08 Transpo Digests 2

08 Transpo Compiled Digests. Week 9. Atty. Ampil.
!1
CONTENTS
Article 24 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 25 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
B. WARSAW CONVENTION ........................................................................4
Article 26 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Warsaw Convention !Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules

Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October
1929 .................................................................................................................5
Article 27 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter I - Scope - Definitions ..................................................................5
Article 30 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 1 .............................................................................................................................................................5
Chapter IV - Provisions Relating to Combined Carriage ...........................8
Article 2 .............................................................................................................................................................5
Article 31 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter II - Documents of Carriage ...........................................................5
Chapter V - General and Final Provisions ..................................................8
Section I - Passenger Ticket ...................................................................5
Article 32 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 3 .............................................................................................................................................................5
Article 33 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Section II - Luggage Ticket ....................................................................5
Article 34 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 4 .............................................................................................................................................................5
Section III - Air Consignment Note .......................................................5

Article 5 .............................................................................................................................................................5
Article 6 .............................................................................................................................................................6
Article 7 .............................................................................................................................................................6
Article 8 .............................................................................................................................................................6
Article 9 .............................................................................................................................................................6
Article 10 ...........................................................................................................................................................6
Article 11 ............................................................................................................................................................6
Article 12 ...........................................................................................................................................................6
Article 13 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 28 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 29 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 35 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 36 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 37 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 38 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 39 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 40 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Article 41 ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Additional Protocol ....................................................................................9

Additional Protocol (With reference to Article 2) .............................................................................................9
Montreal Convention !Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for

International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 28 May 1999) ................................9
Article 14 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1 - General Provisions ................................................................10
Article 15 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 1 - Scope of application .......................................................................................................................10
Article 16 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 2 - Carriage performed by State and carriage of postal items .............................................................10
Chapter III - Liability of the Carrier ...........................................................7

Article 17 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Chapter II - Documentation and Duties of the Parties Relating to the

Carriage of Passengers, Baggage and Cargo ............................................10
Article 18 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 3 - Passengers and baggage .................................................................................................................10
Article 19 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 4 - Cargo ..............................................................................................................................................10
Article 20 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 5 - Contents of air waybill or cargo receipt .........................................................................................10
Article 21 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 6 - Document relating to the nature of the cargo .................................................................................11
Article 22 ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Article 7 - Description of air waybill ...............................................................................................................11
Article 23 ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Article 8 - Documentation for multiple packages ............................................................................................11
!2
Article 9 - Non-compliance with documentary requirements ..........................................................................11
Article 40 - Respective liability of contracting and actual carriers .................................................................15
Article 10 - Responsibility for particulars of documentation ..........................................................................11
Article 41 - Mutual liability .............................................................................................................................15
Article 11 - Evidentiary value of documentation .............................................................................................11
Article 42 - Addressee of complaints and instructions ....................................................................................15
Article 12 - Right of disposition of cargo ........................................................................................................11
Article 43 - Servants and agents ......................................................................................................................15
Article 13 - Delivery of the cargo ....................................................................................................................11
Article 44 - Aggregation of damages ...............................................................................................................15
Article 14 - Enforcement of the rights of consignor and consignee ................................................................11
Article 45 - Addressee of claims ......................................................................................................................16
Article 15 - Relations of consignor and consignee or mutual relations of third parties ..................................12
Article 46 - Additional jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................16
Article 16 - Formalities of customs, police or other public authorities ...........................................................12
Article 47 - Invalidity of contractual provisions ..............................................................................................16
Chapter III - Liability of the Carrier and Extent of Compensation for

Damage .....................................................................................................12
Article 48 - Mutual relations of contracting and actual carriers ......................................................................16
Chapter VI - Other Provisions ..................................................................16
Article 17 - Death and injury of passengers - damage to baggage ..................................................................12
Article 49 - Mandatory application ..................................................................................................................16
Article 18 - Damage to cargo ...........................................................................................................................12
Article 50 - Insurance .......................................................................................................................................16
Article 19 - Delay .............................................................................................................................................12
Article 51 - Carriage performed in extraordinary circumstances ....................................................................16
Article 20 - Exoneration ...................................................................................................................................12
Article 52 - Definition of days .........................................................................................................................16
Article 21 - Compensation in case of death or injury of passengers ...............................................................12
Chapter VII - Final Clauses ......................................................................16
Article 22 - Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo ...........................................................13

Article 23 - Conversion of monetary units ......................................................................................................13
Article 24 - Review of limits ...........................................................................................................................13
Article 25 - Stipulation on limits .....................................................................................................................14
Article 26 - Invalidity of contractual provisions ..............................................................................................14
Article 27 - Freedom to contract ......................................................................................................................14
Article 28 - Advance payments ........................................................................................................................14
Article 29 - Basis of claims ..............................................................................................................................14
Article 30 - Servants, agents - aggregation of claims ......................................................................................14
Article 31 - Timely notice of complaints .........................................................................................................14
Article 32 - Death of person liable ...................................................................................................................14
Article 33 - Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................................14
Article 34 - Arbitration .....................................................................................................................................14
Article 35 - Limitation of actions .....................................................................................................................15
Article 36 - Successive carriage .......................................................................................................................15
Article 37 - Right of recourse against third parties ..........................................................................................15
Chapter IV - Combined Carriage .............................................................15

Article 38 - Combined carriage ........................................................................................................................15
Chapter V - Carriage by Air Performed by a Person other than the

Contracting Carrier ...................................................................................15
Article 39 - Contracting carrier - actual carrier ...............................................................................................15
Article 53 - Signature, ratification and entry into force ...................................................................................16

Article 54 - Denunciation .................................................................................................................................17
Article 55 - Relationship with other Warsaw Convention instruments ...........................................................17
Article 56 - States with more than one system of law .....................................................................................17
Article 57 - Reservations .................................................................................................................................17
DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2012 .................................17

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................18
CHAPTER II:
RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION
BEFORE
PURCHASE ..............................................................................................19
CHAPTER III - RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE FULL VALUE OF THE
SERVICE PURCHASED ..........................................................................20
CHAPTER IV
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION .................................................................21
CHAPTER V- ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ......................................22
CHAPTER VI - FINAL PROVISIONS ....................................................23
CASES ..........................................................................................................23
!3
1 KLM v. CA, 65 SCRA 237 Narvasa ................................................23

2 Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, 164 SCRA 268 -Perez de
Tagle ......................................................................................................24
3 Northwest Airlines v. Cuenca, 14 SCRA 1063 Razon .....................27
4 Alitalia v. IAC, 192 SCRA 9* -Santos ...............................................28
5 PAL v. CA, 207 SCRA 100* -Superable ............................................31
6 Luna v. CA, 216 SCRA 107 Tandoc ................................................32
7 Lhuillier v. British Airways, 615 SCRA 380 Tiu .............................34
8 Mapa v. CA, 275 SCRA 286 Pascual ...............................................35
9 PAL v. CA, 214 SCRA 262 Sanchez ................................................39
10 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. CA, 219 SCRA 520* -Nathan
Oducado ................................................................................................41
11 Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, 255 SCRA 38* -Bascara .....43
12 Federal Express v. American Home, 437 SCRA 50 Respicio ........45
13 United Airlines v. Uy, 318 SCRA 576 -Jaypee Ortiz .......................46
14 PAL v. Savillo, 557 SCRA 66 Aquino............................................49
15 Air France v. CA, 171 SCRA 399 Benedicto .................................50
16 Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, 238 SCRA 290* -Chan .............52
17 British Airways v. CA 285 SCRA 450 Cortez ................................54
18 American Airlines v. CA, 327 SCRA 482 (read annotation) -Cruz
Nenzo ....................................................................................................56
19 China Airlines v. Daniel Chiok, 407 SCRA 432 -Dela Paz..............59
B. WARSAW CONVENTION
IX.
9 T H W E E K ( WA R S AW C O N V E N T I O N ; I ATA ; A I R
PA S S E N G E R ' S B I L L O F R I G H T S )
S T U D Y: WA R S AW C O N V E N T I O N
(SEE ALSO MONTREAL CONVENTION)
Background (KP: from Princeton.edu & Wikipedia)
Warsaw Convention
The Warsaw Convention is an international convention which regulates liability for
international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward.
Originally signed in 1929 in Warsaw (hence the name), it was amended in 1955 at The Hague
and in 1975 in Montreal. United States courts have held that, at least for some purposes, the
Warsaw Convention is a different instrument from the Warsaw Convention as Amended by
the Hague Protocol.
In particular, the Warsaw Convention:
mandates carriers to issue passenger tickets;
requires carriers to issue baggage checks for checked luggage;
creates a limitation period of 2 years within which a claim must be brought

(Article 29); and
limits a carrier's liability to at most:

250,000 Francs or 16,600 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for
o
personal injury;
17 SDR per kilogram for checked luggage and cargo, or $20USD
o
per kilogram for non-signatories of the amended Montreal Protocols.
.....
5,000 Francs or 332 SDR for the hand luggage of a traveller.
o
The sums limiting liability were originally given in Francs (defined in terms of a particular
quantity of gold by article 22 paragraph 5 of the convention). These sums were amended by
the Montreal Additional Protocol No. 2 to substitute an expression given in terms of SDR's.
These sums are valid in the absence of a differing agreement (on a higher sum) with the
carrier. Agreements on lower sums are null and void.
On June 1, 2009, the exchange rate was 1.00 SDR = 1.088 EUR or 1.00 SDR = 1.548 USD.
A court may also award a claiming party's costs, unless the carrier made an offer within 6
months of the loss (or at least 6 months before the beginning of any legal proceedings) which
the claiming party has failed to beat.
The Montreal Convention, signed in 1999, replaced the Warsaw Convention system.
Montreal Convention
!4
The Montreal Convention (formally, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air) is a multilateral treaty adopted by a diplomatic meeting of
ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw
Convention's regime concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters. The
Convention attempts to re-establish uniformity and predictability of rules relating to the
international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. Whilst maintaining the core
provisions which have served the international air transport community for several decades
(i.e. the Warsaw regime), the new treaty achieves modernization in a number of key areas.
It protects passengers by introducing a two-tier liability system that eliminates the previous
requirement of proving willful neglect by the air carrier to obtain more than $75,000 in
damages, which should eliminate or reduce protracted litigation.
Damages ! Under the Montreal Convention, air carriers are strictly liable for proven
damages up to 113,100 special drawing rights (SDR) (Updated from 100,000 on 31 December
2009), a mix of currency values established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
approximately $138,000 per passenger at the time of its ratification by the United States in
2003 (as of December 2011, around $175,800). Where damages of more than 113,100 SDR
are sought, the airline may avoid liability by proving that the accident which caused the injury
or death was not due to their negligence or was attributable to the negligence of a third party.
This defence is not available where damages of less than 113,100 SDR are sought. The
Convention also amended the jurisdictional provisions of Warsaw and now allows the victim
or their families to sue foreign carriers where they maintain their principal residence, and
requires all air carriers to carry liability insurance.
The Montreal Convention was brought about mainly to amend liabilities to be paid to families
for death or injury whilst on board an aircraft.
Lost baggage ! The Montreal Convention changes and generally increases the maximum
liability of airlines for lost baggage to a fixed amount 1131 SDR per checked item (the
amount in the Warsaw Convention is based on weight of the baggage). It requires airlines to
fully compensate travellers the cost of replacement items purchased until the baggage is
delivered, to a maximum of 1131 SDR. At 21 days any delayed baggage is considered lost,
even if the airline delivers it after that period.
Disabled passengers and mobility equipment ! The limitation of compensation for

damage to baggage to 1131 SDRs means that the value of damaged mobility equipment may
often significantly exceed available compensation under the Montreal Convention, while the
effect of the loss, even temporarily, of mobility equipment places disabled passengers at a
substantially increased disadvantage in comparison to other passengers suffering damaged
baggage.
The EU in 'Communication on the scope of the liability of air carriers and airports in the
event of destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment of passengers with reduced mobility
when travelling by air'[3] notes this disadvantage in relation to EC 1107/2006 'rights of
disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air'.[4]
The EU report notes that the United States under the Air Carrier Access Act and Canada under
Part VII of the Air Transport Regulations have taken action to force airlines to fully cover the
costs of damage to mobility equipment as a condition of allowing an airline to operate in their
airspace, and notes that the EU may have to take similar steps if the additional duties imposed
on airlines by EC 1107/2006 do not resolve the issue.
!5
WARSAW CONVENTION !CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF

CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR,
SIGNED AT WARSAW ON 12 OCTOBER 1929
Source: http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.warsaw.convention.1929/doc.html
1. For the carriage of passengers the carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which shall
contain the following particulars:(a) the place and date of issue;
(b) the place of departure and of destination;
(c) the agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the
stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercises that right, the alteration shall not
have the effect of depriving the carriage of its international character;
(d) the name and address of the carrier or carriers;
CHAPTER I - SCOPE - DEFINITIONS
(e) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this
Convention.
ARTICLE 1
2. The absence, irregularity or loss of the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the
validity of the contract of carriage, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this
Convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having
been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this Convention
which exclude or limit his liability.
1. This Convention
applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by

aircraft for reward.
It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport

undertaking.
2. For the purposes of this Convention the expression "international carriage" means any
carriage in which, according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and
the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are
situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties, or within the territory of
a single High Contracting Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject
to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of another Power, even though that Power
is not a party to this Convention. A carriage without such an agreed stopping place between
territories subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of the same High
Contracting Party is not deemed to be international for the purposes of this Convention.
3. A carriage to be performed by several successive air carriers is deemed, for the purposes of
this Convention, to be one undivided carriage, if it has been regarded by the parties as a single
operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series
of contracts, and it does not lose its international character merely because one contract or a
series of contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty,
suzerainty, mandate or authority of the same High Contracting Party.
ARTICLE 2
1. This Convention applies to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted public
bodies provided it falls within the conditions laid down in Article 1.
2. This Convention does not apply to carriage performed under the terms of any international
postal Convention.
CHAPTER II - DOCUMENTS OF CARRIAGE
SECTION I - PASSENGER TICKET
ARTICLE 3
SECTION II - LUGGAGE TICKET

