GR 199455; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199455 , June 27, 2018
Federal Express Corporation, Petitioner, v. Luwalhati R. Antonino and Eliza Bettina Ricasa Antonino, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Luwalhati and Eliza Antonino, while in the Philippines, shipped via petitioner Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) a package containing Citibank checks intended for payment of common charges and real estate taxes on a condominium unit in New York. The package was addressed to their representative, Veronica Sison. Sison did not receive the package. FedEx claimed it was delivered to a neighbor without a signed receipt. The non-delivery allegedly led to the foreclosure of the condominium unit. Respondents demanded compensation from FedEx, which refused, prompting the filing of a complaint for damages.
FedEx disclaimed liability, arguing respondents failed to file a written claim within 45 days as a condition precedent under its Air Waybill. It also contended the shipment contained prohibited “negotiable instruments equivalent to cash” (the checks), which were misdeclared as “documents.” The Regional Trial Court ruled for respondents, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether FedEx may be held liable for damages for its failure to deliver the checks shipped by the respondents.
RULING
Yes, FedEx is liable. The duty of a common carrier to observe extraordinary diligence extends until the goods are delivered to the consignee or an authorized recipient. Delivery to a neighbor without the consignee’s signature or proof of authorization constitutes a failure to deliver, tantamount to loss, and makes the carrier liable. FedEx failed to prove any authorization from the shipper or consignee for such alternative delivery, thus it did not overcome the presumption of fault under Article 1735 of the Civil Code.
Regarding FedEx’s defenses, the Court ruled against it. First, the Air Waybill’s 45-day notice clause is a condition precedent that must be strictly construed against the carrier, as it is a contract of adhesion. Respondents’ demand letter within two years, coupled with FedEx’s evasive responses, constituted substantial compliance. Second, the checks were not “negotiable instruments equivalent to cash” as prohibited. A check is not legal tender or money itself but merely a written order directing a bank to pay money. Any ambiguity in this prohibition must be interpreted against FedEx as the drafter of the adhesive contract. Consequently, FedEx is liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for its breach of contractual obligation.