specified aircraft, in view of the
placed in the possession and control of PAL on October 28, 1976 and it was condition on the back of the airway bill which provides:
from that date that private respondents became responsible for the agreed
cargo under their undertakings in PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454. CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
Consequently, for the switching of caskets prior thereto which was not caused
by them, and subsequent events caused thereby, private respondents cannot xxx xxx xxx
be held liable.
It is agreed that no time is fixed for the completion of carriage hereunder
It can safely be said then that a common carrier is entitled to fair and that Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or
representation of the nature and value of the goods to be carried, with 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
the concomitant right to rely thereon, and further noting at this juncture point according to any particular schedule, and Carrier is hereby authorized
that a carrier has no obligation to inquire into the correctness or to select, or deviate from the route or routes of shipment, notwithstanding that
sufficiency of such information. The consequent duty to conduct an the same may be stated on the face hereof. The shipper guarantees payment
inspection thereof arises in the event that there should be reason to of all charges and advances.
doubt the veracity of such representations. Therefore, to be subjected to
unusual search, other than the routinary inspection procedure customarily Hence, when respondent TWA shipped the body on earlier flight and on a
undertaken, there must exist proof that would justify cause for apprehension different aircraft, it was acting well within its rights. We find this argument
that the baggage is dangerous as to warrant exhaustive inspection, or even tenable.
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 The contention that there was contractual breach on the part of private
carrier's liability. respondents is founded on the postulation that there was ambiguity in
the terms of the airway bill, hence petitioners' insistence on the
In the case at bar, private respondents had no reason whatsoever to doubt application of the rules on interpretation of contracts and documents.
the truth of the shipper's representations. The airway bill expressly We find no such ambiguity. The terms are clear enough as to preclude
providing that "carrier certifies goods received below were received for the necessity to probe beyond the apparent intendment of the
carriage," and that the cargo contained "casketed human remains of Crispina contractual provisions.
Saludo," was issued on the basis of such representations. The reliance
thereon by private respondents was reasonable and, for so doing, they cannot The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's liability for delay is that in the
be said to have acted negligently. Likewise, no evidence was adduced to 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, of that genuine human concern and professional attentiveness required and
the law implies a contract that they shall be delivered at destination within a expected of them.
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 The foregoing observations, however, do not appear to be applicable or
property within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for imputable to respondent PAL or its employees. No attribution of discourtesy or
any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen. indifference has been made against PAL by petitioners and, in fact, petitioner
Maria Saludo testified that it was to PAL that they repaired after failing to
Echoing the findings of the trial court, the respondent court correctly declared receive proper attention from TWA. It was from PAL that they received
that — confirmation that their mother's remains would be on the same flight to Manila
with them.
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 4. Whether or not private respondents should be held liable for actual,
route of the shipment without any liability therefor", our Supreme Court moral and exemplary damages, aside from attorney's fees and
ruled that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver litigation expenses.
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 NO. Only nominal damages.
(Mendoza vs. PAL, 90 Phil. 836).
The uniform decisional tenet in our jurisdiction bolds that moral damages may
3. Whether or not the damages are recoverable by petitioners for the be awarded for wilful or fraudulent breach of contract or when such
humiliating, arrogant and indifferent acts of the employees of TWA and breach is attended by malice or bad faith. However, in the absence of
PAL. strong and positive evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith, said damages
cannot be awarded. Neither can there be an award of exemplary damages
NO. nor of attorney's fees as an item of damages in the absence of proof that
defendant acted with malice, fraud or bad faith.
We stand by respondent court's findings on this point, but only to the
extent where it holds that the manner in which private respondent TWA's
The censurable conduct of TWA's employees cannot, however, be said
employees dealt with petitioners was not grossly humiliating, arrogant to have approximated the dimensions of fraud, malice or bad faith. It can
or indifferent as would assume the proportions of malice or bad faith and
be said to be more of a lethargic reaction produced and engrained in some
lay the basis for an award of the damages claimed. It must however, be
people by the mechanically routine nature of their work and a racial or societal
pointed out that the lamentable actuations of respondent TWA's employees
culture which stultifies what would have been their accustomed human
leave much to be desired, particularly so in the face of petitioners' grief over
response to a human need under a former and different ambience.
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. 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
Losing a loved one, especially one's, parent, is a painful experience. Our entitles them, at least, to nominal damages from TWA alone. Articles
culture accords the tenderest human feelings toward and in reverence to the 2221 and 2222 of the Civil Code make it clear that nominal damages are
dead. That the remains of the deceased were subsequently delivered, albeit not intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication
belatedly, and eventually laid in her final resting place is of little consolation. or recognition of a right violated of invaded. They are recoverable where
The imperviousness displayed by the airline's personnel, even for just that some injury has been done but the amount of which the evidence fails to
fraction of time, was especially condemnable particularly in the hour of show, the assessment of damages being left to the discretion of the court
bereavement of the family of Crispina Saludo, intensified by anguish due to according to the circumstances of the case. In the exercise of our
the uncertainty of the whereabouts of their mother's remains. Hence, it is quite
discretion, we find an award of P40,000.00 as nominal damages in favor of,
apparent that private respondents' personnel were remiss in the observance petitioners to be a reasonable amount under the circumstances of this case.
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.