ARTICLE 4
1. For the carriage of luggage, other than small personal objects of which the passenger takes
charge himself, the carrier must deliver a luggage ticket.
2. The luggage ticket shall be made out in duplicate, one part for the passenger and the other
part for the carrier.
3. The luggage ticket shall contain the following particulars:(a) the place and date of issue;
(c) the name and address of the carrier or carriers;
(d) the number of the passenger ticket;
(e) a statement that delivery of the luggage will be made to the bearer of the luggage ticket;
(f) the number and weight of the packages;
(g) the amount of the value declared in accordance with Article 22(2);
(h) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this
Convention.
4. The absence, irregularity or loss of the luggage ticket does not affect the existence or the
validity of the contract of carriage, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this
Convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts luggage without a luggage ticket having been
delivered, or if the luggage ticket does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f) and (h)
above, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the Convention
SECTION III - AIR CONSIGNMENT NOTE
ARTICLE 5
!6
1. Every carrier of goods has the right to require the consignor to make out and hand over to
him a document called an "air consignment note"; every consignor has the right to require the
carrier to accept this document.
2. The absence, irregularity or loss of this document does not affect the existence or the
validity of the contract of carriage which shall, subject to the provisions of Article 9, be none
the less governed by the rules of this Convention.
ARTICLE 6
1. The air consignment note shall be made out by the consignor in three original parts and be
handed over with the goods.
2. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier," and shall be signed by the consignor. The
second part shall be marked "for the consignee"; it shall be signed by the consignor and by the
carrier and shall accompany the goods. The third part shall be signed by the carrier and
handed by him to the consignor after the goods have been accepted.
3. The carrier shall sign on acceptance of the goods.
4. The signature of the carrier may be stamped; that of the consignor may be printed or
stamped.
(l) if the goods are sent for payment on delivery, the price of the goods, and, if the case so
requires, the amount of the expenses incurred;
(m) the amount of the value declared in accordance with Article 22 (2);
(n) the number of parts of the air consignment note;
(o) the documents handed to the carrier to accompany the air consignment note;
(p) the time fixed for the completion of the carriage and a brief note of the route to be
followed, if these matters have been agreed upon;
(q) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this
Convention.
ARTICLE 9
If the carrier accepts goods without an air consignment note having been made out, or if the
air consignment note does not contain all the particulars set out in Article 8(a) to (i) inclusive
and (q), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention
ARTICLE 10
5. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes out the air consignment note, he shall
be deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor.
1. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statements relating to
the goods which he inserts in the air consignment note.
ARTICLE 7
2. The consignor will be liable for all damage suffered by the carrier or any other person by
reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the said particulars and
statements.
The carrier of goods has the right to require the consignor to make out separate consignment
notes when there is more than one package.
ARTICLE 8
The air consignment note shall contain the following particulars:(a) the place and date of its execution;
(c) the agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the
stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercises that right the alteration shall not
have the effect of depriving the carriage of its international character;
(d) the name and address of the consignor;
(e) the name and address of the first carrier;
(f) the name and address of the consignee, if the case so requires;
(g) the nature of the goods;
(h) the number of the packages, the method of packing and the particular marks or numbers
upon them;
(i) the weight, the quantity and the volume or dimensions of the goods;
(j) the apparent condition of the goods and of the packing;
(k) the freight, if it has been agreed upon, the date and place of payment, and the person who
is to pay it;
ARTICLE 11
1. The air consignment note is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the
receipt of the goods and of the conditions of carriage.
2. The statements in the air consignment note relating to the weight, dimensions and packing
of the goods, as well as those relating to the number of packages, are prima facie evidence of
the facts stated; those relating to the quantity, volume and condition of the goods do not
constitute evidence against the carrier except so far as they both have been, and are stated in
the air consignment note to have been, checked by him in the presence of the consignor, or
relate to the apparent condition of the goods.
ARTICLE 12
1. Subject to his liability to carry out all his obligations under the contract of carriage, the
consignor has the right to dispose of the goods by withdrawing them at the aerodrome of
departure or destination, or by stopping them in the course of the journey on any landing, or
by calling for them to be delivered at the place of destination or in the course of the journey to
a person other than the consignee named in the air consignment note, or by requiring them to
be returned to the aerodrome of departure. He must not exercise this right of disposition in
such a way as to prejudice the carrier or other consignors and he must repay any expenses
occasioned by the exercise of this right.
2. If it is impossible to carry out the orders of the consignor the carrier must so inform him
forthwith.
3. If the carrier obeys the orders of the consignor for the disposition of the goods without
requiring the production of the part of the air consignment note delivered to the latter, he will
be liable, without prejudice to his right of recovery from the consignor, for any damage which
may be caused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air
consignment note.
4. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee
begins in accordance with Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the
consignment note or the goods, or if he cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes
his right of disposition.
ARTICLE 13
1. Except in the circumstances set out in the preceding Article, the consignee is entitled, on
arrival of the goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the
air consignment note and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on
complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the air consignment note.
2. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as
soon as the goods arrive.
3. If the carrier admits the loss of the goods, or if the goods have not arrived at the expiration
of seven days after the date on which they ought to have arrived, the consignee is entitled to
put into force against the carrier the rights which flow from the contract of carriage.
ARTICLE 14
The consignor and the consignee can respectively enforce all the rights given them by Articles
12 and 13, each in his own name, whether he is acting in his own interest or in the interest of
another, provided that he carries out the obligations imposed by the contract.
ARTICLE 15
1. Articles 12, 13 and 14 do not affect either the relations of the consignor or the consignee
with each other or the mutual relations of third parties whose rights are derived either from
the consignor or from the consignee.
2. The provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14 can only be varied by express provision in the air
consignment note.
ARTICLE 16
1. The consignor must furnish such information and attach to the air consignment note such
documents as are necessary to meet the formalities of customs, octroi or police before the
goods can be delivered to the consignee. The consignor is liable to the carrier for any damage
occasioned by the absence, insufficiency or irregularity of any such information or
documents, unless the damage is due to the fault of the carrier or his agents.
2. The carrier is under no obligation to enquire into the correctness or sufficiency of such
information or documents.
CHAPTER III - LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER
ARTICLE 17
!7
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger
or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so
sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of
embarking or disembarking.
ARTICLE 18
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of
damage to, any registered luggage or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage
so sustained took place during the carriage by air.
2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises the period
during which the luggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on
board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever.
3. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river
performed outside an aerodrome. If, however, such a carriage takes place in the performance
of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transshipment, any
damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an event
which took place during the carriage by air.
ARTICLE 19
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers,
luggage or goods.
ARTICLE 20
1. The carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his agents have taken all necessary
measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such
measures.
2. In the carriage of goods and luggage the carrier is not liable if he proves that the damage
was occasioned by negligent pilotage or negligence in the handling of the aircraft or in
navigation and that, in all other respects, he and his agents have taken all necessary measures
to avoid the damage.
ARTICLE 21
If the carrier proves that the damage was caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the
injured person the Court may, in accordance with the provisions of its own law, exonerate the
carrier wholly or partly from his liability.
ARTICLE 22
1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the
sum of 125,000 francs. Where, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case,
damages may be awarded in the form of periodical payments, the equivalent capital value of
the said payments shall not exceed 125,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the
carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
2. In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a
sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package
was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a
supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum
not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the actual value
to the consignor at delivery.
!8
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is
limited to 5,000 francs per passenger.
4. The sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer to the French franc consisting of 65
milligrams gold of millesimal fineness 900. These sums may be converted into any national
currency in round figures.
1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one
of the High Contracting Parties, either before the Court having jurisdiction where the carrier
is ordinarily resident, or has his principal place of business, or has an establishment by which
the contract has been made or before the Court having jurisdiction at the place of destination.
2. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case.
ARTICLE 23
ARTICLE 29
Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which
is laid down in this Convention shall be null and void, but the nullity of any such provision
does not involve the nullity of the whole contract, which shall remain subject to the
provisions of this Convention.
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years,
reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft
ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
ARTICLE 24
1. In the cases covered by Articles 18 and 19 any action for damages, however founded, can
only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this Convention.
2. In the cases covered by Article 17 the provisions of the preceding paragraph also apply,
without prejudice to the questions as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit
and what are their respective rights.
ARTICLE 25
1. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which
exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such
default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, is considered
to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.
2. Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the
damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his
employment.
ARTICLE 26
1. Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of luggage or goods without complaint is prima
facie evidence that the same have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with
the document of carriage.
2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith
after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within three days from the date of receipt
in the case of luggage and seven days from the date of receipt in the case of goods. In the case
of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within fourteen days from the date on which
the luggage or goods have been placed at his disposal.
3. Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of carriage or by separate
notice in writing despatched within the times aforesaid.
4. Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in
the case of fraud on his part.
ARTICLE 27
In the case of the death of the person liable, an action for damages lies in accordance with the
terms of this Convention against those legally representing his estate.
ARTICLE 28
2. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the
Court seised of the case.
ARTICLE 30
1. In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the
definition set out in the third paragraph of Article 1, each carrier who accepts passengers,
luggage or goods is subjected to the rules set out in this Convention, and is deemed to be one
of the contracting parties to the contract of carriage in so far as the contract deals with that
part of the carriage which is performed under his supervision.
2. In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action
only against the carrier who performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay
occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability
for the whole journey.
3. As regards luggage or goods, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against
the first carrier, and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have a right of
action against the last carrier, and further, each may take action against the carrier who
performed the carriage during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place. These
carriers will be jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee.
CHAPTER IV - PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMBINED CARRIAGE
ARTICLE 31
1. In the case of combined carriage performed partly by air and partly by any other mode of
carriage, the provisions of this Convention apply only to the carriage by air, provided that the
carriage by air falls within the terms of Article 1.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall prevent the parties in the case of combined carriage from
inserting in the document of air carriage conditions relating to other modes of carriage,
provided that the provisions of this Convention are observed as regards the carriage by air.
CHAPTER V - GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 32
Any clause contained in the contract and all special agreements entered into before the
damage occurred by which the parties purport to infringe the rules laid down by this
Convention, whether by deciding the law to be applied, or by altering the rules as to

jurisdiction, shall be null and void. Nevertheless for the carriage of goods arbitration clauses
are allowed, subject to this Convention, if the arbitration is to take place within one of the
jurisdictions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 28.
ARTICLE 33
Nothing contained in this Convention shall prevent the carrier either from refusing to enter
into any contract of carriage, or from making regulations which do not conflict with the
ARTICLE 34
This Convention does not apply to international carriage by air performed by way of
experimental trial by air navigation undertakings with the view to the establishment of a
regular line of air navigation, nor does it apply to carriage performed in extraordinary
circumstances outside the normal scope of an air carrier's business.
ARTICLE 35
The expression "days" when used in this Convention means current days not working days.
ARTICLE 36
The Convention is drawn up in French in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Poland and of which one duly certified copy
shall be sent by the Polish Government to the Government of each of the High Contracting
Parties.
ARTICLE 37
1. This Convention shall be ratified. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the
archives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Poland, which will notify the deposit to the
Government of each of the High Contracting Parties.
2. As soon as this Convention shall have been ratified by five of the High Contracting Parties
it shall come into force as between them on the ninetieth day after the deposit of the fifth
ratification. Thereafter it shall come into force between the High Contracting Parties who
shall have ratified and the High Contracting Party who deposits his instrument of ratification
on the ninetieth day after the deposit.
3. It shall be the duty of the Government of the Republic of Poland to notify to the
Government of each of the High Contracting Parties the date on which this Convention comes
into force as well as the date of the deposit of each ratification.
ARTICLE 38
1. This Convention shall, after it has come into force, remain open for accession by any State.
2. The accession shall be effected by a notification addressed to the Government of the
Republic of Poland, which will inform the Government of each of the High Contracting
Parties thereof.
3. The accession shall take effect as from the ninetieth day after the notification made to the
Government of the Republic of Poland.
ARTICLE 39
!9
1. Any one of the High Contracting Parties may denounce this Convention by a notification
addressed to the Government of the Republic of Poland, which will at once inform the
Government of each of the High Contracting Parties.
2. Denunciation shall take effect six months after the notification of denunciation, and shall
operate only as regards the Party who shall have proceeded to denunciation.
ARTICLE 40
1. Any High Contracting Party may, at the time of signature or of deposit of ratification or of
accession declare that the acceptance which he gives to this Convention does not apply to all
or any of his colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate, or any other territory subject
to his sovereignty or his authority, or any territory under his suzerainty.
2. Accordingly any High Contracting Party may subsequently accede separately in the name
of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate or any other territory
subject to his sovereignty or to his authority or any territory under his suzerainty which has
been thus excluded by his original declaration.
3. Any High Contracting Party may denounce this Convention, in accordance with its
provisions, separately or for all or any of his colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate
or any other territory subject to his sovereignty or to his authority, or any other territory under
his suzerainty.
ARTICLE 41
Any High Contracting Party shall be entitled not earlier than two years after the coming into
force of this Convention to call for the assembling of a new international Conference in order
to consider any improvements which may be made in this Convention. To this end he will
communicate with the Government of the French Republic which will take the necessary
measures to make preparations for such Conference.
This Convention done at Warsaw on the 12th October, 1929, shall remain open for signature
until the 31st January, 1930.
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL (WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2)
The High Contracting Parties reserve to themselves the right to declare at the time of
ratification or of accession that the first paragraph of Article 2 of this Convention shall not
apply to international carriage by air performed directly by the State, its colonies,
protectorates or mandated territories or by any other territory under its sovereignty, suzerainty
or authority."
MONTREAL CONVENTION !CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF
CERTAIN RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR (MONTREAL,
28 MAY 1999)
Source: http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/doc.html
!10
THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION

