TRANSPORTATION CASE MATRIX VII

Warsaw Convention TITLE KLM v. CA FACTS - Sps. Mendoza, along with their daughter and niece wanted to take a world tour. They consulted Tirso Reyes (A manager of hil. Tra!el "ureau# on a proposed itinerary. They wanted to go to $ourdes, %rance. - According to Reyes, there were two alternate routes& aris to $ourdes, or "arcelona to $ourdes& The Mendozas decided to take the latter route which was only ser!iced 'y Aer $inguis. - Reyes 'ooked the Mendozas with ($M and secured them seat reser!ations. Their trip !ia Aer $ingus was howe!er on a )re*uest+ status. ,hile in -ermany, they were a'le to get confirmation from Aer $ingus on flight ./0. - 1pon arri!al at "arcelona, at the airport en route to $ourdes, the manager of Air $ingus directed them to check-in. - The daughter and niece of sps. Mendoza were a'le to 'oard the plane howe!er, the sps. were denied 'oarding as the manager of Aer $ingus sho!ed them aside and shouted, uttering ) 2onos3 4gnorantes %ilipinos3+ - And as a result, the sps. were forced to take a train to $ourdes, incurring unwanted e5penses along the way. - They filed a case against ($M for damages. - RT2 and 2A ruled in fa!or of the Sps. ($M denied lia'ility 'asing its defense on the ,arsaw 2on!ention under Section 67. - %urther the ticket pro!ided for a limitation of lia'ility. - The Sps. citing the same con!ention replied that the con!ention does not apply it there was misconduct and that Aer $ingus was an agent of ($M. %urther the 2onditions of the 2ontract found on the ticket stated that&& )carriage to 'e performed 'y successi!e carrier is regarded as a single operation+ ISSUE/S - ,hether or not the ,arsaw 2on!ention applies. HELD - 8o, Article 67 is not applica'le 'ecause there was no accident or delay to speak of. ,hat was pro!en actually was the fact that there was willful misconduct on the part of the employees of Aer $ingus. - Moreo!er, the passage tickets pro!ide that the carriage to 'e performed 'y se!eral successi!e carriers is to 'e considered as a single transaction which is why the Sps. may file a case against ($M. - The Sps. dealt e5clusi!ely with ($M which issued them tickets for their entire trio and which in effect guaranteed them that they would ha!e sure space at Aer $ingus. - Moreo!er, the pro!ision on the ticket which make the air carrier lia'le only for occurrences happening on its own line is unaccepta'le. The 2A ruled that the limitation was printed in letters so small that one needed a magnifying glass to read it. - %urther, the court held that ($M did not show that it had instructed the Sps. to read the fine print and limitations on the tickets. - ($M 'reached its guaranty to transport the Mendozas. This was further aggra!ated 'y the discourteous and ar'itrary way the officials of Aer $ingus which ($M has engaged to transport the Mendozas for the "arcelona$ourdes segment.. DOCTRINE - Article 67 of the ,arsaw 2on!ention in 4nternational Air Transportation does not apply to a case where an airline refuses to transport a passenger with a confirmed reser!ation. - An air carrier is charged with responsi'ility of informing its customers of conditions limiting its lia'ility to its passengers. - 9ffect of pro!ision in passage ticket that carriage 'y successi!e air carriers )is to 'e regarded as a single operation+ is to make ticket-issuing carrier lia'le for tortuous conduct of other carriers.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

Pan American W r!" Air#a$% v. IAC

N r&'#e%& Air!ine% v. C(enca

- >ence this appeal. - ,hile in the 1S, Rene ?. angan, president and general manager of the Sotang "astos and Archer roductions, and rimo @uesada of rime %ilms of San %rancisco, 2alifornia, entered into an agreement where'y the former 'ound himself to supply the latter with three films. AAng Ma'ait, Masungit at ang angit,A A"ig >appening with 2hikiting and 4king,A and A(am'al BragonA for e5hi'ition in the 1nited States. - ,hile in -uam, angan likewise entered into a !er'al agreement with Slutchnick for the e5hi'ition of two of the films at the >afa Adai Theater in -uam on May 67, 0C=.. - Dn May E=, 0C=., two hours 'efore departure time angan was at the an-Am<s ticket counter and presented his ticket and checked in his two luggages. Su'se*uently, angan was informed that his name was not in the manifest and so he could not take his flight in the economy class. angan took the first class 'ecause he wanted to 'e on time in -uam to comply with his commitment, paying an additional sum of F00E.77. - ,hen angan arri!ed in -uam, his two luggages did not arri!e with his flight, as a conse*uence of which his agreements with Slutchnick and @uesada for the e5hi'ition of the films in -uam and in the 1nited States were cancelled. angan then filed a suit for damages. - $ower court ruled in fa!or of angan, ordering an-Am to pay angan .G,777 as actual damages, including the !alue of lost profits - Dn the 'asis of the stipulations printed at the 'ack of the ticket, an-Am contends that its lia'ility for the lost 'aggage of angan is limited to F/77.77 (FE7.77 5 67 kilos# as the latter did not declare a higher !alue for his 'aggage and pay the corresponding additional charges# - 2uenca, who was then 2ommissioner of u'lic >ighways, 'oarded 8orthwest Airlines< plane in

- ,hether or not stipulations at the 'ack of the ticket are 'inding upon angan (whether or not the ticket is a contract of adhesion#.

- ,hether an-Am should 'e held lia'le for lost profits.

- 8D. ,hile it may 'e true that angan had not signed the plane ticket, he is ne!ertheless 'ound 'y the pro!isions thereof. Such pro!isions ha!e 'een held to 'e a part of the contract of carriage, and !alid and 'inding upon the passenger regardless of the latterAs lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation. 4t is what is known as a contract of Hadhesion,H in regards which it has 'een said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at 'ar, are contracts not entirely prohi'ited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to re:ect it entirelyI if he adheres, he gi!es his consent, - 8D. "efore an-Am could 'e held to special damages such as the present alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of deli!ery it must ha!e appeared that it had notice at the time of deli!ery to him of the particular circumstances attending the shipment and which pro'a'ly would lead to such special loss if he defaulted. 4n the instant case, pan-Am was not notified of the contents of the luggage and the purpose for which it was intended to 'e used.

