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

FACTS

The petitioners sought to transport the remains of their mother, Crispina Saludo, from Chicago to the Philippines. The funeral home engaged Continental Mortuary Air Services (CMAS) to handle arrangements. CMAS booked the shipment via TWA from Chicago to San Francisco and then via PAL to Manila. The airway bill specified TWA Flight 131 on October 27, 1976. However, due to an error at the Chicago airport where two bodies were switched, the remains were mistakenly loaded onto TWA Flight 603, which flew to Mexico City instead of San Francisco. The casket was opened in Mexico, resealed, and eventually returned to the correct route, arriving in Manila a day late. Petitioners Maria and Saturnino Saludo, who were traveling separately, experienced distress and inconvenience trying to locate the remains, receiving conflicting information from airline personnel.
The petitioners filed a complaint for damages against TWA and PAL, alleging breach of contract of carriage. They claimed moral shock and anguish due to the mishandling and delay. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent airlines are liable for damages arising from the mishandling and delay in the carriage of the human remains.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic centered on the nature of the contract and the burden of proof. The contract of carriage was between the shipper (the funeral home) and the carriers, not directly with the petitioners as consignees. While consignees can sue upon the contract, they must establish the carrier’s breach and their standing as parties with a real interest. The Court found the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the mishandling constituted willful misconduct or bad faith on the part of the airlines, which is necessary for an award of moral damages in breach of contract cases.
The error was attributed to CMAS, the agent of the shipper, in the switching of the bodies at the terminal. The carriers performed their obligations under the contract by transporting the shipment as received. The delay, while unfortunate, was not proven to be due to the carriers’ gross negligence. The Court emphasized that moral damages are not recoverable for mere breach of contract where the breach is not attended by fraud or bad faith. Since the petitioners did not substantiate their claims of discourtesy or willful misconduct, no basis for liability was established. The dismissal of the complaint for lack of evidence was therefore proper.