RECOGNIZING the significant contribution of the Convention for the Unification of Certain
Rules relating to International Carriage by Air signed in Warsaw on 12 October 1929,
hereinafter referred to as the "Warsaw Convention", and other related instruments to the
harmonization of private international air law;
RECOGNIZING the need to modernize and consolidate the Warsaw Convention and related
instruments;
RECOGNIZING the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in
international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of
restitution;
REAFFIRMING the desirability of an orderly development of international air transport
operations and the smooth flow of passengers, baggage and cargo in accordance with the
principles and objectives of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, done at Chicago
on 7 December 1944;
CONVINCED that collective State action for further harmonization and codification of
certain rules governing international carriage by air through a new Convention is the most
adequate means of achieving an equitable balance of interests;
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF APPLICATION
1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo
performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft
performed by an air transport undertaking.
2. For the purposes of this Convention, the expression "international carriage" means any
carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and
the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are
situated either within the territories of two States Parties, or within the territory of a single
State Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if
that State is not a State Party. Carriage between two points within the territory of a single
State Party without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not
international carriage for the purposes of this Convention.
3. Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this
Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single
operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series
of contracts, and it does not lose its international character merely because one contract or a
series of contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory of the same State.
4. This Convention applies also to carriage as set out in Chapter V, subject to the terms
contained therein.
ARTICLE 2 - CARRIAGE PERFORMED BY STATE AND CARRIAGE OF
POSTAL ITEMS
1. This Convention applies to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted public
bodies provided it falls within the conditions laid down in Article 1.
2. In the carriage of postal items, the carrier shall be liable only to the relevant postal
administration in accordance with the rules applicable to the relationship between the carriers
and the postal administrations.
3. Except as provided in paragraph 2 of this Article, the provisions of this Convention shall
not apply to the carriage of postal items.
C H A P T E R I I - D O C U M E N TAT I O N A N D D U T I E S O F T H E PA RT I E S
RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS, BAGGAGE AND CARGO
ARTICLE 3 - PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE
1. In respect of carriage of passengers, an individual or collective document of carriage shall
be delivered containing:
(a) an indication of the places of departure and destination;
(b) if the places of departure and destination are within the territory of a single State Party,
one or more agreed stopping places being within the territory of another State, an indication
of at least one such stopping place.
2. Any other means which preserves the information indicated in paragraph 1 may be
substituted for the delivery of the document referred to in that paragraph. If any such other
means is used, the carrier shall offer to deliver to the passenger a written statement of the
information so preserved.
3. The carrier shall deliver to the passenger a baggage identification tag for each piece of
checked baggage.
4. The passenger shall be given written notice to the effect that where this Convention is
applicable it governs and may limit the liability of carriers in respect of death or injury and for
destruction or loss of, or damage to, baggage, and for delay.
5. Non-compliance with the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs shall not affect the
existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall, nonetheless, be subject to the
rules of this Convention including those relating to limitation of liability.
ARTICLE 4 - CARGO
1. In respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered.
2. Any other means which preserves a record of the carriage to be performed may be
substituted for the delivery of an air waybill. If such other means are used, the carrier shall, if
so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt permitting
identification of the consignment and access to the information contained in the record
preserved by such other means.
ARTICLE 5 - CONTENTS OF AIR WAYBILL OR CARGO RECEIPT
The air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include:
(a) an indication of the places of departure and destination;
!11
(b) if the places of departure and destination are within the territory of a single State Party,
one or more agreed stopping places being within the territory of another State, an indication
of at least one such stopping place; and
(c) an indication of the weight of the consignment.
ARTICLE 6 - DOCUMENT RELATING TO THE NATURE OF THE CARGO
The consignor may be required, if necessary, to meet the formalities of customs, police and
similar public authorities to deliver a document indicating the nature of the cargo. This
provision creates for the carrier no duty, obligation or liability resulting therefrom.
ARTICLE 7 - DESCRIPTION OF AIR WAYBILL
1. The air waybill shall be made out by the consignor in three original parts.
2. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier"; it shall be signed by the consignor. The
second part shall be marked "for the consignee"; it shall be signed by the consignor and by the
carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the
cargo has been accepted.
3. The signature of the carrier and that of the consignor may be printed or stamped.
4. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes out the air waybill, the carrier shall be
deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor.
ARTICLE 8 - DOCUMENTATION FOR MULTIPLE PACKAGES
When there is more than one package:
(a) the carrier of cargo has the right to require the consignor to make out separate air waybills;
(b) the consignor has the right to require the carrier to deliver separate cargo receipts when the
other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4 are used.
ARTICLE 9 - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS
Non-compliance with the provisions of Articles 4 to 8 shall not affect the existence or the
validity of the contract of carriage, which shall, nonetheless, be subject to the rules of this
Convention including those relating to limitation of liability.
ARTICLE 10 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTATION
1. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statements relating to
the cargo inserted by it or on its behalf in the air waybill or furnished by it or on its behalf to
the carrier for insertion in the cargo receipt or for insertion in the record preserved by the
other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4. The foregoing shall also apply where the
person acting on behalf of the consignor is also the agent of the carrier.
2. The consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damage suffered by it, or by any other
person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or
incompleteness of the particulars and statements furnished by the consignor or on its behalf.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, the carrier shall indemnify
the consignor against all damage suffered by it, or by any other person to whom the consignor
is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and
statements inserted by the carrier or on its behalf in the cargo receipt or in the record
preserved by the other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4.
ARTICLE 11 - EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DOCUMENTATION

1. The air waybill or the cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the
contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage mentioned therein.
2. Any statements in the air waybill or the cargo receipt relating to the weight, dimensions and
packing of the cargo, as well as those relating to the number of packages, are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated; those relating to the quantity, volume and condition of the cargo
do not constitute evidence against the carrier except so far as they both have been, and are
stated in the air waybill or the cargo receipt to have been, checked by it in the presence of the
consignor, or relate to the apparent condition of the cargo.
ARTICLE 12 - RIGHT OF DISPOSITION OF CARGO
1. Subject to its liability to carry out all its obligations under the contract of carriage, the
consignor has the right to dispose of the cargo by withdrawing it at the airport of departure or
destination, or by stopping it in the course of the journey on any landing, or by calling for it to
be delivered at the place of destination or in the course of the journey to a person other than
the consignee originally designated, or by requiring it to be returned to the airport of
departure. The consignor must not exercise this right of disposition in such a way as to
prejudice the carrier or other consignors and must reimburse any expenses occasioned by the
exercise of this right.
2. If it is impossible to carry out the instructions of the consignor, the carrier must so inform
the consignor forthwith.
3. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo
without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt delivered to
the latter, the carrier will be liable, without prejudice to its right of recovery from the
consignor, for any damage which may be caused thereby to any person who is lawfully in
possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt.
4. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee
begins in accordance with Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the
cargo, or cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes its right of disposition.
ARTICLE 13 - DELIVERY OF THE CARGO
1. Except when the consignor has exercised its right under Article 12, the consignee is
entitled, on arrival of the cargo at the place of destination, to require the carrier to deliver the
cargo to it, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage.
2. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as
soon as the cargo arrives.
3. If the carrier admits the loss of the cargo, or if the cargo has not arrived at the expiration of
seven days after the date on which it ought to have arrived, the consignee is entitled to
enforce against the carrier the rights which flow from the contract of carriage.
ARTICLE 14 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF CONSIGNOR AND
CONSIGNEE
The consignor and the consignee can respectively enforce all the rights given to them by
Articles 12 and 13, each in its own name, whether it is acting in its own interest or in the
interest of another, provided that it carries out the obligations imposed by the contract of
carriage.
!12
ARTICLE 15 - RELATIONS OF CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE OR MUTUAL

RELATIONS OF THIRD PARTIES
2. However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent it proves that the destruction, or loss
of, or damage to, the cargo resulted from one or more of the following:
1. Articles 12, 13 and 14 do not affect either the relations of the consignor and the consignee
with each other or the mutual relations of third parties whose rights are derived either from
the consignor or from the consignee.
(a) inherent defect, quality or vice of that cargo;
2. The provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14 can only be varied by express provision in the air
waybill or the cargo receipt.
(c) an act of war or an armed conflict;
ARTICLE 16 - FORMALITIES OF CUSTOMS, POLICE OR OTHER PUBLIC

AUTHORITIES
1. The consignor must furnish such information and such documents as are necessary to meet
the formalities of customs, police and any other public authorities before the cargo can be
delivered to the consignee. The consignor is liable to the carrier for any damage occasioned
by the absence, insufficiency or irregularity of any such information or documents, unless the
damage is due to the fault of the carrier, its servants or agents.
2. The carrier is under no obligation to enquire into the correctness or sufficiency of such
information or documents.
(b) defective packing of that cargo performed by a person other than the carrier or its servants
or agents;
(d) an act of public authority carried out in connection with the entry, exit or transit of the
cargo.
3. The carriage by air within the meaning of paragraph 1 of this Article comprises the period
during which the cargo is in the charge of the carrier.
4. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by
inland waterway performed outside an airport. If, however, such carriage takes place in the
performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or
transhipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the
result of an event which took place during the carriage by air. If a carrier, without the consent
of the consignor, substitutes carriage by another mode of transport for the whole or part of a
carriage intended by the agreement between the parties to be carriage by air, such carriage by
another mode of transport is deemed to be within the period of carriage by air.
CHAPTER III - LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER AND EXTENT OF

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE
ARTICLE 19 - DELAY
ARTICLE 17 - DEATH AND INJURY OF PASSENGERS - DAMAGE TO

BAGGAGE
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers,
baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay
if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be
required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger
upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board
the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
2. The carrier liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to,
checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or
damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked
baggage was in the charge of the carrier. However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent
that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. In the case
of unchecked baggage, including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted
from its fault or that of its servants or agents.
3. If the carrier admits the loss of the checked baggage, or if the checked baggage has not
arrived at the expiration of twenty-one days after the date on which it ought to have arrived,
the passenger is entitled to enforce against the carrier the rights which flow from the contract
of carriage.
ARTICLE 20 - EXONERATION
If the carrier proves that the damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence or other
wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he
or she derives his or her rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from its
liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused
or contributed to the damage. When by reason of death or injury of a passenger compensation
is claimed by a person other than the passenger, the carrier shall likewise be wholly or partly
exonerated from its liability to the extent that it proves that the damage was caused or
contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that passenger. This
Article applies to all the liability provisions in this Convention, including paragraph 1 of
Article 21.
ARTICLE 21 - COMPENSATION IN CASE OF DEATH OR INJURY OF
PASSENGERS
4. Unless otherwise specified, in this Convention the term "baggage" means both checked
baggage and unchecked baggage.
1. For damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 not exceeding 100,000 Special
Drawing Rights for each passenger, the carrier shall not be able to exclude or limit its liability.
ARTICLE 18 - DAMAGE TO CARGO
2. The carrier shall not be liable for damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 to the
extent that they exceed for each passenger 100,000 Special Drawing Rights if the carrier
proves that:
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of or
damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the damage so sustained
took place during the carriage by air.
(a) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier
or its servants or agents; or
!13
(b) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third
party.
ARTICLE 22 - LIMITS OF LIABILITY IN RELATION TO DELAY, BAGGAGE
AND CARGO
1. In the case of damage caused by delay as specified in Article 19 in the carriage of persons,
the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights.
2. In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss,
damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the
passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a
special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if
the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the
declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in
delivery at destination.
3. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage
or delay is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, unless the consignor
has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration
of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires.
In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it
proves that the sum is greater than the consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination.
4. In the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo, or of any object
contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to
which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages
concerned. Nevertheless, when the destruction, loss, damage or delay of a part of the cargo, or
of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same air
waybill, or the same receipt or, if they were not issued, by the same record preserved by the
other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4, the total weight of such package or
packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
5. The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved
that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done
with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably
result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved
that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment.
6. The limits prescribed in Article 21 and in this Article shall not prevent the court from
awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and
of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff, including interest. The
foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court
costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has
offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the
occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.
ARTICLE 23 - CONVERSION OF MONETARY UNITS
1. The sums mentioned in terms of Special Drawing Right in this Convention shall be deemed
to refer to the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund.
Conversion of the sums into national currencies shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be
made according to the value of such currencies in terms of the Special Drawing Right at the
date of the judgement. The value of a national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing
Right, of a State Party which is a Member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be
calculated in accordance with the method of valuation applied by the International Monetary
Fund, in effect at the date of the judgement, for its operations and transactions. The value of a
national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right, of a State Party which is not a
Member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be calculated in a manner determined by
that State.
2. Nevertheless, those States which are not Members of the International Monetary Fund and
whose law does not permit the application of the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article
may, at the time of ratification or accession or at any time thereafter, declare that the limit of
liability of the carrier prescribed in Article 21 is fixed at a sum of 1,500,000 monetary units
per passenger in judicial proceedings in their territories; 62,500 monetary units per passenger
with respect to paragraph 1 of Article 22; 15,000 monetary units per passenger with respect to
paragraph 2 of Article 22; and 250 monetary units per kilogram with respect to paragraph 3 of
Article 22. This monetary unit corresponds to sixty-five and a half milligrams of gold of
millesimal fineness nine hundred. These sums may be converted into the national currency
concerned in round figures. The conversion of these sums into national currency shall be
made according to the law of the State concerned.
3. The calculation mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph I of this Article and the
conversion method mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be made in such manner as
to express in the national currency of the State Party as far as possible the same real value for
the amounts in Articles 21 and 22 as would result from the application of the first three
sentences of paragraph 1 of this Article. States Parties shall communicate to the depositary the
manner of calculation pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, or the result of the conversion in
paragraph 2 of this Article as the case may be, when depositing an instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval of or accession to this Convention and whenever there is a change in
either.
ARTICLE 24 - REVIEW OF LIMITS
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 25 of this Convention and subject to
paragraph 2 below, the limits of liability prescribed in Articles 21, 22 and 23 shall be
reviewed by the Depositary at five-year intervals, the first such review to take place at the end
of the fifth year following the date of entry into force of this Convention, or if the Convention
does not enter into force within five years of the date it is first open for signature, within the
first year of its entry into force, by reference to an inflation factor which corresponds to the
accumulated rate of inflation since the previous revision or in the first instance since the date
of entry into force of the Convention. The measure of the rate of inflation to be used in
determining the inflation factor shall be the weighted average of the annual rates of increase
or decrease in the Consumer Price Indices of the States whose currencies comprise the
Special Drawing Right mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 23.
2. If the review referred to in the preceding paragraph concludes that the inflation factor has
exceeded 10 percent, the Depositary shall notify States Parties of a revision of the limits of
liability. Any such revision shall become effective six months after its notification to the
States Parties. If within three months after its notification to the States Parties a majority of
the States Parties register their disapproval, the revision shall not become effective and the
Depositary shall refer the matter to a meeting of the States Parties. The Depositary shall
immediately notify all States Parties of the coming into force of any revision.
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, the procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this
Article shall be applied at any time provided that one-third of the States Parties express a
desire to that effect and upon condition that the inflation factor referred to in paragraph 1 has
exceeded 30 percent since the previous revision or since the date of entry into force of this
!14
Convention if there has been no previous revision. Subsequent reviews using the procedure
described in paragraph 1 of this Article will take place at five-year intervals starting at the end
of the fifth year following the date of the reviews under the present paragraph.
ARTICLE 25 - STIPULATION ON LIMITS
A carrier may stipulate that the contract of carriage shall be subject to higher limits of liability
than those provided for in this Convention or to no limits of liability whatsoever.
ARTICLE 26 - INVALIDITY OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS
Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which
is laid down in this Convention shall be null and void, but the nullity of any such provision
does not involve the nullity of the whole contract, which shall remain subject to the
ARTICLE 27 - FREEDOM TO CONTRACT
Nothing contained in this Convention shall prevent the carrier from refusing to enter into any
contract of carriage, from waiving any defences available under the Convention, or from
laying down conditions which do not conflict with the provisions of this Convention.
1. Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo without complaint is
prima facie evidence that the same has been delivered in good condition and in accordance
with the document of carriage or with the record preserved by the other means referred to in
paragraph 2 of Article 3 and paragraph 2 of Article 4.
2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith
after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within seven days from the date of receipt
in the case of checked baggage and fourteen days from the date of receipt in the case of cargo.
In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the
date on which the baggage or cargo have been placed at his or her disposal.
3. Every complaint must be made in writing and given or dispatched within the times
aforesaid.
4. If no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier,
save in the case of fraud on its part.
ARTICLE 32 - DEATH OF PERSON LIABLE
In the case of the death of the person liable, an action for damages lies in accordance with the
terms of this Convention against those legally representing his or her estate.
ARTICLE 28 - ADVANCE PAYMENTS
ARTICLE 33 - JURISDICTION
In the case of aircraft accidents resulting in death or injury of passengers, the carrier shall, if
required by its national law, make advance payments without delay to a natural person or
persons who are entitled to claim compensation in order to meet the immediate economic
needs of such persons. Such advance payments shall not constitute a recognition of liability
and may be offset against any amounts subsequently paid as damages by the carrier.
1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one
of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal
place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been
made or before the court at the place of destination.
ARTICLE 29 - BASIS OF CLAIMS