- ,hether 2uenca has a cause of action against

- J9S. Articles 0=, 0., and 0C of the ,arsaw 2on!ention of 0CEC merely declare the air

- Articles 0=, 0., and 0C of the ,arsaw 2on!ention of 0CEC merely declare the
E

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

A!i&a!ia Air!ine% v. IAC

Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo. - 1pon arri!al at Dkinawa, an agent of 8orthwest rudely compelled him, in the presence of other passengers, to mo!e to the tourist class. - 2uenca protested, re!ealing that he was tra!eling in his official capacity as delegate of the hilippines to a conference in Tokyo. - 4n order to reach the conference on time, 2uenca o'eyed. - The 2%4 of Manila granted moral and e5emplary damages and attorney<s fees. - Dn appeal, 2A eliminated e5emplary damages and con!erted the hp E7( moral damages into nominal damages. - 8orthwest argues that pursuant to Arts. 0=-0C of the ,arsaw 2on!ention, an air carry is lia'le only in the e!en of death of a passenger or in:ury suffered 'y him, or of destruction or loss of, or damage to any checked 'aggage or any goods, or of delay in the transportation 'y air of passengers, 'aggage or goods. - Br. %elipa a'lo is an assoc. prof. in 1 and a research grantee of the hil. Atomic 9nergy Agency. She was in!ited to speak a'out foreign su'stances in food and the agricultural en!ironment in the 18 Bept. of Research and 4sotopes to 'e held in 4spra, 4taly. - She accepted and took a flight to 4taly on 'oard Alitalia Airlines (AA#. She arri!ed in Milan on the day 'efore her scheduled speaking engagement. - She was informed 'y AA personnel that her luggage (E suitcases, 0 containing her clothes and 0 containing her scientific papers and slides# was delayed as it was in one of the flights from Rome to Milan. - ,hen the flights did not ha!e her 'aggage on 'oard, she went to Rome to try to locate her 'ags herself, 'ut they could not 'e found. - Br. a'lo decided not to attend the meeting and instead return to Manila. - Dnce in Manila, she demanded that AA make reparation for damages. AA offered her free airline tickets to compensate for the damages.

8orthwest. -

- ,D8 Alitalia is lia'le for damages. (AA is contending that the damages should be mitigated applying the provision in the Warsaw Convention limiting a carriers liability.)

carriers lia'le for damages in the cases enumerated therein, if the conditions specified are present. 8either the pro!isions of the said articles nor others regulate or e5clude lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the air carriers. The S2 held 8orthwest<s theory a'surd. 4t stated that under its theory, an air carrier would 'e e5empt from any lia'ility for damages in the e!ent of its a'solute refusal, in 'ad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage. ,ith regard to damages, the S2 held that there are special reasons why the hp E7( award was :ustified. The S2 cited the fact that at that time, 2uenca was 2ommissioner of u'lic >ighways and that despite informing 8orthwest that he was a delegate of the hilippines, he still afforded rude treatment. Although his ticket was marked ,;$, his attention was not called thereto or ad!ised that such annotation mean )wait listed.+ J9S. Art. EE of the ,arsaw 2on!ention purport to limit lia'ility of the international carrier in the carriage of 'aggage and cargo. The >ague rotocol amended the ,arsaw 2on!ention 'y remo!ing the pro!ision that if the airline took steps to a!oid the damage, it could e5culpate itself completely. The limits of lia'ility prescri'ed are not applica'le if it is pro!ed that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its ser!ants or agents done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would pro'a'ly result. 8o 'ad faith can 'e ascri'ed to AA<s personnel since Br. a'lo<s 'ags were e!entually returned, al'eit 'elatedly. >owe!er, nominal damages should 'e awarded as AA failed to deli!er the 'ags at the time appointed, which resulted in her failure to deli!er her scientific presentation which she painstakingly prepared. 8ot only was her speaking engagement an

air carriers lia'le for damages in the cases enumerated therein, if the conditions specified are present. - 8either the pro!isions of the said articles nor others regulate or e5clude lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the air carriers.

- The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not operate as an e5clusi!e enumeration of the instances of an airline<s lia'ility, or as an a'solute limit to the e5tent of that lia'ility. - 4ts pro!isions do not regulate or e5clude lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the carrier, or misconduct of its employees, or for some particular or e5ceptional type of damage. - The con!ention cannot 'e in!oked to :ustify the disregard of some e5traordinary sort of damage resulting to a passenger and preclude reco!ery therefore 'eyond the limits set 'y the con!ention.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

PAL v. CA

L()&'an%a *erman Air!ine% v. IAC

She re:ected the offer and commenced suit. - 4t turned out that her 'ags were found 'ut arri!ed in 4spra on the day after her scheduled appearance and participation in the 18 meeting. - RT2 awarded nominal damages and attorney<s fees in fa!or of Br. a'lo. - 2A increased the nominal damages to hp G7T. laintiff, with his wife and son, arri!ed at the Manila 4nternational Airport a'oard A$ %light from San %rancisco. Soon after his em'arking, plaintiff proceeded to the 'aggage retrie!al area to claim his checks in his possession. laintiff found eight of his luggage, 'ut despite diligent search, he failed to locate ninth luggage. laintiff then immediately notified defendant company through its employee, who was then in charge of the A$ claim counter at the airport. >e filled up the roperty 4rregularity Report, acknowledging one of the plaintiffAs luggages to 'e missing, and signed after asking plaintiff himself to sign the same document. >e also asked plaintiff to surrender to him the nine claim checks corresponding to the nine luggages, i.e., including the one that was missing. ,hen A$ failed to find the missing Samsonite luggage, plaintiff filed claim for damages. - >enry Alcantara shipped 06 pieces of luggage through $ufthansa from Teheran to Manila as e!idenced 'y an Airway "ill. - The 06 pieces of luggage weighed at around 0.7 kg as e!idenced 'y the "ill. Alcantara, howe!er did not declare an in!entory of the contents nor their !alue when he deli!ered the same to $ufthansa. - After the luggage arri!ed in Manila, the consignee Teresita Alcantara was only a'le to retrie!e from the cargo 'roker 0E of the 'aggages, with a total weight of 0=G kilograms. - >ence, the Alcantaras immediately ad!ised $ufthansa of the loss. >owe!er, despite sending tele5 tracing messages to different stations,

honor for her, 'ut it should ha!e 'een an honor for 1 and for the country for her to deli!er a speech a'out her research. - 8ominal damages are awarded in order that a right of a plaintiff !iolated or in!aded 'y the defendant may 'e !indicated or recognized. ,;8 A$ lia'ility should 'e limited. Bespite A$<s contention that under the ,arsaw 2on!ention, its lia'ility, if any, cannot e5ceed 1S FE7.77 'ased on weight as pri!ate respondent 2o did not declare the contents of his 'aggage nor pay traditional charges 'efore the flight, S2 held that the lia'ility of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods transported from a foreign country to the hilippines is go!erned primarily 'y the 8ew 2i!il 2ode. 4n all matters not regulated 'y said 2ode, the rights and o'ligations of common carriers shall 'e go!erned 'y the 2ode of 2ommerce and 'y Special $aws. 4n this case, the petitioner failed to o!ercome, not only the presumption, 'ut more importantly, the pri!ate respondentAs e!idence, pro!ing that the carrierAs negligence was the pro5imate cause of the loss of his 'aggage. %urthermore, petitioner acted in 'ad faith in faking a retrie!al receipt to 'ail itself out of ha!ing to pay 2oAs claim. Jes. The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not e5clude lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the carrier. >ence, $ufthansa can 'e made lia'le 'eyond the lia'ility restrictions contained in the 2on!ention. 4t is also important to note that $ufthansa wai!ed the applica'ility of the ,arsaw 2on!ention when it offered a higher amount than what is pro!ided 'y the law. There was also wai!er when $ufthansa failed to o':ect to the introduction of e!idence esta'lishing the actual damages suffered 'y the spouses. >ere, the finding of the lower courts show that indeed the Alcantaras suffered actual and -

- ,hether or 8ot the Alcantaras are entitled to damages 'eyond the limitations prescri'ed under the ,arsaw 2on!ention.

