H.E. HEACOCK CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO.42 Phil. 205, October 3, 1921FACTS: The plaintiff shipped Edmonton clocks from New York toManila on board a vessel of the defendant. It was agreed in the billof lading that the value of the goods receipted do not exceedUS$500 per freight on or in proportion for any part of a ton, unlessthe value be expressly stated in the bill and freight paid. It was alsoagreed that in the event of claims for shortage or damage thecarrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plusfreight and insurance less charges, and any loss or damage forwhich the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on saidbasis.The clocks were not delivered despite demands. Plaintiff claimedP420.00, the market value of the clocks, while defendant tenderedonly P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value. Trial court decidedfor the plaintiff for P226.02, the invoice value plus freight andinsurance. Both parties appealed.HELD: Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill oflading. First, one exempting the carrier from any and all liability forloss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. Second, oneproviding for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreedvaluation. Third, one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreedvaluation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays ahigher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight forauthority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid asbeing contrary to public policy, but the third is valid andenforceable.A stipulation in a bill of lading which limits the liability of the carrierto a specified amount unless the shipper declares a higher valueand pays a higher freight is valid and enforceable. Thus, if a carriergives to a shipper the choice for two rates, the lower of themconditioned upon his agreeing to a stipulated valuation of hisproperty in case of loss, even by the earner’s negligence, if theshipper makes the choice understandingly and freely, and nameshis valuation, he cannot thereafter recover more than the valuewhich he thus places upon his property.Judgment AFFIRMED.KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v CA (65 SCRA 237) FACTS:Spouses Mendoza approached Mr. Reyes, the branchmanager of Philippine Travel Bureau, for consultation about a worldtour which they were intending to make with their daughter andniece. Three segments of the trip, the longest, was via KLM.Respondents decided that one of the routes they will take was aBarcelona-Lourdes route with knowledge that only one airline, AerLingus, served it. Reyes made the necessary reservations. To this,KLM secured seat reservations for the Mendoza’s and theircompanions from the carriers which would ferry them throughouttheir trip, which the exception of Aer Lingus. When the Mendoza’sleft the Philippines, they were issued KLM tickets for the entire trip.