In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded,
whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought
subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention without
prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what
are their respective rights. In any such action, punitive, exemplary or any other noncompensatory damages shall not be recoverable.
ARTICLE 30 - SERVANTS, AGENTS - AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS
1. If an action is brought against a servant or agent of the carrier arising out of damage to
which the Convention relates, such servant or agent, if they prove that they acted within the
scope of their employment, shall be entitled to avail themselves of the conditions and limits of
liability which the carrier itself is entitled to invoke under this Convention.
2. The aggregate of the amounts recoverable from the carrier, its servants and agents, in that
case, shall not exceed the said limits.
3. Save in respect of the carriage of cargo, the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article
shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the servant
or agent done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage
would probably result.
ARTICLE 31 - TIMELY NOTICE OF COMPLAINTS
2. In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action may be
brought before one of the courts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or in the territory of
a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and
permanent residence and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of
passengers by air, either on its own aircraft or on another carrier's aircraft pursuant to a
commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of
passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier
with which it has a commercial agreement.
3. For the purposes of paragraph 2,
(a) "commercial agreement" means an agreement, other than an agency agreement, made
between carriers and relating to the provision of their joint services for carriage of passengers
by air;
138
(b) "principal and permanent residence" means the one fixed and permanent abode of the
passenger at the time of the accident. The nationality of the passenger shall not be the
determining factor in this regard.
4. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court seized of the case.
ARTICLE 34 - ARBITRATION
1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the parties to the contract of carriage for cargo may
stipulate that any dispute relating to the liability of the carrier under this Convention shall be
settled by arbitration. Such agreement shall be in writing.
!15
2. The arbitration proceedings shall, at the option of the claimant, take place within one of the
jurisdictions referred to in Article 33.
3. The arbitrator or arbitration tribunal shall apply the provisions of this Convention.
4. The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be deemed to be part of every
arbitration clause or agreement, and any term of such clause or agreement which is
inconsistent therewith shall be null and void.
CHAPTER V - CARRIAGE BY AIR PERFORMED BY A PERSON OTHER

THAN THE CONTRACTING CARRIER
ARTICLE 39 - CONTRACTING CARRIER - ACTUAL CARRIER
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of
two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the
aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
The provisions of this Chapter apply when a person (hereinafter referred to as "the contracting
carrier") as a principal makes a contract of carriage governed by this Convention with a
passenger or consignor or with a person acting on behalf of the passenger or consignor, and
another person (hereinafter referred to as "the actual carrier") performs, by virtue of authority
from the contracting carrier, the whole or part of the carriage, but is not with respect to such
part a successive carrier within the meaning of this Convention. Such authority shall be
presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary.
2. The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seized of
the case.
ARTICLE 40 - RESPECTIVE LIABILITY OF CONTRACTING AND ACTUAL

CARRIERS
ARTICLE 36 - SUCCESSIVE CARRIAGE
If an actual carrier performs the whole or part of carriage which, according to the contract
referred to in Article 39, is governed by this Convention, both the contracting carrier and the
actual carrier shall, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, be subject to the rules of this
Convention, the former for the whole of the carriage contemplated in the contract, the latter
solely for the carriage which it performs.
ARTICLE 35 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
1. In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the
definition set out in paragraph 3 of Article 1, each carrier which accepts passengers, baggage
or cargo is subject to the rules set out in this Convention and is deemed to be one of the
parties to the contract of carriage in so far as the contract deals with that part of the carriage
which is performed under its supervision.
2. In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or any person entitled to compensation
in respect of him or her can take action only against the carrier which performed the carriage
during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express
agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey.
3. As regards baggage or cargo, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against
the first carrier, and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have a right of
action against the last carrier, and further, each may take action against the carrier which
performed the carriage during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place. These
carriers will be jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee.
ARTICLE 37 - RIGHT OF RECOURSE AGAINST THIRD PARTIES
ARTICLE 41 - MUTUAL LIABILITY

1. The acts and omissions of the actual carrier and of its servants and agents acting within the
scope of their employment shall, in relation to the carriage performed by the actual carrier, be
deemed to be also those of the contracting carrier.
2. The acts and omissions of the contracting carrier and of its servants and agents acting
within the scope of their employment shall, in relation to the carriage performed by the actual
carrier, be deemed to be also those of the actual carrier. Nevertheless, no such act or omission
shall subject the actual carrier to liability exceeding the amounts referred to in Articles 21, 22,
23 and 24. Any special agreement under which the contracting carrier assumes obligations not
imposed by this Convention or any waiver of rights or defences conferred by this Convention
or any special declaration of interest in delivery at destination contemplated in Article 22 shall
not affect the actual carrier unless agreed to by it.
Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the question whether a person liable for damage in
accordance with its provisions has a right of recourse against any other person.
ARTICLE 42 - ADDRESSEE OF COMPLAINTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
CHAPTER IV - COMBINED CARRIAGE
Any complaint to be made or instruction to be given under this Convention to the carrier shall
have the same effect whether addressed to the contracting carrier or to the actual carrier.
Nevertheless, instructions referred to in Article 12 shall only be effective if addressed to the
contracting carrier.
ARTICLE 38 - COMBINED CARRIAGE
ARTICLE 43 - SERVANTS AND AGENTS
1. In the case of combined carriage performed partly by air and partly by any other mode of
carriage, the provisions of this Convention shall, subject to paragraph 4 of Article 18, apply
only to the carriage by air, provided that the carriage by air falls within the terms of Article 1.
In relation to the carriage performed by the actual carrier, any servant or agent of that carrier
or of the contracting carrier shall, if they prove that they acted within the scope of their
employment, be entitled to avail themselves of the conditions and limits of liability which are
applicable under this Convention to the carrier whose servant or agent they are, unless it is
proved that they acted in a manner that prevents the limits of liability from being invoked in
accordance with this Convention.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall prevent the parties in the case of combined carriage from
inserting in the document of air carriage conditions relating to other modes of carriage,
provided that the provisions of this Convention are observed as regards the carriage by air.
ARTICLE 44 - AGGREGATION OF DAMAGES
!16
In relation to the carriage performed by the actual carrier, the aggregate of the amounts
recoverable from that carrier and the contracting carrier, and from their servants and agents
acting within the scope of their employment, shall not exceed the highest amount which could
be awarded against either the contracting carrier or the actual carrier under this Convention,
but none of the persons mentioned shall be liable for a sum in excess of the limit applicable to
that person.
The provisions of Articles 3 to 5, 7 and 8 relating to the documentation of carriage shall not
apply in the case of carriage performed in extraordinary circumstances outside the normal
scope of a carrier's business.
ARTICLE 52 - DEFINITION OF DAYS
The expression "days" when used in this Convention means calendar days, not working days.
ARTICLE 45 - ADDRESSEE OF CLAIMS

In relation to the carriage performed by the actual carrier, an action for damages may be
brought, at the option of the plaintiff, against that carrier or the contracting carrier, or against
both together or separately. If the action is brought against only one of those carriers, that
carrier shall have the right to require the other carrier to be joined in the proceedings, the
procedure and effects being governed by the law of the court seized of the case.
ARTICLE 46 - ADDITIONAL JURISDICTION
Any action for damages contemplated in Article 45 must be brought, at the option of the
plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before a court in which an action
may be brought against the contracting carrier, as provided in Article 33, or before the court
having jurisdiction at the place where the actual carrier has its domicile or its principal place
of business.
ARTICLE 47 - INVALIDITY OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS
Any contractual provision tending to relieve the contracting carrier or the actual carrier of
liability under this Chapter or to fix a lower limit than that which is applicable according to
this Chapter shall be null and void, but the nullity of any such provision does not involve the
nullity of the whole contract, which shall remain subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
ARTICLE 48 - MUTUAL RELATIONS OF CONTRACTING AND ACTUAL
CARRIERS
Except as provided in Article 45, nothing in this Chapter shall affect the rights and obligations
of the carriers between themselves, including any right of recourse or indemnification.
CHAPTER VI - OTHER PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 49 - MANDATORY APPLICATION
Any clause contained in the contract of carriage and all special agreements entered into before
the damage occurred by which the parties purport to infringe the rules laid down by this
Convention, whether by deciding the law to be applied, or by altering the rules as to
jurisdiction, shall be null and void.
ARTICLE 50 - INSURANCE
States Parties shall require their carriers to maintain adequate insurance covering their
liability under this Convention. A carrier may be required by the State Party into which it
operates to furnish evidence that it maintains adequate insurance covering its liability under
this Convention.
A RT I C L E 5 1 - C A R R I A G E P E R F O R M E D I N E X T R A O R D I N A RY
CIRCUMSTANCES
CHAPTER VII - FINAL CLAUSES

ARTICLE 53 - SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE
1. This Convention shall be open for signature in Montreal on 28 May 1999 by States
participating in the International Conference on Air Law held at Montreal from 10 to 28 May
1999. After 28 May 1999, the Convention shall be open to all States for signature at the
headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal until it enters into
force in accordance with paragraph 6 of this Article.
2. This Convention shall similarly be open for signature by Regional Economic Integration
Organisations. For the purpose of this Convention, a "Regional Economic Integration
Organisation" means any organisation which is constituted by sovereign States of a given
region which has competence in respect of certain matters governed by this Convention and
has been duly authorized to sign and to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention. A
reference to a "State Party" or "States Parties" in this Convention, otherwise than in paragraph
2 of Article 1, paragraph 1(b) of Article 3, paragraph (b) of Article 5, Articles 23, 33, 46 and
paragraph (b) of Article 57, applies equally to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation.
For the purpose of Article 24, the references to "a majority of the States Parties" and "onethird of the States Parties" shall not apply to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation.
3. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by States and by Regional Economic
Integration Organisations which have signed it.
4. Any State or Regional Economic Integration Organisation which does not sign this
Convention may accept, approve or accede to it at any time.
5. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the
International Civil Aviation Organization, which is hereby designated the Depositary.
6. This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day following the date of deposit of
the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary
between the States which have deposited such instrument. An instrument deposited by a
Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall not be counted for the purpose of this
paragraph.
7. For other States and for other Regional Economic Integration Organisations, this
Convention shall take effect sixty days following the date of deposit of the instrument of
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
8. The Depositary shall promptly notify all signatories and States Parties of:
(a) each signature of this Convention and date thereof;
(b) each deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and date
thereof;
(c) the date of entry into force of this Convention;
!17
(d) the date of the coming into force of any revision of the limits of liability established under
this Convention;
(a) references in Article 23 to "national currency" shall be construed as referring to the

currency of the relevant territorial unit of that State; and
(e) any denunciation under Article 54.
(b) the reference in Article 28 to "national law" shall be construed as referring to the law of
the relevant territorial unit of that State.
ARTICLE 54 - DENUNCIATION
1. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Depositary.
2. Denunciation shall take effect one hundred and eighty days following the date on which
notification is received by the Depositary.
ARTICLE 55 - RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER WARSAW CONVENTION
INSTRUMENTS
This Convention shall prevail over any rules which apply to international carriage by air:
1. between States Parties to this Convention by virtue of those States commonly being Party
to
(a) the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by
Air signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 (hereinafter called the Warsaw Convention);
(b) the Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to
International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, done at The Hague on 28
September 1955 (hereinafter called The Hague Protocol);
(c) the Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain
Rules relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person other than the
Contracting Carrier, signed at Guadalajara on 18 September 1961 (hereinafter called the
Guadalajara Convention);
ARTICLE 57 - RESERVATIONS
No reservation may be made to this Convention except that a State Party may at any time
declare by a notification addressed to the Depositary that this Convention shall not apply to:
(a) international carriage by air performed and operated directly by that State Party for noncommercial purposes in respect to its functions and duties as a sovereign State; and/or
(b) the carriage of persons, cargo and baggage for its military authorities on aircraft registered
in or leased by that State Party, the whole capacity of which has been reserved by or on behalf
of such authorities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having been duly authorized,
have signed this Convention.
DONE at Montreal on the 28th day of May of the year one thousand nine hundred and ninetynine in the English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish languages, all texts being
equally authentic. This Convention shall remain deposited in the archives of the International
Civil Aviation Organization, and certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by the
Depositary to all States Parties to this Convention, as well as to all States Parties to the
Warsaw Convention, The Hague Protocol, the Guadalajara Convention, the Guatemala City
Protocol and the Montreal Protocols.
[Signatures]
(d) the Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to
International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 as amended by the
Protocol done at The Hague on 28 September 1955, signed at Guatemala City on 8 March
1971 (hereinafter called the Guatemala City Protocol);
DOTC-DTI JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1, S. 2012
(e) Additional Protocol Nos. 1 to 3 and Montreal Protocol No. 4 to amend the Warsaw
Convention as amended by The Hague Protocol or the Warsaw Convention as amended by
both The Hague Protocol and the Guatemala City Protocol, signed at Montreal on 25
September 1975 (hereinafter called the Montreal Protocols); or
JOINT DOTC-DTI ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01

Series of 2012
2. within the territory of any single State Party to this Convention by virtue of that State being
Party to one or more of the instruments referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) above.
ARTICLE 56 - STATES WITH MORE THAN ONE SYSTEM OF LAW
1. If a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law are applicable
in relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it may at the time of signature,
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession declare that this Convention shall extend to all
its territorial units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by
submitting another declaration at any time.
2. Any such declaration shall be notified to the Depositary and shall state expressly the
territorial units to which the Convention applies.
3. In relation to a State Party which has made such a declaration:
Published: December 10, 2012. Latest update: December 11, 2012.
SUBJECT: PROVIDING FOR A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AIR PASSENGERS AND

