A.M. No. MTJ-94-989. April 18, 1997Full description
itlFull description
case digestFull description
yu
My Digest :D I take credit for it haha XD
Republic Planters Bank vs Court of AppealsFull description
Geagonia vs. CA
Case DigestFull description
Geagonia vs. CAFull description
constiFull description
By affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent appellate court, in effect, compels American Air to extend its personality to Orient Air. Such would be violative of the principles and essen...Full description
Halaguena vs Pal, Labor Relations Law case digest. see theoverroad.wordpress.com for more.
Full description
Title: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GILDA C. MEJIA, respondents.
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines Case No.: G.R. No. 11!"# Date: Ma$%& 1', 1# Ponente: REGALADO, J
(Fa%t)*
This This is defini definitel tely y not a case case of first first impre impressi ssion. on. The incident incident,, which which eventu eventuate ated d in the present present controversy, is a drama of common contentious occurrence between passengers and carriers whenever loss is sustained by the former. ithal, the e!position of the factual ambience and the legal precepts in this ad"udication ad"udication may hopefully channel channel the assertivenes assertivenesss of passenge passengers rs and the intransige intransigence nce of carriers into the reali#ation that at times a bad e!tra"udicial compromise could be better than a good "udicial victory. $ssailed in this petition for review is the decision of respondent Court of $ppeals in C$%&.'. C( No. )*+)) 1 which affirmed the decision of the lower court + finding petitioner Philippine $ir ines, -nc. P$/ liable as follows: $CC0'D-N&1, "udgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Philippine $ir ines, -nc., to pay plaintiff &ilda C. C. 2e"ia: 3/ P45, 555.55 by way of actual damages of the microwave oven6 */ P35, 555.55 by way of moral damages6 4/ P*5, 555.55 by way of e!emplary damages6 )/ P35, 555.55 as attorney7s fee6 $ll in addition to the costs of the suit. Defendant7s counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lac8 of merit. 2e"ia shipped through P$ 3 microwave oven from San 9rancisco to 2anila. pon arrival, she discovered that the front glass door was bro8en and the oven could not be used. 2e"ia filed action against P$. P$. P$ P$ denied liability and alleged that it acted in conformity with the a arsaw rsaw Convention (I))e)*
hether or not the air waybill should be strictly construed against petitioner; (Rlin-*
$lthough the airway bill is binding between the parties, the liability of Pal is not limited on the provisions of the airway bill. hile the arsaw arsaw Convention is law in the Philippines, the Philippines being a signatory thereto, it does not operate as an e!clusive enumeration of the instances when a carrier shall be liable for breach of contract or as an absolute limit of the e!tent of liability nor does it preclude the operation of the Civil Civil Code or other pertinent pertinent laws.
$lso, the willful misconduct and insensitivity of the officers of P$ in not attempting to e!plain the damage despite due demand and the une!plained delay in acting on her claim amounted to bad faith and renders un