- The limitations prescri'ed under the ,arsaw 2on!ention may'e wai!ed either 'y failing to timely o':ect on the introduction of e!idence showing actual damages and 'y offering to settle on an amount higher than that prescri'ed 'y the law. - The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not e5clude the lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the carrier.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

L(na v. CA -

$ufthansa was not a'le to locate the missing luggage. Thereafter, the Alcantaras sent a demand letter against $ufthansa for the production of the luggage within 07 days from the receipt of the letter. %ailing to do so, the Alcantaras commenced a claim for damages against $ufthansa. 4n its answer, $uftansa alleged that its lia'ility should 'e limited to only EK7 francs per kilo. Dn 0C May 0C.C, Rufino $una, Rodolfo Alonso and orfirio Rodriguez 'oarded %light 7E7 of 8orthwest Airlines 'ound for Seoul, South (orea to attend a four-day Rotary 4nternational 2on!ention from E0 to EG May 0C.C. They checked in one (0# luggage each 'ut as the plane e5perienced engine trou'le, they were asked to transfer to a (orean Airlines plane departing four (G# hours later and were assured that their luggage would 'e in the same flight. ,hen they arri!ed in Seoul, their personal 'elongings were nowhere to 'e foundI instead, they were allegedly flown to Seattle, 1SA. 4t was not until four (G# days later, and only after repeated representations with 8orthwest Airlines personnel at the airport in (orea were petitioners a'le to retrie!e their luggageI the 2on!ention was almost o!er. A written claim was made with 8orthwest<s office in 9rmita, Manila 'ut the airline company disowned lia'ility for the delay and a!erred that it e5erted )its 'est efforts to carry the passenger and 'aggage with reasona'le dispatch+. An action for damages for 'reach of contract was therefore commenced 'y the aggrie!ed passengers.

compensatory damages amounting to E77,777, which factual finding was not distur'ed 'y the Supreme 2ourt. - Meanwhile, the Supreme 2ourt howe!er deleted the award of attorney<s fees a'sent any finding of 'ad faith or gross negligence.

- ,hether or not 8orthwest Airlines should 'e held lia'le for damages for failing to deli!er the luggage of $una, et. al. on time. - ,hether or not the application of the ,arsaw 2on!ention precludes that of the 2i!il 2ode in the case at 'ar.

- J9S. - 4t is e!ident that $una, et al. suffered some special specie of in:ury for which they should 'e rightfully compensated.

- 8D. - The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not operate as an e5clusi!e enumeration of the instances for declaring an airline lia'le for 'reach of contract of carriage or as an a'solute limit of the e5tent of that lia'ility. - The 2on!ention merely declares the carrier lia'le for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. - 4t does not regulate the lia'ility, much less e5empt, the carrier for !iolating the rights of others which must simply 'e respected in accordance with their contracts of carriage. - The alleged failure to file a claim with the common carrier as mandated 'y the pro!isions of the ,arsaw 2on!ention should not 'e a ground for the summary dismissal of their complaints since 8orthwest may still 'e held lia'le for 'reach of other rele!ant laws which may pro!ide a different period or procedure for filing a claim. - 8D. - Article EK refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in Article EE should damage 'e caused 'y the carrier<s willful misconduct.

- The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not operate as an e5clusi!e enumeration of the instances for declaring an airline lia'le for 'reach of contract of carriage or as an a'solute limit of the e5tent of that lia'ility. - The 2on!ention merely declares the carrier lia'le for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. - 4t does not regulate the lia'ility, much less e5empt, the carrier for !iolating the rights of others which must simply 'e respected in accordance with their contracts of carriage. - Article EK refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in Article EE should damage 'e caused 'y the carrier<s willful misconduct. - %or willful misconduct to e5ist, there must 'e a showing that the acts complained of were impelled 'y an intention to !iolate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one<s rights. - 4t must 'e e!idenced 'y flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct.

- ,hether Art. EK of the 2on!ention operates to

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7= K

San& % III v. N r&'#e%& Orien& Air!ine%

- Augusto Santos 44 is a minor and resident of the hilippines. 8orthwest is a foreign corp. with principal office in Minnesota and licensed to do 'usiness and maintain a 'ranch office in the hil. - Santos purchased from airline a round-trip ticket in San %rancisco, for his flight from San %ran to Mla !ia Tokyo and 'ack. 8o date was specified for his return trip to San %ran. - Bepsite confirming twice, he was informed that he had no reser!ation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. So he had to 'e wait-listed. - Santos sued airline for damages in the RT2. - Airline mo!ed to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of :urisdiction 'ecause the hil. was not its domicile nor was it the principal place of 'usiness and neither was the ticket issued in this country nor was his destination Manila 'ut San %ran, citing Art. E.(0# of the con!ention. - RT2 dismissed the complaint and 2A affirmed such. - >ence this petition.

e5clude the other pro!isions of the 2on!ention if damage is caused 'y the common carrier<s willful misconduct. - ,hether or not 8orthwest<s failure to deli!er the luggage at the designated time constituted willful misconduct. - ,hether or not. Art. E.(0# is a rule on :urisdiction or merely !enue - ,hether or not the hil. has :urisdiction 'ecause Manila was the destination of Santos.

- 8D. - %or willful misconduct to e5ist, there must 'e a showing that the acts complained of were impelled 'y an intention to !iolate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one<s rights. - 4t must 'e e!idenced 'y flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct.