CARRIER OBLIGATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics
Act of the Philippines, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC),
through the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), is mandated by law to regulate the economic
aspect of aviation, and develop and promote the air potential of the Philippines, with due
regard to public interest and convenience;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of
the Philippines, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is the agency mandated to
protect the consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts or practices and
from misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales promotions, other than those falling
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health;
WHEREAS, the Philippine aviation industry, under a liberalized aviation regime, and
especially with the emerging dominance of low cost carriers, has dramatically expanded, as
!18
shown by the unprecedented and consistent double digit growth rates of domestic and
international travel in the last five (5) years;
WHEREAS, it is the thrust of public policy to encourage the entry of more players in the air
transportation industry and promote greater competition among air carriers, which, in turn
will enhance air service availability and create more options for better, safer, and more
efficient and affordable air transportation, in support of trade, tourism and public
convenience;
WHEREAS, it is equally the objective of public policy to maintain a level playing field in the
air transportation industry, conducive to sound, healthy and fair competition among industry
players, as against disastrous and ruinous competition that can undermine public interest;
WHEREAS, an air carrier ticket constitutes a contract of carriage between an air carrier and a
passenger, whereby the air carrier, for consideration, obligates itself to transport a passenger
by air safely, efficiently and conveniently along a stipulated route at a given date and time,
subject to certain conditions and/or restrictions;
WHEREAS, such a contract of carriage creates an asymmetrical relationship between an air
carrier and a passenger, considering that, while a passenger has the option to buy or not to buy
the service, the decision of the passenger to buy the ticket binds such passenger, by adhesion,
to all the conditions and/or restrictions attached to the air carrier ticket on an all-or-nothing
basis, without any say, whatsoever, with regard to the reasonableness of the individual
conditions and restrictions attached to the air carrier ticket;
WHEREAS, there is a need to infuse a certain measure of balance, fairness and
reasonableness between the precarious position of a passenger vis--vis the vast resources at
the disposal of the air carrier, especially in a liberalized and highly competitive aviation
environment, which, if unfettered can lead to unsound business policies and practices of air
carriers that are prejudicial to the rights and interests of the passengers;
NOW, THEREFORE, this Order is hereby prescribed for the information, guidance, and
compliance of all concerned.
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. TITLE OF REGULATION. This Regulation shall be known and cited as the
Air Passenger Bill of Rights.
SECTION 2. DEFINITION. For the purpose of this Regulation:
2.1 Air Carrier refers to a Philippine-based carrier operating scheduled or non-scheduled
domestic and/or international flights to or from or serving a point within the Philippines, or a
foreign carrier operating scheduled or non-scheduled international flights from the
Philippines. Air carriers are also generally referred to as airlines.
2.2 Baggage is any personal property carried by the passenger, either by check-in or handcarry. Off-loaded Baggage refers to baggage which has been checked in but has either not
been put in or been subsequently removed from the cargo hold of the carrier.
(b) Cancellation by the air carrier after an unduly long delay;

(c) Cancellation by the passenger holding a regular fare/ticket, or a situation deemed
cancelled as contemplated in Section 12.2;
2.4 Check-in deadline refers to the point in time before the published ETD on or before
which a passenger must present himself/herself to the air carrier at the latters check-in
counter, which is usually not less than forty-five (45) minutes before such ETD.
2.5 Check-in period is the time when the air carriers check-in counters are open for
accepting and processing passengers checking in for their flights, which starts at least two (2)
hours before the ETD in international airports and in other airports designated by the DOTC.
In other airports, the check-in period shall start at least one (1) hour before the ETD.
2.6 Confirmed Reserved Seat means a seat on a specific date and on a specific flight and
class of service of a carrier, which has been requested by a passenger, and which the carrier or
its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket, as being reserved for the
accommodation of the passenger.
2.7 Convention refers to the applicable international agreement, convention, or treaty on
carriage of goods or persons by air signed and/or ratified by the Philippines.
2.8 Delay is the result of the deferment of a flight to a later time. Terminal Delay is a
delay that occurs while passengers are still inside the terminal waiting for boarding, while
Tarmac Delay is a delay that occurs while passengers are already on board the aircraft.
2.9 Denied Check-in takes place when a passenger, who has presented himself/herself for
check-in at the appointed area and at the appointed time, is denied or not processed for
boarding a particular flight. Denied Boarding takes place when a passenger, who holds a
confirmed reserved seat, and who has presented himself/herself for carriage at the proper time
and place and fully complied with the carriers check-in and reconfirmation procedures, and
who is acceptable for carriage under the carriers tariff, was not allowed to board the aircraft.
2.10 Fare is payment in consideration for the carriage of a passenger. Regular Fare is any
fare that is offered on a regular basis and does not qualify as promotional fare. Promotional
Fare, which is generally lower than a regular fare, is applied for before, and approved as
such by, the CAB.
2.11 Government requisition of space refers to a formal request by the government or its
agencies to an air carrier company for the use of an aircraft, or any part thereof, for regulatory,
safety, security, and/or emergency purposes.
2.12 No-show is the failure of the passenger to appear at the check-in counter within the
check-in deadline or to show up at the boarding gate at the time indicated on the boarding
pass.
2.13 Overbooking is the practice by air carriers of selling confirmed reserved space beyond
the actual seat capacity of the aircraft.
2.14 Passenger shall refer herein to a person actually travelling by air. A person who is
named in the flight ticket shall be considered a passenger for the purpose of these rules.
2.3 Cancellation is the act of calling off a flight. This shall include the following instances:
2.15 Person with disability or PWD includes those who have long-term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairments, which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder
their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
(a) Cancellation by the air carrier before the estimated time of departure (ETD) with or
without its fault;
2.16 Sales Promotion means techniques intended for broad consumer participation which
contain promises of gain, such as prizes, in cash or in kind, as reward for the purchase of a
!19
product, security, service or winning in a contest, game, tournament, and other similar
competitions which involve determination of winner/s and which utilize mass media and/or
widespread media of information. It also means techniques purely intended to increase the
sales, patronage and/or goodwill of a product.
2.17 Senior citizen refers to any resident citizen of the Philippines at least sixty (60) years
old. Passengers may be asked to present identification documents, in line with Republic Act
No. 9994, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010, and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations, in order to avail of benefits and privileges reserved for
senior citizens.
Section 3. Scope. This Regulation shall apply to all aspects of contracts of carriage for flights
or portions of a flight into, from, and within the territory of the Philippines operated by
Philippine air carriers, and flights or portions of a flight from the territory of the Philippines
operated by foreign air carriers.
Provided, that the compensation rules shall not apply to carriers flying into the territory of the
Philippines, if the laws of the country of origin provide similar or higher compensation.
Otherwise, these rules shall apply in full.
passenger and shall substantially be stated in the following manner and, if done in print, must
be in bold letters:
(English)
NOTICE:
The ticket that you are purchasing is subject to the following conditions/restrictions:
1.
2.
3.
_______________
_______________
_______________
Your purchase of this ticket becomes a binding contract on your part to follow the terms
and conditions of the ticket and of the flight. Depending on the fare rules applicable to
your ticket, non-use of the same may result in forfeiture of the fare or may subject you
to the payment of penalties and additional charges if you wish to change or cancel your
booking.
For more choices and/or control in your flight plans, please consider other fare types.
(Filipino)
CHAPTER II:
RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION BEFORE
PURCHASE
Section 4. Right to Full, Fair, and Clear Disclosure of the Service Offered and All the
Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Carriage. Every passenger shall, before purchasing
any ticket for a contract of carriage by the air carrier or its agents, be entitled to the full, fair,
and clear disclosure of all the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage about to be
purchased. The disclosure shall include, among others, documents required to be presented at
check-in, provisions on check-in deadlines, refund and rebooking policies, and procedures
and responsibility for delayed and/or cancelled flights. These terms and conditions may
include liability limitations, claim-filing deadlines, and other crucial conditions.
4.1 An air carrier shall cause the disclosure under this Section to be printed on or attached to
the passenger ticket and/or boarding pass, or the incorporation of such terms and conditions of
carriage by reference. Incorporation by reference means that the ticket and/or boarding pass
shall clearly state that the complete terms and conditions of carriage are available for perusal
and/or review on the air carriers website, or in some other document that may be sent to or
delivered by post or electronic mail to the passenger upon his/her request.
4.2 The air carrier must also ensure that passengers receive an explanation of key terms
identified on the ticket from any location where the carriers tickets are sold, including travel
agencies. In case of online bookings, the air carrier must establish a system wherein the
purchaser is fully apprised of the required disclosures under this Section twice prior to the
final submission of his/her online offer to purchase.
4.3 Aside from the printing and/or publication of the above disclosures, the same shall
likewise be verbally explained to the passenger by the air carrier and/or its agent/s in English
and Filipino, or in a language that is easily understood by the purchaser, placing emphasis on
the limitations and/or restrictions attached to the ticket.
4.4 The key terms of a contract of carriage, which should include, among others, the
rebooking, refunding, baggage allowance and check-in policies, must be provided to a
PAALALA:
Ang tiket na ito ay binibili ninyo nang may mga kondisyon/ restriksyon:
1.
2.
3.
________________
________________
________________
Sa pagpili at pagbili ng tiket na ito, kayo ay sumasang-ayon sa mga kondisyon at

restriksyon na nakalakip dito, bilang kontrata ninyo sa air carrier. Depende sa
patakarang angkop sa iyong tiket, ang hindi paggamit nito ay maaaring magresulta sa
pagwawalang bisa sa inyong tiket o sa paniningil ng karagdagang bayad kung nais
ninyong baguhin o kanselahin ang inyong tiket.
Para sa mas maraming pagpipilian at malawak na control sa inyong flight,
inaanyayahan kayong bumili ng iba pang klase ng tiket galing sa air carrier.
4.5 Any violation of the afore-stated provisions shall be a ground for the denial of subsequent
applications for approval of promotional fare, or for the suspension or recall of the approval
made on the advertised fare/rate.
Section 5. Right to Clear and Non-Misleading Advertisements of, and Important Reminders
Regarding Fares. Advertisements of fares shall be clear and not misleading.
5.1 Major restrictions, such as those on rebookability or refundability, which may be attached
to certain fare types, shall be disclosed in full and in such a way that the passenger may fully
understand the consequences of purchasing such tickets and the effect of non-use thereof.
5.2 Every air carrier causing the publication of fare advertisements in any medium, shall
likewise disclose the following:
(a) Conditions and restrictions attached to the fare type;
(b) Refund and rebooking policies, if any;
(c) Baggage allowance policies;
(d) Government taxes and fuel surcharges;
(e) Other mandatory fees and charges;
(f) Contact details of the carrier (i.e. phone number, website, e-mail, etc.); and
!20
(g) Other information necessary to apprise the passenger of the conditions and the full/total
price of the ticket purchased.
A passenger who is late in accordance with the preceding paragraph may be denied check-in
and directed to a standby or rebooking counter, as the case may be, for proper processing.
Provided, that, in case of promotional fares, the additional information shall be included:
Any dispute under this Section shall be resolved by the air carrier on-site. For this purpose,
the air carrier must present to the passenger proof, including, but not limited to, closed-circuit
television monitor recordings, processing or number slips issued at the entrance of the checkin area, and other applicable or available means, that the latter failed to appear within the
prescribed time for the check-in procedure.
(h) Number of seats offered on a per sector basis;

(i) The duration of the promo; and
(j) The CAB Approval No. of Fares.
Provided, further, that, where there are differing conditions, such as fuel surcharge in relation
to the points of destinations or origin, the advertisements of these carriers may provide only
the range thereof and not the actual surcharge of each route.
5.3 The above-mentioned required disclosures shall occupy not less than one-third (1/3) of the
advertising material. A copy of the same shall be printed on or attached to the ticket in
English and Filipino.
In the case of broadcast media, it shall be enough that the air carrier and/or advertising agent
incorporate the foregoing terms and conditions by reference, as provided for in Section 4.1.
Section 6. Right Against Misleading and Fraudulent Sales Promotion Practices. Consistent
with the declared policy of the State to protect the interests of the consumers, which includes
protection from misleading and fraudulent sales promotion practices, all sales promotion
campaigns and activities of air carriers shall be carried out with honesty, transparency and
fairness, and in accordance with the requirements of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Air carriers shall provide to DTI a copy of its promotional materials for post audit not later
than the publication, release, or launch date whichever is earlier.
It is understood that professional authorities for those engaged in advertising, sales and
promotion may impose additional standards or measures to regulate their industry.
CHAPTER III - RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE FULL VALUE OF THE SERVICE
PURCHASED
SECTION 7. RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION AND BAGGAGE CONVEYANCE. Every
passenger is entitled to transportation, baggage conveyance and ancillary services, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of contract of carriage with the air carrier. Thus, any
violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage due to the fault or negligence
of the air carrier shall entitle the passenger to compensation or alternative arrangements, as
provided in this Air Passenger Bill of Rights, which are acceptable to the passenger.
SECTION 8. RIGHT TO BE PROCESSED FOR CHECK-IN. In accordance with the usual
air carrier procedures, a passenger holding a confirmed ticket, whether promotional or regular,
with complete documentary requirements, and who has complied with the check-in
procedures, shall be processed accordingly at the check-in counter within the check-in
deadline. The airline shall, therefore, and subject to infrastructure limitations, clearly
designate the boundaries of its assigned check-in area/s or counter/s.
A passenger within the air carriers cordoned or other designated check-in area as herein
defined at least one (1) hour before the published ETD shall not be considered late or a noshow, and shall not be denied check-in. The carrier shall exert utmost diligence in ensuring
that passengers within the cordoned or other designated check-in area and/or lined up at the
check-in counters are checked in for their flights before the check-in deadline.
SECTION 9. RIGHT TO SUFFICIENT PROCESSING TIME. Passengers shall be given

