ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. ON. COURT O! APPEALS, TRANS "ORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. G.R. No. #$$%&, Mar'( )%, *##), Se'ond Division, REGALADO, J. The carrier has the right to accept shipper's marks as to the contents of the package oered for transportation transportation and is not bound to inquire particularly particularly about them them in order order to take take advant advantage age of a false false class classic icati ation on and where where a shippe shipper r expressly represents the contents of a package to be of a designated character, character, it is not the duty of the carrier to ask for a repetition of the statement nor disbelieve it and open the box and see for itself.
!a'ts+ Petitioners herein together with Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of Chicago brought brought the remains remains of petitione petitioners’ rs’ mother mother to Continen Continental tal Mortuary Mortuary Air Services CMAS! which booked the shipment of the remains from Chicago to San Francisco by "rans "rans #orld #orld Airways "#A! and from San Francisco Francisco to Manila with Philippine Philippine Airlines PA$!% "he remains were taken to the Chicago Airport& but it turned out that there were two '! bodies in the said airport% Somehow the two '! bodies were switched& and the remains of petitioners’ mother was shipped to Me(ico instead% "he shipment was was immediately loaded loaded on another PA$ PA$ )ight and it arrived arrived the day after after the e(pect e(pected ed arriv arrival% al% Petit Petition ioners ers *led a claim claim for damage damages s in court court%% Petit Petition ioners ers consi consider der "#A+s "#A+s statem statement ent that that ,it had to rely rely on the infor informat mation ion furni furnishe shed d by the the shipp shipper, er, a lame lame e(cu e(cuse se and that its failure failure to prove prove that its personnel veri*ed and identi*ed the contents of the casket before loading the same constituted negligence on the part of "#A% "he lower court court absolved both airlines and upon upon appeal it was was a-rmed by the the court%
Isse+ #hether or not private respondents is liable for damages for the switching of the two caskets%
R-in+ .o% .o% "he "he Supr Supreme eme Court Court conclu concluded ded that that the switc switchin hing g occur occurre red d or& more more accurately& was discovered on /ctober '0& 12034 and based on the above *ndings of the Court of appeals& it happened while the cargo was still with CMAS& well before the same was place in the custody of private respondents% 5erily& no amount of inspec inspectio tion n by respond espondent ent airlin airline e compa companie nies s could could have have guard guarded ed agains againstt the switching that had already taken place% /r& granting that they could have opened
the casket to inspect its contents& private respondents had no means of ascertaining whether the body therein contained was indeed that of Crispina Saludo e(cept& possibly& if the body was that of a male person and such fact was visually apparent upon opening the casket% However& to repeat& private respondents had no authority to unseal and open the same nor did they have any reason or 6usti*cation to resort thereto% 7t is the right of the carrier to re8uire good faith on the part of those persons who deliver goods to be carried& or enter into contracts with it& and inasmuch as the freight may depend on the value of the article to be carried& the carrier ordinarily has the right to in8uire as to its value% /rdinarily& too& it is the duty of the carrier to make in8uiry as to the general nature of the articles shipped and of their value before it consents to carry them4 and its failure to do so cannot defeat the shipper+s right to recovery of the full value of the package if lost& in the absence of showing of fraud or deceit on the part of the shipper% 7n the absence of more de*nite information& the carrier has a the right to accept shipper+s marks as to the contents of the package o9ered for transportation and is not bound to in8uire particularly about them in order to take advantage of a false classi*cation and where a shipper e(pressly represents the contents of a package to be of a designated character& it is not the duty of the carrier to ask for a repetition of the statement nor disbelieve it and open the bo( and see for itself% However& where a common carrier has reasonable ground to suspect that the o9ered goods are of a dangerous or illegal character& the carrier has the right to know the character of such goods and to insist on an inspection& if reasonable and practical under the circumstances& as a condition of receiving and transporting such goods% 7t can safely be said then that a common carrier is entitled to fair representation of the nature and value of the goods to be carried& with the concomitant right to rely thereon& and further noting at this 6uncture that a carrier has no obligation to in8uire into the correctness or su-ciency of such information% "he conse8uent duty to conduct an inspection thereof arises in the event that there should be reason to doubt the veracity of such representations% "herefore& to be sub6ected to unusual search& other than the routinary inspection procedure customarily undertaken& there must e(ist proof that would 6ustify cause for apprehension that the baggage is dangerous as to warrant e(haustive inspection& or even refusal to accept carriage of the same4 and it is the failure of the carrier to act accordingly in the face of such proof that constitutes the basis of the common carrier+s liability% 7n the case at bar& private respondents had no reason whatsoever to doubt the truth of the shipper+s representations% "he airway bill e(pressly providing that ,carrier certi*es goods received below were received for carriage&, and that the cargo contained ,casketed human remains of Crispina Saludo&, was issued on the basis of such representations% "he reliance thereon by private respondents was reasonable and& for so doing& they cannot be said to have acted negligently% $ikewise& no evidence was adduced to suggest even an iota of suspicion that the cargo presented for transportation was anything other than what it was declared to be& as would re8uire more than routine inspection or call for the carrier to insist that the same be opened for scrutiny of its contents per declaration%
.onetheless& the facts show that petitioners+ right to be treated with due courtesy in accordance with the degree of diligence re8uired by law to be e(ercised by every common carrier was violated by "#A and this entitles them& at least& to nominal damages from "#A alone% Articles '''1 and '''' of the Civil Code make it clear that nominal damages are not intended for indemni*cation of loss su9ered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated of invaded% #H:;:F/;:& with the modi*cation that an award of P<=&===%== as and by way of nominal damages is hereby granted in favor of petitioners to be paid by respondent "rans #orld Airlines& the appealed decision is AFF7;M:> in all other respects%