- 4t is a rule on :urisdiction, therefore the hilippines has no :urisdiction on the matter. - The wording of art. 6E indicates the places where the action for damages )must+ 'e 'rought, underscores the mandatory nature of Art. E.(0#. - ,here the matter is go!erned 'y the ,arsaw 2on!ention, :urisdiction takes place on a dual concept. Lurisdiction in the international sense must 'e esta'lished in accordance with Art. E.(0# of the said con!ention, following which the :urisdiction of a particular court must 'e esta'lished pursuant to the applica'le domestic law. - Dnly after the *uestion of which court has :urisdiction is determined will the issue of !enue 'e taken up. This second *uestion shall 'e go!erned 'y the law of the court to which the case is su'mitted. - 8o, San %ran was the destination. lace of determination according to the con!ention is determined 'y the terms of the contract of carriage, in this case the ticket. - Although the date of return flight was left open, the contract of carriage 'etween the parties indicates that airline was 'ound to transport Santos to San %ran from Mla. Therefore Mla can<t 'e considered the destination. - Bestination is controlling for purposes of ascertaining :urisdiction under the con!ention. The contract is a single undi!ided operation, 'eginning with the place of departure and

- Sec. E.(0# of ,arsaw 2on!ention on Air Tra!el is a matter of :urisdiction not !enue. - 4t is the passenger<s )ultimate destination,+ not )an agreed stopping place+ that determines the country where suit against international carrier is to 'e filed. - Allegation of tort against international carrier does not e5clude action from ,arsaw con!ention pro!ision.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

Ma+a v. CA

laintiffs Mapa purchased in "angkok, Thailand T,A tickets for Los Angeles-New or!-"oston-#t. Louis-Chicago. Bomicile of carrier T,A is (ansas 2ity, Missouri, 1SA. 4ts principal place of 'usiness is (ansas 2ity, Missouri, 1SA. T,AAs place of 'usiness through which the contracts were made is "angkok, Thailand. The place of destination is 2hicago, 1SA. T'e Ma+a% #en& & LA via PAL. After going to $A and 8J, urita and 2armina Mapa departed for "oston, taking a connecting flight on T,AAs carrier, from L%( Airport, 8ew Jork, to "ostonAs $ogan Airport, checking in se!en (=# pieces of luggage at the T,A counter in the L%( Airport. The Mapas had to take another flight 'ecause they missed the original flight 'ecause the stewardess told them to wait at gate 6K, when in fact they were supposed to wait at gate 0. 1pon arri!ing in "oston, urita and 2armina proceeded to the carousel to claim their 'aggages and found only three out of the se!en they checked in. Tha Mapas duly accomplished the passenger property *uestionnaire and stated that the total !alue of the lost items amounted to F00,E.6.=C. T,A offered to amica'ly settle the case 'y gi!ing plaintiffs-appellants two options& (a# transportation credit for future T,A tra!el or ('# cash settlement. K months later, the Mapas opted for transportation credit for future T,A tra!el >owe!er, T,A disregarded the Mapas< option and unilaterally declared the payment of

,hether the contracts of transportation 'etween urita and 2armina Mapa, on the one hand, and T,A, on the other, were contracts of Hinternational transportationH under the ,arsaw 2on!ention.

,hether the hilippine courts had :urisdiction to try the case

ending with the ultimate destination. - The use of the singular in this e5pression indicates the understanding of the parties to the con!ention that e!ery contract of carriage has one place of departure and one place of destination. And intermediate place where the carriage may 'e 'roken is not regarded as a place of destination. 8D. The contracts of transportation were for the Los Angeles-New or!-"oston-#t. LouisChicago$ . purchased and issued in "angkok, Thailand. 4t is o'!ious that the place of departure and the place of destination are all in the territory of the 1nited States, or of a single >igh 2ontracting arty. The contracts, therefore, cannot come within the pur!iew of the first category of international transportation. 8either can it 'e under the second category since there was 8D agreed stopping place within a territory su':ect to the so!ereignty, mandate, or authority of another power. The only way to 'ring the contracts 'etween urita and 2armina Mapa, on the one hand, and T,A, on the other, within the first category of Hinternational transportationH is to link them with, or to make them an integral part of, the Manila-$os Angeles tra!el of urita and 2armina through A$ aircraft. >owe!er, the Mapas< contract with A$ was independent of the T,A tickets issued in "angkok, Thailand. 8o e!idence was offered that T,A and A$ had an agreement concerning transportation of passengers from points of departures not ser!ed with aircrafts of one or the other. The S2 remanded the case to the RT2. The RT2 should ha!e denied the affirmati!e defense of lack of :urisdiction 'ecause it did not appear to 'e indu'ita'le. S2 noted that T,A stated in its Answer that it was a %oreign corporation licensed to do business in the &hilippines with office address at -round %loor, Sa!ille "uilding, Sen. -il. L. uyat A!enue, corner aseo de Ro5as, Makati, Metro Manila.

- There are then two categories of international transportation, !iz., (0# that where the place of departure and the place of destination are situated within the territories of two >igh 2ontracting arties regardless of whether or not there 'e a 'reak in the transportation or a transshipmentI and (E# that where the place of departure and the place of destination are within the territory of a single >igh 2ontracting arty if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory su':ect to the so!ereignty, mandate, or authority of another power, e!en though the power is not a party to the 2on!ention.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

Ca&'a$ Paci)ic Air#a$% v. CA

FE,K/7.77 as constituting full satisfaction of the Mapas< claim. The Mapas accepted the check for FE,K/7.77 as partial payment for the actual cost of their lost 'aggages and their contents, and su'se*uently filed a suit for damages - T,A raised lack of :urisdiction of hilippine courts o!er the action for damages in that pursuant to Article E.(0# of the ,arsaw 2on!ention, the action could only 'e 'rought either in "angkok where the contract was entered into, or in "oston which was the place of destination, or in (ansas 2ity which is the carrierAs domicile and principal place of 'usiness. T,A further alleged that pursuant to the ,arsaw 2on!ention and the 8otice of "aggage $imitations at the 'ack of the tickets, its lia'ility to the petitioners is limited to 1SFC.7= per pound, or 1SFE7.77 per kilo, which is in lieu of actual and compensatory damages. Alcantara was a first class passenger of 2athay acific on its flight from Manila to >ongkong and onward from >ongkong to Lakarta. >e was to supposed to attend a conference with Birector -eneral of Trade of 4ndonesia. Alcantara was then the 9? and -M of 4ligan 2ement 2orporation and representati!e of the 2ement 4ndustry Authority. >e check in his luggage which contained his clothing and papers and documents he needed for the conference. 1pon arri!al in Lakarta, he disco!ered that his luggage was missing. >e was then informed that his luggage was left 'ehind in >ongkong and was offered FE7 as )incon!enience money+ to 'uy his immediate personal needs until the luggage could 'e deli!ered to him. >is luggage reached Lakarta more than EG hours after his arri!al. >owe!er, it was not deli!ered to him 'ut instead 2athay re*uired it to 'e picked up 'y an official of the hil.

,hether the 2A erred in holding 2athay lia'le to Alcantara for moral, e5emplary and temperate damages as well as attorney<s fees.