enough time before the published ETD within which to go through the check-in and final
security processes. For this purpose, air carriers operating in international airports and in other
airports designated by the DOTC shall open their check-in counters in such airports at least
two (2) hours before the ETD. In other airports, air carriers shall open their check-in counters
at least one (1) hour before the ETD.
9.1 Air carriers operating in international airports and in other airports designated by the
DOTC shall open a separate dedicated counter for a flight nearing check-in deadline to
facilitate the checking in of passengers at least one (1) hour before the published ETD.
9.2 To ensure that PWDs and senior citizens shall have equal access to air transportation
services, air carriers shall at all times and in all instances adhere to the mandate of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 344, otherwise known as An Act to Enhance the Mobility of Disabled Persons
by Requiring Certain Buildings, Institutions, Establishments and Public Utilities to Install
Facilities and Other Devices, the provisions of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010, and
other related laws. Accordingly, an air carrier shall designate at least one (1) check-in counter
which will prioritize PWDs, senior citizens, and persons requiring special assistance or
handling. If this is not practicable, the air carrier shall instead provide for priority handling
and processing of such passengers. The air carrier shall likewise coordinate with the
appropriate authorities for the use of proper airport equipment, entryways, and/or aerobridges,
as the case may be, when the same are available, to facilitate transactions, movement,
boarding, and/or disembarkation of PWDs, senior citizens, and/or persons requiring special
equipment, at the airport.
Persons accompanying a PWD, a senior citizen, or a person requiring special assistance or
handling should also be accommodated at the designated check-in counter mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. It is the duty of an air carrier or its authorized agent to inform its
passengers if additional costs will be incurred for the use of facilities designed for passengers
needing special assistance in airports located in other countries.
It is the responsibility of a PWD to declare his/her need for special assistance or handling to
the airline, upon booking his/her flight. If the PWD fails to do so, the airline may not be held
liable for any services it was not able to provide the passenger and/or for any additional costs
incurred for the use of special assistance facilities.
SECTION 10. RIGHT TO BOARD AIRCRAFT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FLIGHT. A
passenger checked in for a particular flight has the right to board the aircraft for the purpose
of flight, except when there is legal or other valid cause, such as, but not limited to,
immigration issues, safety and security, health concerns, non-appearance at the boarding gate
at the appointed boarding time, or government requisition of space as provided for in Section
10.2. Other than these causes, no passenger may be denied boarding without his/her consent.
10.1 While it is an accepted practice for an air carrier to overbook its flights, any
expense, consequence, or inconvenience caused to affected passengers must be borne by
the air carrier, as follows:
!21
(a) The air carrier shall determine the number of passengers in excess of the actual seat
capacity of the aircraft.
(b) The air carrier shall announce that the flight is overbooked, and that it is looking for
volunteers willing to give up their seats in exchange for air carrier compensation.
(c) The air carrier shall provide the interested passengers or volunteers a list of
amenities and offers, which they can choose from, which list of amenities shall always
include the option to be given priority booking in the next flight with available space or
to be endorsed to another air carrier upon payment of any fare difference, and provided
that space and other circumstances permit such accommodation, at the option of the
passenger, and/or a cash incentive.
(d) In case the number of volunteers is not enough to resolve the overbooking, the air
carrier shall increase the compensation package by certain degrees or by adding more
amenities/services until the required number of volunteers is met.
10.2 Government agencies and/or officials wanting to acquire aircraft space for official
government purposes shall submit a written request justifying the requisition to the CAB,
which shall then make the request to the air carrier concerned, detailing:
(a) The number, identities, and affiliation of the persons requesting for space;
(b) The date and time (if applicable) of the flight; and
(c) The destination.
Should government requisition result in passengers having to forego their confirmed space,
the air carrier shall look for volunteers in accordance with Section 10.1.
(c) Reimbursement of the value of the fare, including taxes and surcharges, of the sector
cancelled, or both/all sectors, in case the passenger decides not to fly the ticket or all the
routes/sectors; or
(d) Be endorsed to another air carrier without paying any fare difference, at the option of the
passenger, and provided that space and other circumstances permit such re-accommodation;
or
(e) Rebook the ticket, without additional charge, to the next flight with available space, or,
within thirty (30) days, to a future trip within the period of validity of the ticket. However, for
rebooking made in excess of the aforementioned thirty (30) days for a trip likewise within the
validity of the ticket, fees and/or fare difference shall apply.
Provided, that in case a carrier cancels a flight at least twenty-four (24) hours before the ETD,
it shall not be liable for the foregoing amenities, except, it shall be obliged to notify the
passenger, and, in accordance with the preceding provisions, to rebook or reimburse the
passenger, at the option of the latter.
11.2 In case the air carrier cancels the flight because of force majeure, safety and/or security
reasons, as certified by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, a passenger shall have
the right to be reimbursed for the full value of the fare.
11.3 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of
cancellation, and shall not prohibit the air carrier from granting more favourable conditions or
recourses, as it may deem appropriate.
Provided, that the air carrier shall have the right to claim from the requesting government
entity the full-fare value of the seats requisitioned by the latter.
SECTION 12. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION AND AMENITIES IN CASE OF FLIGHT

DELAY AND EXCEPTIONS THERETO. 12.1 In case of Terminal Delay of at least three (3)
hours after the ETD, whether or not such is attributable to the carrier, a passenger shall have
the right to:
10.3 The settling of compensation for passengers pursuant to this Section shall not be an
excuse for the undue delay of the flights ETD.
(a) Be provided with refreshments or meals (sufficient snacks, breakfast, lunch, or dinner, as
the case may be), free phone calls, text or e-mails, and first aid, if necessary; and
CHAPTER IV
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
(b) Rebook or refund his/her ticket in accordance with the preceding Section or be endorsed
to another carrier, in accordance with the preceding Section.
SECTION 11. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION AND AMENITIES IN CASE OF

CANCELLATION OF FLIGHT. In case of cancellation of flights, the following shall be
observed:
12.2 In case such Terminal Delay extends to at least six (6) hours after the ETD for causes
attributable to the carrier, it shall be deemed cancelled for the purpose of making available to
the passenger the rights and amenities required to be provided in case of actual cancellation,
as provided for in Section 11.1; and in addition, an affected passenger shall be given the
following:
11.1 In case of flight cancellation attributable to the carrier, a passenger shall have the right
to:
(a) Additional compensation equivalent to at least the value of the sector delayed or deemed
cancelled to be paid in the form of cash or voucher, at the discretion of the air carrier; and
(a) Be notified beforehand via public announcement, written/published notice and flight status
update service (text);
(b) The right to board the flight if it takes place more than six (6) hours after the ETD and the
affected passenger has not opted to rebook and/or refund. For this purpose, the air carrier is
obliged to exert all efforts to contact the passenger for the flight.
(b) Be provided with the following, if he/she is already at the airport at the time of the
announcement of the flight cancellation: sufficient refreshments or meals (e.g. snacks
consisting of at least a bottle of water and a sandwich, or breakfast, lunch, or dinner, or a
voucher for the same, as the case may be); hotel accommodation (conveniently accessible
from the airport); transportation from the airport to the hotel, v.v.; free phone calls, text or emails, and first aid, if necessary; and
12.3 A passenger shall likewise have the right to be provided with sufficient food and
beverage, in cases of Tarmac Delay of at least two (2) hours after the ETD, reckoned from the
closing of the aircraft doors, or when the aircraft is at the gate with the doors still open but
passengers are not allowed to deplane.
!22
12.4 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of
delay and shall not prohibit the air carrier from granting more favourable conditions or
recourses, as it may deem appropriate.
SECTION 13. COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 10 AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.
The compensation provided in Section 10, if accepted by the passenger, shall constitute
liquidated damages for all damages incurred by the passenger as a result of the air carriers
failure to provide the passenger with a confirmed reserved seat.
Provided that, while a confirmed reservation is necessary to make a passenger eligible for
compensation, a written confirmation issued by the air carrier or its authorized agent qualifies
the passenger in this regard, even if the air carrier cannot find the reservation in the electronic
records, as long as the passenger did not cancel the reservation or miss a reconfirmation
deadline.
SECTION 14. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR DELAYED, LOST, AND DAMAGED
BAGGAGE. A passenger shall have the right to have his/her baggage carried on the same
flight that such passenger takes, subject to considerations of safety, security, or any other legal
and valid cause.
14.1 In case a checked-in baggage has been off-loaded for operational, safety, or security
reasons, the air carrier shall inform the passenger at the soonest practicable time and in such
manner that the passenger will readily know of the off-loading (i.e. that his/her baggage has
been off-loaded and the reason therefor). If the passengers baggage has been off-loaded, the
air carrier should make the appropriate report and give the passenger a copy thereof, even if it
had already announced that the baggage would be on the next flight.
The air carrier shall carry the off-loaded baggage in the next flight with available space, and
deliver the same to the passenger either personally or at his/her residence. For every twentyfour (24) hours of delay in such delivery, the air carrier shall tender an amount of Two
Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) to the passenger, as compensation for the inconvenience the
latter experienced. A fraction of a day shall be considered as one day for purposes of
calculating the compensation.
For the purposes of this section, the twenty four (24)-hour period shall commence one (1)
hour from the arrival of the flight of the passenger carrying such baggage.
14.2 Should such baggage, whether carried on the same or a later flight, be lost or suffer any
damage attributable to the air carrier, the passenger shall be compensated in the following
manner:
(a) For international flights, the relevant convention shall apply.
(b) For domestic flights, upon proof, a maximum amount equivalent to half of the amount in
the relevant convention (for international flights) in its Peso equivalent.
14.3 For compensation purposes, a passengers baggage is presumed to have been
permanently and totally lost, if within a period of seven (7) days, counted from the time the
passenger or consignee should have received the same, the baggage is not delivered to said
passenger or consignee.
SECTION 15. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN CASE OF DEATH OR BODILY INJURY
OF A PASSENGER. For international flights, in case of death or bodily injury sustained by a
passenger, the relevant Convention and inter-carrier agreement shall apply. However, for an
international carriage performed under the 1966 Montreal Inter-Carrier Agreement, which
includes a point in the United States of America as a point of origin, a point of destination or
agreed stopping place, the limit of liability for each passenger for death, wounding or other
bodily injury shall be the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand United States Dollars (US
$75,000.00), inclusive of legal fees and costs. Provided, in the case of a claim brought in a
state where a provision is made for a separate award for legal fees and costs, the limit shall be
the sum of Fifty-Eight Thousand United States Dollars (US$58,000.00), exclusive of legal
fees and costs.
For domestic flights, the compensation shall be based on the stipulated amount in the relevant
convention which governs international flights, the same to be given in Peso denominations.
SECTION 16. RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. An air carrier
liable for any and all compensations provided by these rules shall make the same available to
the affected passenger at the air carriers counters at the airport on the date when the occasion
entitling the passenger to compensation occurred, or at the main office or any branch of the
air carrier at the discretion of the passenger. The air carrier shall tender a check for the amount
specified, or cash, or the document necessary to claim the compensation or benefits
mentioned above; Provided, that such document shall be convertible to cash within fifteen
(15) days from the date when the occasion entitling the passenger to such compensation
occurred.
CHAPTER V- ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
SECTION 17. AIR CARRIER AND CAB COMPLAINT AND ASSISTANCE DESKS. Air
carriers shall provide Customer Service Representatives who can address common problems,
such as arranging for meals and hotel rooms for stranded passengers, settling denied boarding
compensation, arranging luggage resolutions, and settling other routine claims or complaints,
on the spot. In addition, the CAB may provide Complaints and Assistance Desks in all
airports. These shall be manned by CAB or CAB-deputized personnel, who shall assist
passengers whose rights to the service have not been fully satisfied by the air carrier. The said
personnel shall assist in the filing and prosecution of the complaints of passengers whose
rights have been violated and who wish to go after the concerned air carriers.
SECTION 18. REFUND OF OTHER FEES. Every air carrier must refund checked baggage
fees and other optional service fees (i.e. insurance, donation to WWF, seat selector fee, etc.),
if the passenger did not use his/her ticket provided, that the said ticket is refundable and that
the passenger is not at fault. Provided, further, that refund of checked baggage fees will also
apply, if the baggage was not delivered to the passenger within twenty-four (24) hours from
the arrival of flight, on top of the compensation fee as mentioned in Section 14.1.
SECTION 19. WRITTEN REPORTS. Air carriers shall submit a monthly report to the CAB
on the following:
(a) The number of regular and promotional fare passengers who have been denied boarding,
or whose flights were delayed or cancelled;
(b) The number of regular and promotional fare passengers whose baggage was lost,
damaged, or off-loaded; and
(c) The number of regular and promotional fare passengers who died or sustained an injury
during the course of the flight or performance of the contract of carriage, as well as the
reasons and other circumstances of such occurrences.
Provided, that the air carriers shall maintain a database containing the names, addresses, and/
or other particulars of such passengers, their flights, concerns or complaints, as well as
!23
records of the air carriers personnel regarding the same, if any, and other pertinent
information, available to the CAB upon request.
CHAPTER VI - FINAL PROVISIONS
ER: Spouses engaged a phil agency and KLM to fix and take care of their itinerary on a Euro
trip, on the way to Lourdes. KLM agreed, also contracting different airlines to bring the
couple and 2 wards (niece and daughter). In the Barcelona part of their trip, binastos sila.
They were off-loaded, and told Coos! Ignorantes Filipinos! They had to take the train,
doubling their expenses.
SECTION 20. PERIODIC REVIEW. This Order shall be reviewed periodically by an interagency body consisting of representatives from the DOTC, the DTI, the CAB, and airport
operators, in consultation with the air carrier companies and/or other directly affected
stakeholders. Such review may include the assessment, modification, removal, and/or update
of provisions in accordance with issues arising from the implementation of this Order.
ISSUE: WON KLM is liable? YES!

