Ong Yiu v. CA Digest
Ong Yiu v. CA Digest
Ratio: While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket,
TOPIC: 4. AGREEMENT LIMITING LIABILITY he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions
(B) AS TO AMOUNT OF LIABILITY have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and
binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of
First Division knowledge or assent to the regulation". It is what is known as a
Agustino Ong Yiu v. CA contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that
GR No. L-40597 contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready-made form
June 29, 1979 of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are
contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the
Melencio-Herrera, J: contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives
his consent. And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio
Facts: Petitioner was a fare-paying passenger of PAL from Mactan, Cebu, App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878; Rosenchein vs. Trans World Airlines,
bound for Butuan City. He was scheduled to attend a hearing. He Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483, "a contract limiting liability upon an
checked in one piece of luggage, a blue maleta. Upon arriving in agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law
Butuan City, petitioner Ong Yiu claimed his luggage but it could not forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.”
be found. After some communication, PAL Manila wired PAL Cebu
advising that the luggage had been over carried to Manila and that it Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher
would be forwarded to Cebu on the same day. PAL Cebu sent a value for his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess
message to Butuan that the luggage would be forwarded the next of P100.00. Besides, passengers are advised not to place valuable
day. items inside their baggage but "to avail of our V-cargo service ". It is
likewise to be noted that there is nothing in the evidence to show the
Upon touching his hands on his maleta, he was notified that the lock actual value of the goods allegedly lost by petitioner.
was open. Upon examining, he found out that a folder containing
certain exhibits, transcripts and private documents were missing,
aside from two gifts for his parents-in-law.
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS IN THIS CASE
Petitioner then filed a complaint against PAL for damages for breach
of contract of transportation with the CFI of Cebu. Article 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier’s liability is limited
RTC – found PAL guilty to have acted in bad faith and with malice. to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the
CA – reversed RTC’s decision. PAL was only guilty of simple
shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.
negligence and not gross. It ordered PAL to pay plaintiff
the sum of P100.00, the baggage liability assumed by it
under the condition of carriage printed at the back of the Article 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered. by the
ticket.
owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is
Petitioner Ong Yiu appealed before the SC and contended that there valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been
was nothing in the evidence to show that he had actually entered into
a contract with PAL limiting its liability to just P100.00 for loss or fairly and freely agreed upon.
delay of the baggage of its passengers.
Issue: Whether or not the CA was correct in limiting PAL’s liability to only
P100.00.
Held: Yes, the CA was correct in limiting PAL’s liability to only P100.00.