8D. The S2 agreed with the finding that 2athay was grossly negligent and reckless when it failed to deli!er the luggage of Alcantara at the appointed place and time. 2athay was not e!en aware that it left 'ehind Alcantara<s luggage until its attention was called 'y the >ongkong 2ustoms authorities. The 2ourt also considered that the employees of 2athay acted in 'ad faith. The S2 cited the deposition of Romulo alma, 2ommercial Attache of the hilippine 9m'assy at Lakarta which narrates that when they sought assistance from 2athay employees, an agent told Alcantara, ),hat can we do, the 'aggage is missing. 4 cannot do anything. Anyhow, you can 'uy anything you need, charged to 2athay acific.+ The S2 said that the employee was not only indifferent or impatient, he was also rude and insulting. The S2 also considered the fact that 2athay also refused to ha!e the luggage deli!ered to Alcantara at his hotel.

- The ,arsaw 2on!ention declares the carrier lia'le for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations. - >owe!er, it must not 'e construed to preclude the operation of the 2i!il 2ode and other pertinent laws. 4t does not regulate, much less e5empt, the carrier from lia'ility for damages for !iolating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrier<s employees is found or esta'lished.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

9m'assy. Thus, Alcantara filed a complaint against 2athay for damages. The 2%4 ruled in fa!or Alcantara and awarded damages. 2A affirmed. 2athay claims that although it failed to deli!er luggage on time, the delay was not made in 'ath faith so as to :ustify moral, e5emplary and temperate damages. Sa,ena -e!.ian W r!" Air!ine% v. CA - San Agustin was a passenger of a S",A flight from 2asa'lanca to "russels, "elgium on her way 'ack to Manila. - She stayed o!ernight in "russels 'ut her luggage containing :ewelry, clothes, shoes, 'ags and accessories was left on the plane she took from 2asa'lanca to "russels. - 1pon arri!ing at M4A, San Agustin su'mitted her tag to facilitate the release of her luggage. 4t was then that it was found out that it was missing. - She filed a formal complaint with S",A<s local manager. 1nfortunately, her luggage could not 'e found. - S",A contends that the loss of the luggage was due to San Agustin<s fault if not contri'utory negligence 'ecause she did not declare the !alue of the contents of her luggage and she neglected to claim her luggage during the stopo!er in "russels. - The T2 ordered S",A to pay San Agustin the cost of the lost luggage (including its contents#, moral, e5emplary damages and attorney<s fees. - S",A contends that, in any case, since San Agustin did not declare the !alue of her luggage, she was only entitled to FE7 per kilo. Br. Losefino Miranda and his wife, $uisa, who were residents of Surigao 2ity, went to the 1nited States of America on a regular flight of hilippine Airlines, 4nc. ( A$#. After a stay of o!er a month there, they o'tained confirmed 'ookings from A$As San %rancisco Dffice for flights from San %rancisco to Manila via

,hether the 2A erred in not applying the ,arsaw 2on!ention on the lia'ility of a carrier to its passenger. - ,D8 S",A should 'e held lia'le for the loss of the luggage considering that the alleged negligence or fault of San Agustin. -

Thus, it is e!ident that 2athay was remiss in its duty to pro!ide proper assistance to a paying passenger. 8D. The ,arsaw 2on!ention declares the carrier lia'le for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations. >owe!er, it must not 'e construed to preclude the operation of the 2i!il 2ode and other pertinent laws. The S2 granted moral and e5emplary damages as well as attorney<s fees. J9S. 4t is undisputed that pri!ate respondentAs luggage was lost while it was in the custody of petitioner. ,hen she disco!ered that the luggage was missing, she promptly accomplished and filed a roperty 4rregularity Report. She followed up her claim on 0G Septem'er 0C.=, and filed, on the following day, a formal letter-complaint with petitioner. She felt relie!ed when, on E6 Dcto'er 0C.=, she was ad!ised that her luggage had finally 'een found, with its contents intact when e5amined, and that she could e5pect it to arri!e on E= Dcto'er 0C.=. She then waited an5iously only to 'e told later that her luggage had 'een lost for the second time. The loss of the 'aggage not only once 'ut twice underscores the wanton negligence and lack of care on the part of the carrier. These findings foreclose whate!er rights S",A might ha!e had to the possi'le limitation of lia'ilities en:oyed 'y international carriers under the ,arsaw 2on!ention. (#C reiterates the doctrine enunciated in Alitalia v. 'AC.)

- The ,arsaw 2on!ention does not operate as an e5clusi!e enumeration of the instances of an airline<s lia'ility, or as an a'solute limit to the e5tent of that lia'ility. - 4ts pro!isions do not regulate or e5clude lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y the carrier, or misconduct of its employees, or for some particular or e5ceptional type of damage.

PAL v. CA

,;8 A$ should 'e held lia'le.

A$ has the duty to pro!ide assistance to passengers incon!enienced due to delay in the completion of the transport and the receipt of their 'aggage. Therefore, arrangements for hotel accommodations for them should ha!e 'een done 'y A$ employees themsel!es. ,hile it may 'e true that there was no

Although the ,arsaw 2on!ention has the force and effect of law in this country, 'eing a treaty commitment assumed 'y the hilippine go!ernment, said con!ention does not operate as an e5clusi!e enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
C

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

>onolulu on Lune E0, 0C..I from Manila to 2e'u on Lune EG, 0C..I and from 2e'u to Surigao also on Lune EG, 0C... 1pon arri!al in Manila on Lune E6, they were told that their 'aggage consisting of two bali!bayan 'o5es, two pieces of luggage and one fishing rod case were off-loaded at >onolulu, >awaii due to weight limitations. 2onse*uently, pri!ate respondents missed their other connecting flights since they had to wait for their 'aggage which arri!ed the following day. Dn the way to Surigao 2ity, the pilot announced that they had to return to Mactan Airport due to some mechanical pro'lem. ,hile at Mactan Airport, the passengers were pro!ided 'y A$ with lunch and were 'ooked for the afternoon flight to Surigao 2ity which was likewise cancelled. Since they had to stay o!ernight in 2e'u, they asked to 'e 'illeted at the 2e'u laza >otel 'ut A$ employees told them that they could not 'e accommodated at said hotel supposedly 'ecause it was fully 'ooked. 2ontrarily, when Br. Miranda called the hotel, he was informed that he and his wife could 'e accommodated there. Although reluctant at first, A$ e!entually agreed to pri!ate respondentsA o!ernight stay at said hotel with standard meals. 4t was only after pri!ate respondentsA insistence that their meals 'e ordered a la carte that they were allowed to do so. Since the shuttle 'us had already left 'y the time pri!ate respondents were ready to go to the hotel, A$ offered them 0K7.77 to include the fare for the return trip to the airport. Br. Miranda asked for 0K7.77 more as he and his wife, along with all of their 'aggage, could not 'e accommodated in :ust one ta5i, aside from the need for tipping money for hotel 'oys. 1pon refusal of this simple re*uest, Br. Miranda then declared that he would forego the amenities offered 'y A$. Thus, the !oucher for 0K7.77 and the authority for the hotel accommodations

