Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. Fernandez, GR 142305, Dec.

10, 2003

FACTS:

Respondent Andion Fernandez is an acclaimed soprano in the Philippines and

abroad. At the time of the incident she was availing of an educational grant
from the Federal Republic of Germany pursuing a Masters Degree in Music
major in Voice. She was invited to sing before the King and Queen of
Malaysia on Feb. 3-4, 1991. For this purpose, she took an airline ticket from
Singapore Airlines (SAL) FOR THE Frankfurt-Manila-Malaysia route.
Respondent had to pass by Manila in order to gather her wardrobe and
rehearse with the pianist. SAL issued ticket for Flight SQ 27 leaving Frankfurt
on Jan. 27, 1991 for Singapore with connections to Manila in the morning of
Jan. 28, 1991. On Jan. 27, 1991 SQ 27 LEFT Frankfurt but arrived two hours
late in Singapore on Jan. 28, 1991. By then, the aircraft bound for Manila had
already left. Upon deplaning in Singapore, Fernandez approached the transit
counter at Changi Airport and was told by a lady employee that there were
no more flights to Manila on that day and that she had to stay in Singapore,
if she wanted, she could fly to HK but at her own expense. Respondent
stayed with a relative in Singapore for the night. The next day, she was
brought back to the airport and approached a counter for immediate booking
but was told by a male employee: Cant you see I am doing something. She
explained her predicament but was told: Its your problem, not ours.

The respondent never made it to Manila and was forced to take a direct flight
to Malaysia on Jan. 29, 1991 through the efforts of her mother and a travel
agency in Manila. Her mother had to travel to Malaysia with the wardrobe
which caused them to incur expenses of 50,000.

RTC Manila ordered SAL to pay respondent 50k as actual damages, 250k
as moral damages, 100k as exemplary damages, 75k as attorneys fees
and costs of suit.

CA affirmed RTC decision.

Transportation Law Case

ISSUE:
Did SAL break the contract of carriage?

RULING:

Yes, when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular

flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger has
every right to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that date. If
he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of
carriage. A contract of carriage requires common carriers to transport
passengers safely as human care and foresight can provide (Art. 1755, NCC).
In an action for brech of a contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not
have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that
is necessary is to prove the existence of the contract and the fact of its nonperformance by the carrier.
SAL failed to inform of the delay in the turnaround aircraft in Frankfurt,
neither did it ask if the respondent and 25 other delayed passengers are
amenable to a stay in Singapore. Even SALs manual mandates that in cases
of urgent connections the head office of defendant in Singapore has to be
informed of delays so as to make needed arrangements for connecting
passengers.

When respondent conveyed her apprehension in Frankfurt of the impending

delay, she was assured by petitioners personnel in Frankfurt that she will be
transported to Manila on the same date. The lady employee at the counter in
Singapore only allowed respondent to use the phone upon threat of suit, the
male employee at the counter marked Immediate Attention to Passengers
with Immediate Booking was rude to her.

Petition is denied. CA decision affirmed.

Transportation Law Case