Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shewaran vs. Philippine Airlines

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Calabines
    19 views1 page
    Shewaram checked in three pieces of baggage for a flight from Davao to Manila with Philippine Airlines (PAL). One suitcase was mistagged and did not arrive with him, containing a camera and radio worth 800 pesos. PAL offered 100 pesos for the loss, citing a limit of liability printed in small text on the back of the ticket. Shewaram sued for full payment. The Court ruled in favor of Shewaram, finding the liability limit was not a fair contract under the circumstances since the conditions were printed in small text and he did not clearly agree to them.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    11. Shewaran vs. Philippine Airlines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shewaram checked in three pieces of baggage for a flight from Davao to Manila with Philippine Airlines (PAL). One suitcase was mistagged and did not arrive with him, containing a camera and radio worth 800 pesos. PAL offered 100 pesos for the loss, citing a limit of liability printed in small text on the back of the ticket. Shewaram sued for full payment. The Court ruled in favor of Shewaram, finding the liability limit was not a fair contract under the circumstances since the conditions were printed in small text and he did not clearly agree to them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    19 views1 page

    Shewaran vs. Philippine Airlines

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Calabines
    Shewaram checked in three pieces of baggage for a flight from Davao to Manila with Philippine Airlines (PAL). One suitcase was mistagged and did not arrive with him, containing a camera and radio worth 800 pesos. PAL offered 100 pesos for the loss, citing a limit of liability printed in small text on the back of the ticket. Shewaram sued for full payment. The Court ruled in favor of Shewaram, finding the liability limit was not a fair contract under the circumstances since the conditions were printed in small text and he did not clearly agree to them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Shewaram v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    G.R. No. L-20099, 7 July 1966, 17 SCRA 606

    FACTS:

    Shewaram, petitioner herein, is a Hindu from Davao. He boarded a PAL plane for a trip to Manila.
    He checked in 3 pieces of baggage, a suitcase and 2 other pieces. One of the suitcases were
    mistagged by the defendant and as a result the said suitcase did no t arrive with him in Manila.
    Among his things in the suitcase was a Rollflex camera and Transistor Radio 7. His baggage was
    later on returned but the camera and radio were missing. He demanded indemnity for his loss from
    PAL. The latter offered to pay P100 for his loss but Shewaram. Defendant herein claimed that the
    PAL ticket, on the reverse side, stated in fine print that if the value of baggage is not stated, and the
    baggage is lost, the maximum liability of PAL is P100.00. If value in excess of P100.00 is stated,
    PAL will charge extra because PAL is being held liable for an amount exceeding P100.00.
    Shewaram rejected the offer and demanded full payment of P800.00 for the amount of the things he
    lost. PAL refused to do so.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the stipulation limiting the liability of PAL shall apply in the case at bar.

    HELD:

    The Court held that PAL is liable for the loss of the petitioner herein. The stipulation in at the back of
    the ticket shall not be binding against the petitioner. Article 1750 of the NCC pr ovides that the
    pecuniary liability of a common carrier may, by contract, be limited to a fixed amount. It is required,
    however, that the contract must be “reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been
    fairly and freely agreed upon.” In this case, the court believes that the requirements of said article
    have not been met. It cannot be said that the petitioner had actually entered into a contract with the
    PAL, embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket stub that was to the petit ioner.
    The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that they
    are hard to read would not warrant the presumption that the petitioner was aware of those conditions
    such that he had “fairly and freely agreed” to those conditions.

    You might also like