direct e!idence on record of 'latant rudeness on the part of A$ employees towards the Mirandas, the fact that pri!ate respondents were practically compelled to haggle for accommodations and the fact that A$ employees withheld information from them that they could actually 'e accommodated in a hotel of their choice. A$ was also scrimping e!en on the small amount to 'e gi!en to the Mirandas ( 677.77# considering that there were two of them and they had se!eral pieces of luggage which had to 'e ferried 'etween the airport and the hotel. Also, the re*uest for a small additional sum for tips is e*ually reasona'le since tipping, especially in a first-rate hotel, is an accepted practice, of which the 2ourt can take :udicial notice. This is aside from the fact that pri!ate respondents, ha!ing :ust arri!ed from an e5tended trip a'road, had already run out of hilippine currency, which predicament was e5acer'ated 'y their additional stay in Manila due to the off-loading of their 'aggage. ,;8 A$<s lia'ility should 'e limited The Mirandas are not seeking payment for loss of any 'aggage. They are claiming damages arising from the discriminatory offloading of their 'aggag(e#. That cannot 'e limited 'y the printed conditions in the tickets and 'aggage checks. 8either can the ,arsaw 2on!ention e5clude nor regulate the lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y air carriers. A recognition of the ,arsaw 2on!ention does not preclude the operation of our 2i!il 2ode and related laws in determining the e5tent of lia'ility of common carriers in 'reach of contract of carriage, particularly for willful misconduct of their employees.

lia'le for 'reach of contract of carriage or as an a'solute limit of the e5tent of that lia'ility. The ,arsaw 2on!ention declares the carrier lia'le in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations. >owe!er, it must not 'e construed to preclude the operation of the 2i!il 2ode and pertinent laws. 4t does not regulate, much less e5empt, the carrier from lia'ility for damages for !iolating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrierAs employees is found or esta'lished.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

07

Uni&e" Air!ine% v. U$

prepared 'y A$ were !oided due to pri!ate respondentsA decision not to a!ail themsel!es thereof. ,hen they tried to retrie!e their 'aggage, they were told this time that the same were loaded on another earlier A$ flight to Surigao 2ity. Thus, upon arri!al in Surigao 2ity, they instituted the present claim for damages which, after trial as well as on appeal, was decided in their fa!or. ,illie L. 1y was a passenger on 1nited Airlines %light for the San %rancisco-Manila Route. 1pon checking in his 'aggage he was rudely informed 'y the airline personnel that his luggage was o!erweight, and that he should ha!e known the ma5imum weight allowance to 'e =7 kgs per 'ag and that he should ha!e packed accordingly. Then the personnel, in a loud !oice in front of the crowd, asked 1y to transfer some of the contents of the o!erweight luggage to the lighter ones. 8ot wishing to create further scene, 1y acceded only to find that his luggage was still o!erweight. >ence, the airline 'illed him with o!erweight charges. >e offered to pay it with a Miscellaneous charge order, 'ut the same were refused 'y the employees. >ence, 1y was constrained to use his credit card instead. %inally, upon arri!al to Manila, 1y disco!ered that one of his 'ags had 'een slashed and its contents stolen. >e particularized his losses to 'e around FK,777. >ence, sometime in 0C.C, 1y sent a letter to 1nited Airlines regarding the humiliating e5perience he suffered and the loss he sustained. This was followed 'y two more e5tra-:udicial demand sent in 0CC7 and the other in 0CC0. >owe!er, 1A merely sent a check for the payment of the lost 'aggage 'ased on the ma5imum limit of F C.=7 per pound. %inding this to 'e grossly inade*uate, 1y asked for an out-of-court settlement of 0,777,777. 1A did not o'lige. >ence, 1y filed a complaint

- ,hether or 8ot 1y<s 2ause of action has already prescri'ed under the ,arsaw 2on!ention.

- 8o. - %irst of all, 1y<s claim for damages is 'ased on two causes of action. The first one is 'ased on torts founded upon the humiliating e5perience 1y suffered while checking in his 'aggage in San %rancisco. - >ence, although the ,arsaw 2on!ention pro!ides that an in:ured party must commence his action within two years from the date of his arri!al, 1y is still not 'arred in instituting the complaint for the first cause of action since the airline may still 'e held lia'le for 'reach of other pro!isions of the 2i!il 2ode which prescri'e a different period of prescription. More particularly, Art 00G/ pro!ides four years for the filing of an action 'ased on torts. - The second cause of action of 1y is 'ased on the loss of his personal effects amounting to FK,607. Such loss of 'aggage is go!erned 'y the pro!ision of the ,arsaw 2on!ention on prescription. - 4ndeed, Art EC (E# of the 2on!ention pro!ides that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall 'e determined 'y the law of the court to which the case is su'mitted. - 4t is 1y<s contention that under the hilippine laws, the filing of an e5tra-:udicial demand suspends the running of the prescripti!e period. And such method should 'e, under Art EC (E# of the con!ention, made applica'le in this case, so that 1y<s action would 'e deemed to ha!e 'een filed on time. - >owe!er, the Supreme 2ourt held that the twoyear period is an a'solute 'ar to suit and is not

- Art EC (0# the right to damages shall 'e e5tinguished if not 'rought within E years, reckoned from the date of arri!al at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft is supposed to ha!e arri!ed, or from the date the transportation has 'een stopped. - (E# The method of calculating the period of limitation shall 'e determined 'y the law of the court to which the case is su'mitted. - 4f the cause of action is 'ased on other pro!isions of the 2i!il 2ode, such as torts, the corresponding prescripti!e period shall apply. - The E year period can 'e rela5ed if the cause of the delay was through the fault of the common carrier.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

00

for damages against 1A on 0CCE, or almost three years from the accident.

Air France v. CA - 8arciso Morales, a lawyer, purchased an airline ticket from Aspac Management 2orporation, Air %rance<s -eneral Sales Agent. - The itinerary co!ered 'y the ticket included se!eral cities, with certain segments thereof restricted 'y markings of Hnon endorsa'leH and H!alid on A% (meaning Air %rance# onlyH. - ,hile in 8ew Jork, Morales o'tained three (6# medical certificates attesting to ear an infection which necessitated medical treatment. %rom 8ew Jork, he flew to aris, Stockholm and then 2openhagen where he made representations with Air %rance<s office to shorten his trip 'y deleting some of the cities in the itinerary. - As there was no immediate response 'y Air %rance, Morales proceeded to >am'urg where he was informed of A% Manila<s negati!e reply. - Another re*uest was made 'y Morales 'ut it was denied. Bespite Morales< protest, presentation of medical certificates, and offer to pay any fare difference, Air %rance did not relent in its position. Morales, therefore, had to 'uy an entirely new set of tickets. - 1pon arri!al in Manila, Morales sent a lettercomplaint to Air %rance thru Aspac Management 2orporation. Morales was ad!ised to surrender the unused flight coupons for a - ,hether there was a 'reach of contract as to :ustify the ward of actual, moral and e5emplary damages. -