Their contract is with KLM, and not with the airlines. Warsaw convention not applicable
because it contemplates accident or delay, which was not the case here. The provisions of
the ticket cannot limit the liability of KLM as these was so small, and they didnt make the
spouses understand or even read thesewhich was their responsibility.
SECTION 21. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. If any section(s) or any part of this Regulation is
declared unconstitutional by a competent authority, the remaining sections or parts thereof
shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 22. REPEALING CLAUSE. All other orders, guidelines, economic regulations,
and other issuances of the CAB, the DTI and the DOTC, which are inconsistent with
these provisions, are hereby amended, repealed or modified accordingly. Otherwise,
provisions not deemed inconsistent shall be of suppletory application.
SECTION 23. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. All violations of this Joint Administrative
Order shall be penalized in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Civil Aeronautics
Act of the Philippines, save for violations pertaining to Sections 5 and 6 which are governed
by the relevant provisions of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, the implementing agency
of which is DTI.
SECTION 24. EFFECTIVITY. This Regulation shall take effect ten (10) days after its
publication in a newspaper of general application. A copy of this Regulation shall be
deposited with the University of the Philippines Law Center in compliance with Revised
Administrative Code.
APPROVED, 10 December 2012.
CASES
1 KLM V. CA, 65 SCRA 237 NARVASA
KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSHAPPIJ N.V., otherwise known as KLM ROYAL
DUTCH AIRLINES vs. CA Narvasa
CC
KLM/Aer Lingus
Passenger
Spouses Mendoza
Problem
Spouses were off loaded in their Barcelona leg of the trip, and had to
take the train. Ignorates Filipinos
Who Won
Mendozas
Facts:
Spouses Mendoza approached Tirso Reyes for consultations about a world tour
which they were intending to make with their daughter and a niece.
Manager of a branch of the Philippine Travel Bureau, a travel agency.
o
Reyes submitted to them, after preliminary discussions, a tentative itinerary which

prescribed a trip of 35 legs;
Spouses Mendoza would fly on different airlines. Three segments of the
o
trip, the longest, would be via KLM.
Spouses Mendoza expressed a desire to visit Lourdes, France, and discussed
o
with Reyes two alternate routes, namely, Paris to Lourdes and Barcelona to
Lourdes.
Spouses Mendoza decided on the Barcelona-Lourdes route with
o
knowledge that only one airline, Aer Lingus, serviced it.
The Philippine Travel Bureau to which Reyes was accredited was an agent for
international air carriers which are members of the International Air Transport
Association, popularly known as the "IATA," of which both the KLM and the Aer
Lingus are members.
Spouses Mendoza approved the itinerary prepared for them, and asked Reyes to
make the necessary plane reservations.
Reyes went to the KLM, for which Spouses Mendoza had expressed preference.
The KLM thereafter secured seat reservations for Spouses Mendoza and their
o
two companions from the carriers which would ferry them throughout their
trip, with the exception of Aer Lingus.
When Spouses Mendoza left the Philippines (without their young wards
o
who had enplaned much earlier), they were issued KLM tickets for their
entire trip. However, their coupon for the Aer Lingus portion was
marked "RQ" which meant "on request".
After whole fam toured in American and European cities, Spouses Mendoza
arrived in Frankfurt, Germany. They went to a KLM office there and obtained a
confirmation from Aer Lingus of seat reservations on flight 861.
After meandering in London, Paris and Lisbon, the foursome finally took wing to
Barcelona for their trip to Lourdes, France.
Spouces Mendoza with their wards went to the Barcelona airport to take their
plane which arrived at 4:00 o'clock.
At the airport, the manager of Aer Lingus directed Spouces Mendoza to check in.
They did so as instructed and were accepted for passage.
However, although their daughter and niece were allowed to take the plane,
o
Spouses Mendoza were off-loaded on orders of the Aer Lingus manager who
brusquely shoved them aside with the aid of a policeman and who shouted at
them, "Conos! Ignorantes Filipinos!"
Mrs. Mendoza later called up the manager of Aer Lingus and requested that they
provide her and her husband means to get to Lourdes, but the request was denied.
A stranger, however, advised them to take a train, which the two did;
despite the third class accommodations and lack of food service, they reached
o
Lourdes the following morning.
During the train trip Spouses Mendoza had to suffer draft winds as they wore only
minimum clothing, their luggage having gone ahead with the Aer Lingus plane.
They spent $50 for that train trip; their plane passage was worth $43.35.
o
Spouses Mendoza, referring to KLM as the principal of Aer Lingus, filed a

complaint for damages with the CFI arising from breach of contract of carriage
and for the humiliating treatment received by them.
TC awarded damages to Spouces Mendoza as follows:
o
$43.35 or its peso equivalent as actual damages, P10,000 as moral
damages, P5,000 as exemplary damages, and P5,000 as attorney's
fees, and expenses of litigation.
CA: "Appellant KLM is condemned to pay unto the plaintiffs the sum of
o
$43.35 as actual damages; P50,000 as moral damages; and P6,000 as
attorney's fees and costs."
ISSUE:
1.
2.
3.
4.
WON the tickets issued is subject to the Warsaw Convention?

WON recourse can be had on KLM and not Aer Lingus only?
WON there is one single contract with KLM or numerous contracts with all
the carriers?
WON the print on the ticket limits the liability of KLM?
WON the tickets issued is subject to the Warsaw Convention? NO

ART. 30. (1)
In the case of transportation to be performed by various successive
carriers and failing within the definition set out in the third paragraph of Article I, each carrier
who accepts passengers, baggage, or goods shall be subject to the rules set out in the
convention, and shall be deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of
transportation insofar as the contract deals with that part of transportation which is performed
under his supervision.
The applicability insisted upon by the KLM of article 30 of the Warsaw

Convention cannot be sustained.
That article presupposes the occurrence of either an accident or a delay, neither of
which took place at the Barcelona airport; what is here manifest, instead, is that the Aer
Lingus, through its manager there, refused to transport Spouces Mendoza to their
planned and contracted destination.
WON the print on the ticket limits the liability of KLM? NO
!24
The argument that the KLM should not be held accountable for the tortious conduct of
Aer Lingus because of the provision printed on Spouses Mendoza' tickets expressly
limiting the KLM's liability for damages only to occurrences on its own lines is
unacceptable.
The condition was printed in letters so small that one would have to use a
magnifying glass to read the words.
Under the circumstances, it would be unfair and inequitable to charge Spouses
Mendoza with automatic knowledge or notice of the said condition so as to preclude
any doubt that it was fairly and freely agreed upon by Spouses Mendoza when they
accepted the passage tickets issued to them by the KLM.
KLM had the duty and responsibility of specifically informing Spouses Mendoza of
conditions prescribed in their tickets or, in the very least, to ascertain that Spouses
Mendoza read them before they accepted their passage tickets.
KLM officials or employees failed to do so.
Spouses Mendoza cannot be bound by the provision in question by which KLM
unilaterally assumed the role of a mere ticket-issuing agent for other airlines and limited
its liability only to untoward occurrences on its own lines.
WON recourse can be had on KLM and not Aer Lingus only?
WON there is one single contract with KLM or numerous contracts with all the
carriers?
The passage tickets of Spouses Mendoza provide that the carriage to be performed
thereunder by several successive carriers "is to be regarded as a single
operation."
Opposite if KLMs theory of a series of independent contracts with the
o
carriers which took them on the various segments of their trip. This
position of KLM we reject.
Spouses Mendoza dealt exclusively with the KLM which issued them tickets
for their entire trip and which in effect guaranteed to them that they would
have sure space in Aer Lingus flight 861.
Spouses Mendoza, under that assurance of the internationally prestigious KLM,
naturally had the right to expect that their tickets would be honored by Aer Lingus
to which, in the legal sense, the KLM had indorsed and in effect guaranteed the
performance of its principal engagement to carry out Spouses Mendoza' scheduled
itinerary previously and mutually agreed upon between the parties.
The breach of that guarantee was aggravated by the discourteous and highly arbitrary
conduct of an official of the Aer Lingus which the KLM had engaged to transport
Spouces Mendoza on the Barcelona-Lourdes segment of their itinerary. It is but just and
in full accord with the policy expressly embodied in our civil law which enjoins courts to be
more vigilant for the protection of a contracting party who occupies an inferior position with
respect to the other contracting party, that the KLM should be held responsible for the abuse,
injury and embarrassment suffered by Spouses Mendoza at the hands of a supercilious boor of
the Aer Lingus.
CA Affirmed.
2 PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. IAC, 164 SCRA 268 -PEREZ
DE TAGLE
!25
CC
Pan American World Airways
Passenger
Pangan, president and general manager of the Sotang Bastos and

Archer Productions
Problem
when Pangan arrived in Guam, he found that his luggage was not on
the plane. Luggage contained the promo materials he was going to
supply to a company in Guam.
Who Won
Pangan, but CA erred in affirming the trial court's award of actual

damages beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the Warsaw
Convention and the contract of carriage
Doctrine: A stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a specified
amount is valid if the passenger did not DECLARE a higher value, much less pay additional
charges.
ER: Facts: Pangan contracted with Prime Films in California and Hafa Adai in Guam to
supply certain films and provide promotional and advertising materials. Pursuant to the
agreements he spent P12900 to prepare the promotional materials, and P4400 for bags, lamps,
and barong tagalogs. Pangan bought economy tickets from Pan Am Manila office for
passage from Manila to Guam. When he was about to fly out, the airline informed him that
his name was not on the manifest for economy class. Therefore, he spent an additional
$112 to purchase first class tickets in order to comply with his agreements. However, when
he arrived in Guam, he found that his luggage was not on the plane.
As such, his agreements with Prime Films and Hafa Adai were cancelled. Sued Pan Am. Won
at the CFI which ordered Pan Am to pay over P91,000 total to Pangan. IAC affirmed.
Pertinent Issue: WON the respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the
trial court's award of actual damages beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the
Warsaw Convention and the contract of carriage. (Yes, COURT ERRED)
HELD:
Ticket had a clear stipulation limiting the liability of Pan Am to $20 per kilo. In the case
of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223), the Court
sustained the validity of a printed stipulation at the back of an airline ticket limiting the
liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a specified amount and ruled that the carriers
liability was limited to said amount since the passenger did not declare a higher value,
much less pay additional charges.
The ruling in Ong Yiu squarely applicable to the instant case. Herein, on the basis of the
stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, Pan Ams liability for the lost baggage of
Pangan is limited to $600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not declare a higher
value for his baggage and pay the corresponding additional charges. Pangan did not
declare any higher value for his luggage, much less did he pay any additional
transportation charge.
1! Ang Mabait, Masungit at ang Pangit, Big Happening with Chikiting and Iking, and Kambal Dragon
The Court of Appeals reliance on a quotation from Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca [G.R.
No. L- 22425, August 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 1063] to sustain the view that to apply the Warsaw
Convention which limits a carriers liability to US$9.07 per pound or US$20.00 per kilo in
cases of contractual breach of carriage is against public policy is utterly misplaced.
The Court never intended to, and in fact never did, rule against the validity of
provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Consequently, by no stretch of the imagination
may said quotation from Northwest be considered as supportive of the appellate courts
statement that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention limited a carriers liability are
against public policy.
Facts:
Pangan, president and general manager of the Sotang Bastos and Archer Productions,
while in San Francisco, California and Primo Quesada of Prime Films, San Francisco,
California, entered into an agreement whereby the former bound himself to supply
the latter with three films1 and to provide the necessary promotional and
advertising materials for said films on or before 30 May 1978.
On his way home to the Philippines, Pangan visited Guam where he contacted Leo
Slutchnick of the Hafa Adai Organization.
Pangan likewise entered into a verbal agreement with Slutchnick for the exhibition
of two of the films at the Hafa Adai Theater in Guam on 30 May 1978 for the
consideration of P7,000.00 per picture. He also undertook to provide the necessary
promotional and advertising materials for said films on or before the exhibition date on
30 May 1978.
By virtue of the agreements, Pangan caused the preparation of the requisite promotional
handbills and still pictures for which he paid the total sum of P12,900.00.
Likewise in preparation for his trip abroad to comply with his contracts, Pangan
purchased 14 clutch bags, 4 capiz lamps and 4 barong tagalog, with a total value of
P4,400.00.
On 18 May 1978, Pangan obtained from Pan Ams Manila Office, through the Your
Travel Guide (travel office), an economy class airplane ticket 0269207406324 for
passage from Manila to Guam on Pan Ams Flight 842 of 27 May 1978, upon payment
by Pangan of the regular fare.
On 27 May 1978, 2 hours before departure time Pangan was at Pan Ams ticket
counter at the Manila International Airport and presented his ticket and checked
in his two luggages, for which he was given baggage claim tickets 963633 and 963649.
The two luggages contained the promotional and advertising materials, the
o
clutch bags, barong tagalog and his personal belongings.
Subsequently, Pangan was informed that his name was not in the manifest and so
he could not take Flight 842 in the economy class. Since there was no space in the
economy class, Pangan took the first class because he wanted to be on time in
Guam to comply with his commitment, paying an additional sum of $112.00.
When Pangan arrived in Guam on the date of 27 May 1978, his two luggages did
not arrive with his flight, as a consequence of which his agreements with
Slutchnick and Quesada for the exhibition of the films in Guam and in the United
States were cancelled.
Thereafter, he filed a written claim for his missing luggages. Upon arrival in the
Philippines, Pangan contacted his lawyer, who made the necessary representations to
protest as to the treatment which he received from the employees of Pan Am and the
!26
loss of his two luggages. Pan Am assured Pangan that his grievances would be
investigated and given its immediate consideration.
Due to Pan Ams failure to communicate with Pangan about the action taken on his
protests, a complaint was filed by Pangan.
CFI DECISION: found Pan Am liable and
(1) ordered Pan Am to pay Pangan, et. al. the sum of P83,000.00, for actual
o
damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from 6 December
1978, when the complaint was filed, until the same is fully paid, plus the further
sum of P10,000.00 as attorneys fees;
(2) ordered Pan Am to pay Pangan the sum of P8,123.34, for additional actual
o
damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from 6 December
1978, until the same is fully paid;
(3) dismissed the counterclaim interposed by Pan-Am; and
o
(4) ordered Pan-Am to pay the costs of suit.
o
IAC DECISION: affirmed the trial court decision.
Ong Yiu case applicable
In the case of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91
SCRA 223), the Court sustained the validity of a printed stipulation at the back of an
airline ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a specified amount
and ruled that the carriers liability was limited to said amount since the passenger did
not declare a higher value, much less pay additional charges.
The ruling in Ong Yiu squarely applicable to the instant case. Herein, on the basis of
the stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, Pan Ams liability for the lost baggage
of Pangan is limited to $600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not declare a higher
value for his baggage and pay the corresponding additional charges. Pangan did not
declare any higher value for his luggage, much less did he pay any additional
transportation charge.
Provisions in plane ticket a contract of adhesion; Contracts of adhesion not entirely

prohibited
Issue:
1.
W/N the respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's
award of actual damages beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the Warsaw
Convention and the contract of carriage. (YES)
While it may be true that Pangan had not signed the plane ticket (Article 1750), he is
nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. Such provisions have been held to be a
part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of
the latters lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation.
2.
It is what is known as a contract of adhesion, in regards which it has been said that
contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract
on the other, as the plane ticket, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one
who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he
gives his consent.
And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines (103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E. 2d 878)
and Rosenchein v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (349 S.W. 2d 483), a contract limiting
liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the law
forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.
W/N the respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's award of
actual damages consisting of alleged lost profits in the face of this Court's ruling
concerning special or consequential damages as set forth in Mendoza v. Philippine
Airlines [90 Phil. 836 (1952).] (YES)
Held: The Supreme Court granted the Petition, set aside the Decision of the Intermediate
Appellate Court, and rendered a new judgment ordering Pan Am to pay Pangan damages in
the amount of US$600.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual
payment.
Ratio:
Shewaram case not applicable
ISSUE 1 (IMPORTANT)
The ruling in Shewaram v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [G.R. No. L-20099, July 2, 1966,
17 SCRA 606], where the Court held that the stipulation limiting the carriers liability
to a specified amount was invalid, finds no application in the instant case, as the ruling
in said case was premised on the finding that the conditions printed at the back of the
ticket were so small and hard to read that they would not warrant the presumption that
the passenger was aware of the conditions and that he had freely and fairly agreed
thereto.
Herein, similar facts that would make the case fall under the exception have not been
alleged, much less shown to exist.
Pertinent Condition of Carriage printed at the back of the ticket
2. Carriage hereunder is subject to the rules and limitations relating to liability

