GR 71238; (March, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 71238 March 19, 1992
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SPOUSES HENRY H. ALCANTARA and TERESITA ALCANTARA, respondents.
FACTS
On January 21, 1979, respondent Henry H. Alcantara shipped thirteen (13) pieces of luggage via petitioner Lufthansa from Teheran to Manila, evidenced by Air Waybill No. 220-9776-2733. The actual gross weight was 180 kilograms, and no declaration of the contents’ value was made. Upon arrival in Manila on March 3, 1979, the consignee, respondent Teresita Alcantara, could only claim twelve (12) pieces, with one luggage missing. After Lufthansa’s unsuccessful efforts to trace the missing luggage, the respondents demanded its production and subsequently filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages. Lufthansa, in its answer, invoked the liability limits of the Warsaw Convention (250 francs per kilo, or $20.00 per kilo), as the air waybill expressly subjected the contract to the Convention. The trial court awarded the respondents P200,000.00 as actual damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the award of actual damages but deleted the attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether or not the private respondents are entitled to an award of damages beyond the liability limit set forth in the Warsaw Convention and the Airwaybill.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the loss of the luggage while in Lufthansa’s custody was undisputed, making the carrier liable. The Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of an airline’s liability or an absolute limit thereof, especially where the cause of loss is not attributable to willful misconduct or bad faith. The Court found no reason to disturb the lower courts’ factual finding that the award of P200,000.00 as actual damages was well-based. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the appellate court that Lufthansa waived the applicability of the Warsaw Convention’s liability limit by offering a settlement higher than the Convention’s prescription and by failing to raise timely objections during trial to the introduction of evidence regarding the actual claims and damages.