to 'e su':ect to the tolling pro!isions of the laws of the forum. The S2 further e5plained that Art EC (E# was intended only to let local laws determine whether an action ahs 'een commenced within the E year period, and in the hilippines an action is deemed commenced only upon filing of a complaint. >ence the suit filed 'y 1y under the second cause of action was 'elatedly filed. >owe!er, the S2 allowed the same to 'e heard upon afindig that the 'elated filing of the complaint was 'rought a'out 'y the delaying tactics of 1nited Airlines. 4t appeared that 1A continually ga!e 1y the runaround, answering his letters 'ut not gi!ing in to his demands. >ence, the case is remanded for further proceedings. 8o. Morales wanted a rerouting to >am'urg, -ene!a, Rome, >ongkong and Manila which shortened the original itinerary on the ticket issued 'y A% Manila through AS A2, its general sales agent. 2onsidering the original restrictions on the ticket and as it was allowed under 4ATA resolution, it was not unreasona'le for Air %rance to deny the re*uest. "esides, a recurring ear infection was pleaded as reason necessitating urgent return to Manila. Assuming arguendo a worsening pain or discomfort, Morales appears to ha!e still proceeded to four (G# other cities co!ering a period of at least si5 (/# days and lea!ing open his date of departure from >ongkong to Manila. And, e!en if he claimed to ha!e undergone medical e5amination upon arri!al in Manila, no medical certificate was presented. >e failed to e!en remem'er his date of arri!al in Manila. ,ith a claim for a large amount of damages, the 2ourt found it unusual for Morales, a lawyer, to easily forget !ital information to su'stantiate his plea. 4t is also essential 'efore an award of damages that the claimant must satisfactorily pro!e during the trial the e5istence of the factual 'asis of the damages and its causal connection to defendantAs acts.

- 4nternational Air Transportation Association (4ATA# Resolution& Hchanges to the ticket re*uested 'y the passenger will 'e su':ect to carriers regulations.H - Mere refusal to accede to the passengerAs wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the a'sence of 'ad faith. Morales has failed to show wanton, male!olent or reckless misconduct imputa'le to petitioner in its refusal to reroute. - Dmissions 'y ordinary passengers may 'e condoned 'ut more is e5pected of mem'ers of the 'ar who cannot feign ignorance of such limitations and restrictions.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

0E

refund of its !alue, 'ut he kept the same and, instead, filed a complaint for 'reach of contract of carriage and damages. - The 2%4 held that Air %rance was in e!ident 'ad faith for !iolation of the contract of carriage. The 2ourt also held that due to the social and economic standing of Morales, who was chairman of "DB of se!eral multi-million corporations, the award of moral and e5emplary damages, in addition to actual damages were awarded. - 2A modified the amounts of damages. -ri&i%' Air#a$% v. CA - -op Mahtani decided to !isit his relati!es in "om'ay, 4ndia. >e o'tained the ser!ices of a certain Mr. -umar to prepare his tra!el plans and the latter purchased a ticket from "ristish Airways. - Since "A had no direct flights from Manila to "om'ay, Mahatini had to take a flight to >( !ia A$, and upon arri!al in >( he had to take a connecting flight to "om'ay on 'oard "A. - rior to his departure, Mahatini checked in at the A$ counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothings and personal effects, confident that upon reaching >(, the same would 'e transferred to the "A flight 'ound for "om'ay. - 1nfortunately, when Mahatini arri!ed in "om'ay, he disco!ered that his luggage was missing and that upon in*uiry from the "A representati!es, he was told that the same might ha!e 'een di!erted to $ondon. - After patiently waiting for his luggage for one week, "A finally ad!ised him to file a claim 'y accomplishing the report corresponding to such. - "ack in the hilippines, Mahatini filed his complaint for damages and attorney<s fees against "A 'efore the RT2. - "A for its defense said that Mahatini had no cause of action against it. That the reason for the non-transfer of the luggage was due to A$<s late arri!al in >( which left hardly any - ,hether or not "A is lia'le for the loss of the luggage according to the amounts claimed 'y Mahatini despite his failure to declare a higher !aluation upon 'oarding.

- The S2 held that as compared to the ($M case were the 'reach of contract was aggra!ated 'y discourteous and ar'itrary conduct of an employee, here, Air %rance employees in >am'urg informed Morales that his tickets were partly stamped )non-endorsa'le+ and )!alid on Air %rance only.+ Mere refusal to accede to the passenger<s wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the a'sence of 'ad faith. - Ludgment was re!ersed 'ut Air %rance was ordered to refund to Morales the !alue of unused coupons. - Jes, "A is lia'le for such loss. - Admittedly, in a contract of air carriage a declaration 'y the passenger of a higher !alue is needed to reco!er a greater amount. This is pro!ided for under Art. EE (0# of the ,arsaw 2on!ention. - The'enefits of limited lia'ility are su':ect to wai!er such as when the air carrier failed to raise timely o':ections during the trial when *uestions and answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained 'y the passenger were asked. - -i!en such, the inescapa'le conclusion is that "A has wai!ed its defense of limited lia'ility when it allowed Mahatini to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the misplacement of his luggage, without any o':ection. 2ounsel for "A e!en conducted a cross-e5amination.

- The nature of an airline<s contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely& a contract to deli!er a cargo or merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers to their destination. - 4n determining the amount of compensatory damages in 'reach of contract in!ol!ing misplaced luggage, it is !ital that the claimant satisfactorily pro!e during the trial the e5istence of the factual 'asis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant<s acts. - 4n a contract of carriage, a declaration 'y the passenger of a higher !alue is needed to reco!er a greater amount. - An air carrier is not lia'le for the loss of 'aggage in an amount in e5cess of the limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such tariff 'eing 'inding on the passenger regardless of the passenger<s lack of knowledge thereof or assent thereto.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

06

American Air!ine% v. CA -

time to transfer the 'aggage of Mahatini. 4t was also argued that Mahatini failed to declare a higher !aluation with respect to his 'aggage, a condition precedent pro!ided in the ticket.I thus limiting the lia'ility. Dn the other hand, A$ said there was ade*uate time to transfer the luggage to "A in >( Mendoza purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila con:unction tickets for Manila-Singapore-Athens-$arnaca-RomeTurin-Murich--ene!a-2openhagen-8ew Jork. American Air was not a participating airline in any of the segments in the itinerary under the said con:unction tickets. 4n -ene!a, Mendoza decided to forego his trip to 2openhagen and to go straight to 8ew Jork and in the a'sence of a direct flight under his con:unction tickets from -ene!a to 8ew Jork, Mendoza e5changed the unused portion of the con:unction ticket for a one-way ticket from -ene!a to 8ew Jork from American Air. American Air issued its own ticket to the Mendoza in -ene!a and claimed the !alue of the unused portion of the con:unction ticket from the 4ATA E clearing house in -ene!a. $ater, Mendoza filed an action for damages 'efore RT2 2e'u for the alleged em'arrassment and mental anguish he suffered at the -ene!a Airport when the American Air security officers pre!ented him from 'oarding the plane, detained him for a'out an hour and allowed him to 'oard the plane only after all the other passengers ha!e 'oarded. American Air filed a motion to dismiss for lack of :urisdiction of hilippine courts to entertain the said proceedings under Art. E. (0# of the ,arsaw 2on!ention. $ower courts held that the suit may 'e 'rought in the hilippines under the pool partnership agreement among the 4ATA mem'ers, which include Singapore Airlines and American Airlines, wherein the mem'ers act as agents of each other in the issuance of tickets to

,hether the Regional Trial 2ourt of 2e'u can take cognizance of the action for damages filed 'y Mendoza against American Air in !iew of Art E. (0# of the ,arsaw 2on!ention.

J9S. The contract of carriage 'etween Mendoza and Singapore Airlines although performed 'y different carriers under a series of airline tickets, including that issued 'y American Air, constitutes a single operation. Mem'ers of the 4ATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to 'oost ticket sales worldwide and at the same time pro!ide passengers easy access to airlines which are otherwise inaccessi'le in some parts of the world. A mem'er airline which enters into a contract of carriage consisting of a series of trips to 'e performed 'y different carriers is authorized to recei!e the fare for the whole trip and through the re*uired process of interline settlement of accounts 'y way of the 4ATA clearing house an airline is duly compensated for the segment of the trip ser!iced. Thus, when American Air accepted the unused portion of the con:unction tickets, entered it in the 4ATA clearing house and undertook to transport the pri!ate respondent o!er the route co!ered 'y the unused portion of the con:unction tickets, i.e., -ene!a to 8ew Jork, American Air tacitly recognized its commitment under the 4ATA pool arrangement to act as agent of the principal contracting airline, Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip American Air agreed to undertake. As such, American Air there'y assumed the o'ligation to take the place of the carrier originally designated in the original con:unction ticket. American Air Ns argument that it is not a

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

0G

those who may need their ser!ices.

Air France v. C (r& ) A++ea!%

- 4n %e'ruary 0C=7, the late Lose -. -ana and his family, num'ering nine (C#, purchased form Air %rance through a duly authorized tra!el agent nine (C# open-dated air passage tickets for the Manila;Dsaka;Tokyo;Manila route. - The -anas paid a total of 1SFE,KE...K for their economy and first class fares. - Said tickets were 'ought at the then pre!ailing e5change rate of 6.C7 per 1SF0.77I also paid were tra!el ta5es at 077.77 per passenger. - Dn EG April 0C=7, Air %rance e5changed or su'stituted the aforementioned tickets with other tickets for the same route. - At this time, the -anas were 'ooked for the Manila;Dsaka segment on Air %rance %light 0.G for . May 0C=7, and for the Tokyo;Manila return trip on Air %rance flight 0.= on EE May 0C=7. - The said tickets were !alid until . May 0C=0, the date under the printed words )8on !alua'le aprOs de+ (meaning, )not !alid after the+#. - The -anas did not depart as scheduled. - An e5tension of the !alidity of the tickets was sought 'ut Air %rance demanded fare

- ,hether or not under the en!ironmental milieu, the -anas ha!e made out a case for 'reach of contract of carriage entitling them to an award of damages..

designated carrier in the original con:unction tickets and that it issued its own ticket is not decisi!e of its lia'ility. The new ticket was simply a replacement for the unused portion of the con:unction ticket, 'oth tickets 'eing for the same amount of 1SF E,=/7 and ha!ing the same points of departure and destination. "y constituting itself as an agent of the principal carrier the American Air<s undertaking should 'e taken as part of a single operation under the contract of carriage e5ecuted 'y Mendoza and Singapore Airlines in Manila. The third option of the plaintiff under Art E. (0# of the ,arsaw 2on!ention e.g., to sue in the place of 'usiness of the carrier wherein the contract was made, is therefore, Manila, and hilippine courts are clothed with :urisdiction o!er this case. - 8D. - ursuant to the 4nternational Air Transportation Association (4ATA#, an airplane ticket is !alid for one year. - 4t is clear that Air %rance CANNOT 'e faulted for 'reach of contract when it dishonored the tickets of the -anas after . May 0C=0 since those tickets e5pired on said dateI nor when it re*uired the -anas to 'uy new tickets or ha!e their tickets re-issued for the Tokyo;Manila segment of their trip. - 1nder the 4ATA rules, all :ourneys must 'e charged for at the fare in effect on the date on which transportation commences from the point of origin. - The -anas were aware, through their agent, that the tickets in *uestion could not 'e e5tended 'eyond the period of their !alidity without paying the fare differentials and additional tra!el ta5es a'out 'y the increased fare rate and tra!el ta5es. - The circumstances that Air %rance personnel at the ticket counter in the airport allowed the -anas to lea!e is not tantamount to an implied

ursuant to the 4nternational Air Transportation Association (4ATA#, an airplane ticket is !alid for one year. - 1nder the 4ATA rules, all :ourneys must 'e charged for at the fare in effect on the date on which transportation commences from the point of origin.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

0K

differentials resulting from the increase of the e5change rate of the 1S dollar to the hilippine peso and the increased tra!el ta5. 4n the meantime, the -anas scheduled their departure a day 'efore the e5piry of the tickets. 8otwithstanding warnings that although the tickets could 'e used only until = May 0C=0, the tickets would no longer 'e !alid for the rest of their trip 'ecause they would ha!e already e5pired 'y thenI thus a SAS !alidating sticker for the Dsaka;Tokyo flight was affi5ed 'y the tra!el agent showing reser!ations for LA$ %light 07. for 0/ May 0C=0, without clearing the same with Air %rance. %rom Dsaka, the -anas had to 'uy a new set of tickets as the tickets were alleged to ha!e e5pired. Thus, the action for damages arising from 'reach of contract of carriage.

ratification of the tra!el agent<s irregular actuations. - The conclusion is ine!ita'le that the -anas 'rought upon themsel!es the predicament they were in for ha!ing insisted on using the tickets that were due to e5pire in an effort, perhaps, to 'eat the deadline and in the thought that 'y commencing the trip the day 'efore the e5piry date, they could complete the trip e!en thereafter. - The !alidating SAS and LA$ stickers were spuriously affi5ed 'y the tra!el agentI conse*uently, LA$ and Air %rance merely acted within their contractual rights when they dishonored the tickets on the remaining segments of the trip and when Air %rance demanded payment of the ad:usted fare rates and tra!el ta5es for the Tokyo;Manila flight.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62 <7/-<7=

0/