established by the Warsaw Convention unless such carriage is not "international
carriage" as defined by that Convention.
Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher
value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1)for most international
travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately
$9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kilo) for checked baggage
and $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage
On the basis of the foregoing stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, petitioner
contends that its liability for the lost baggage of private respondent Pangan is limited to
$600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not declare a higher value for his
baggage and pay the corresponding additional charges. (IT IS CORRECT)
Clarification of the Northwest Airlines case which was relied upon by the Court of
Appeals
The CAs reliance on a quotation from Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca [G.R. No. L22425, August 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 1063] to sustain the view that to apply the Warsaw
Convention which limits a carriers liability to US$9.07 per pound or US$20.00 per
kilo in cases of contractual breach of carriage is against public policy is utterly
misplaced.
!27
The Court never intended to, and in fact never did, rule against the validity of
provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Consequently, by no stretch of the
imagination may said quotation from Northwest be considered as supportive of
the appellate courts statement that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention
limited a carriers liability are against public policy.
ISSUE 2 (DAMAGES, NOT WARSAW)
The evidence reveals that the proximate cause of the cancellation of the contracts was
Pangans failure to deliver the promotional and advertising materials on the dates
agreed upon. For this, Pan Am cannot be held liable.
Pangan had not declared the value of the two luggages he had checked in and paid
additional charges.
Neither was Pan Am privy to Pangans contracts nor was its attention called to the
condition therein requiring delivery of the promotional and advertising materials on or
before a certain date.
Pan Am not liable for lost profits when film showing contracts were cancelled; Mendoza
vs. PAL
The Court finds itself unable to agree with the decision of the trial court, and affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, awarding Pangan damages as and for lost profits when their
contracts to show the films in Guam and San Francisco, California were cancelled.
The rule laid down in Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [90 Phil. 836 (1952)]
cannot be any clearer: Under Art. 1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith may
be held liable only for damages that were foreseen or might have been foreseen at the
time the contract of transportation was entered into.
Herein, in the absence of a showing that Pan Ams attention was called to the special
circumstances requiring prompt delivery of Pangans luggages, Pan Am cannot be held
liable for the cancellation of Pangans contracts as it could not have foreseen such an
eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.
Award of attorneys fees lost support

With the Courts holding that Pan Ams liability is limited to the amount stated in the ticket,
the award of attorneys fees, which is grounded on the alleged unjustified refusal of petitioner
to satisfy Pangans just and valid claim, loses support and must be set aside.
3 NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. CUENCA, 14 SCRA 1063 RAZON
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NICOLAS L. CUENCA and COURT
OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION), respondents.
DOCTRINE: Articles 17, 18 and 192 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 merely declare the
air carriers liable for damages in the cases enumerated therein, if the conditions specified are
present. Neither the provisions of said articles nor others regulate or exclude liability for
other breaches of contract by the air carriers.
Requisite for liability for special damages; Chapman vs. Fargo, L.R.A. (1918 F, p. 1049)
Before defendant could be held to special damages such as the present alleged loss of
profits on account of delay or failure of delivery it must have appeared that he had
notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular circumstances attending the
shipment and which probably would lead to such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the
rule has been stated in another form in order to impose on the defaulting party further
liability than for damages naturally and directly i.e., in the ordinary course of things
arising from a breach of contract such unusual or extraordinary damages must have
been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of breach at
the time of or prior to contracting. Generally notice then of any special circumstances
which will show that the damages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced
has been held sufficient far this effect. The attention of the common carrier must be
called to the nature of the articles shipped, the purpose of shipment, and the desire to
rush the shipment.
Proximate cause of the cancellation of the contracts
CC
Northwest Airlines
Passenger
Nicolas Cuenca
Problem
Having boarded Northwest's plane in Manila with a first class ticket

to Tokyo, Cuenca was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to the
tourist class compartment.
Who Won
Cuenca
EMERGENCY DIGEST:
Cuenca purchased a first class ticket to Tokyo, Japan. From Manila to Okinawa, he was
at the first class section.
2! ART. 17. The carrier shall be liable for damages sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft
or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

ART. 18. (1) The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any checked baggage, or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the transportation
by air.
(2) The transportation by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph shall comprise the period during which the baggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in an airport or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an
airport, in any place whatsoever.
(3) The period of the transportation by air shall not extend to any transportation by land, by sea, or by river performed outside an airport. If, however, such transportation takes place in the performance of a contract for transportation by air,
for the purpose of loading, delivery, or transhipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an event which took place during the transportation by air.
ART. 19. The carrier shall be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage, or goods.
However, he was transferred to the tourist class for the second leg of the flight
from Okinawa to Tokyo.
Cuenca filed a suit for damages. Lower court ruled in favor of Cuenca and awarded
damages. CA affirmed the award of damages.
Northwest argued that under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is liable only in the
event of death of a passenger or injury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of or
damage to any checked baggage or any goods, or of delay in transportation by air of
passengers, baggage or goods.
The Court affirmed the ruling of the lower courts and held that the Convention does
not exculpate carriers of liability due to breach of contract.
COMPLETE DIGEST:
Cuenca purchased first class ticket bound for Tokyo, Japan from Northwest Airlines. At
the time, Cuenca held the office of Commissioner of Public Highways of the
Republic of the Philippines.
He was then traveling in his official capacity as official delegate of the
o
Republic to a conference in Tokyo.
He boarded Northwest's plane in Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo, but he
was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to the tourist class compartment.
Although he revealed that he was traveling in his official capacity as official delegate of
the Republic to a conference in Tokyo, an agent of Northwest rudely compelled him
in the presence of other passengers to move, over his objection, to the tourist class,
under threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order to reach the conference
on time, he had no choice but to obey.
The lower court awarded damages in favor of Cuenca. Upon appeal to CA, it affirmed
the lower court ruling except as to the P5,000.00 exemplary damages, which was
eliminated, and the P20,000.00 award for moral damages, which was converted into
nominal damages.
Northwest appealed to SC.
!28
ISSUE: Whether or not Warsaw provisions extinguish Northwests liability absent death or
injury to passenger? NO
HELD: Decision of CA affirmed.
RATIO:
Petitioner argues that pursuant to those provisions, an air "carrier is liable only" in the
event of death of a passenger or injury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of, or
damage to any checked baggage or any goods, or of delay in the transportation by air of
passengers, baggage or goods. This pretense is not borne out by the language of said
Articles.
The same merely declare the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases, if
the conditions therein specified are present. Neither said provisions nor others in
the aforementioned Convention regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of
contract by the carrier.
Under petitioner's theory, an air carrier would be exempt from any liability for
o
damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in bad faith, to comply with a
contract of carriage, which is absurd.
It is true that said ticket was marked "W/L," but respondent's attention was not called
thereto. Much less was he advised that "W/L" meant "wait listed." Upon the other
hand, having paid the first class fare in full and having been given first class
accommodation as he took petitioner's plane in Manila, respondent was entitled to
believe that this was a confirmation of his first class reservation and that he would keep
the same until his ultimate destination, Tokyo. Then, too, petitioner has not tried to
explain or even alleged that the person to whom respondent's first class seat was given
had a better right thereto.
In other words, since the offense had been committed with full knowledge of the fact
that respondent was an official representative of the Republic of the Philippines, the
sum of P20,000 awarded as damages may well be considered as merely nominal. At any
rate, considering that petitioner's agent had acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressive
manner, said award may also be considered as one for exemplary damages.
4 ALITALIA V. IAC, 192 SCRA 9* -SANTOS

Alitalia vs. IAC (1990)
ALITALIA, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELIPA E.
PABLO, Respondents.
CC
ALITALIA
Passenger
Dr. Felipa Pablo
Problem
Dr. Pablos luggage was not delivered on time, ALITALIA wants its
liability limited
Who Won
Dr. Pablo, Warsaw Convention Limits not applicable
Doctrine: Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of
an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The Convention
denies to the carrier availment "of the provisions which exclude or limit his liability, if the
damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as is considered to
be equivalent to wilful misconduct," or "if the damage is caused by any agent of the carrier
acting within the scope of his employment."
ER:
Dr. Felipa Pablo was an associate prof in UP and research grantee. She was invited to
speak in Italy for a convention (program) because of her special knowledge in
foreign substances in food and agriculture environment.
She accepted this invitation. She booked a flight on airline ALITALIA.
She arrived in italy a day before the meeting in accordance with the itinerary and time
table set by ALITALIA. However, her luggage did not arrive. It contained her (1)
clothing and (2) scientific papers.
She looked for her bags in Rome because ALITALIA said it would come from ROME
but it did not arrive. Failing to get her bags, she went back to Manila without attending
the meeting. She received her luggage 11 months later.
She demands damages. Lower court rules in her favor 20k nominal and attys fees.
CA increased nominal to 40k.
!29
ISSUE: WON the liability of ALITALIA should be limited pursuant to Warsaw Convention
NO.
RATIO:
SC Affirms CA. The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration
of the instances of an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that
liability.
It should be deemed a limit of liability only in those cases where the cause of the death
or injury to person, or destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is
not attributable to or attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or
otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier
is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of resulting
injury.
The Convention's provisions, in short, do not "regulate or exclude liability for other
breaches of contract by the carrier" or misconduct of its officers and employees,
or for some particular or exceptional type of damage.
Completely distraught and discouraged, she returned to Manila without attending

the meeting in Ispra, Italy.
In Manila, she demanded that ALITALIA make reparation for the damages thus
suffered by her.
ALITALIA offered her "free airline tickets to compensate her for any alleged
damages. . .
She rejected the offer.
As it turned out, Prof. Pablo's suitcases were in fact located and forwarded to Ispra,
Italy, but only on the day after her scheduled appearance and participation at the
U.N. meeting there.
Of course Dr. Pablo was no longer there to accept delivery; she was already on her way
home to Manila. And for some reason or other, the suitcases were not actually
restored to Prof. Pablo by ALITALIA until eleven (11) months later, and four (4)
months after institution of her action.
CFI ruled in favour of Dr. Pablo. ALITALIA was to pay:
FACTS:
Dr. Felipa Pablo an associate professor in the UP, and a research grantee of the
Philippine Atomic Energy Agency was invited to take part at a meeting of the
Department of Research and Isotopes of the Joint FAO-IAEA Division of Atomic
Energy in Food and Agriculture of the United Nations in Ispra, Italy.
She was invited because of her specialized knowledge in "foreign substances in food
and the agriculture environment."
She accepted the invitation, and was then scheduled by the organizers, to read a paper
on "The Fate of Radioactive Fusion Products Contaminating Vegetable Crops."
The program announced that she would be the second speaker on the first day of the
meeting.
To fulfill this engagement, Dr. Pablo booked passage on airline, ALITALIA.
She arrived in Milan on the day before the meeting in accordance with the itinerary and
time table set for her by ALITALIA.
She was however told by the ALITALIA personnel there at Milan that her luggage was
"delayed because it was in one of the succeeding flights from Rome to Milan."
o
Her luggage consisted of two (2) suitcases:
one contained her clothing and other personal items;
the other, her scientific papers, slides and other research

material.
But the other flights arriving from Rome did not have her baggage on board.
By then feeling desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate her bags herself.
o
She inquired about her suitcases in the domestic and international airports,
and filled out the forms prescribed by ALITALIA for people in her
predicament.
However, her baggage could not be found.
P20K nominal damages
P5K attorneys fees
Pay the cost of the suit.
ALITALIA appeals. But CA affirmed and increased the nominal damages to P40K. It
justified that the nominal damages were too little to make up for her frustration and
disappointment, embarrassment and humiliation in the academic community etc. (40K
was also the cost of her round trip fare)
ATILALIA appeals to SC. States that the WARSAW CONVENTION should have been
applied to limit ALITALIAs liability.
ISSUE: WON ALITALIAs liability should be limited NO

HELD: AFFIRMED
RATIO: (READ BOLD AND UNDERLINED)
Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made liable for damages for:
1) the death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger if the accident
causing it took place on board the aircraft or in the course of its operations of
embarking or disembarking;
2) the destruction or loss of, or damage to, any registered luggage or goods, if the
occurrence causing it took place during the carriage by air;" and
3) delay in the transportation by air of passengers, luggage or goods.
In these cases, it is provided in the Convention that the "action for damages, however,
founded, can only be brought subject to conditions and limits set out" therein.
!30
The Convention also purports to limit the liability of the carriers in the following manner:3
(footnote i dont think its important)
The Warsaw Convention however denies to the carrier availment "of the provisions
which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or
by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court seized of the case,
is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct," or "if the damage is (similarly)
caused . . by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment."
The Hague Protocol amended the Warsaw Convention by removing the provision
that if the airline took all necessary steps to avoid the damage, it could exculpate itself
completely, and (by) declaring the stated limits of liability not applicable "if it is
proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants
or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that
damage would probably result."
The same deletion was effected by the Montreal Agreement of 1966, with the result
that a passenger could recover unlimited damages upon proof of willful
misconduct.
The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances
of an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. Such a
proposition is not borne out by the language of the Convention, as this Court has now,
and at an earlier time, pointed out.
Moreover, slight reflection readily leads to the conclusion that it should be deemed a
limit of liability only in those cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or
destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or
attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise improper
conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier is responsible, and
there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of resulting injury.
The Convention's provisions, in short, do not "regulate or exclude liability for other
breaches of contract by the carrier" or misconduct of its officers and employees,
or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. Otherwise, "an air carrier
would be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in
bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd."
Nor may it for a moment be supposed that if a member of the aircraft complement
should inflict some physical injury on a passenger, or maliciously destroy or damage
the latter's property, the Convention might successfully be pleaded as the sole gauge to
determine the carrier's liability to the passenger. Neither may the Convention be
invoked to justify the disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a
passenger and preclude recovery therefor beyond the limits set by said Convention. It is
in this sense that the Convention has been applied, or ignored, depending on the
peculiar facts presented by each case.
In Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. I.A.C., 28 for example, the Warsaw
Convention was applied as regards the limitation on the carrier's liability, there being a
simple loss of baggage without any otherwise improper conduct on the part of the
officials or employees of the airline or other special injury sustained by the passenger.
In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be ascribed to the
employees of petitioner airline; and Dr. Pablo's luggage was eventually returned to her,
belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage.
The fact is, nevertheless, that some special species of injury was caused to Dr. Pablo
because petitioner ALITALIA misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her at
the time appointed a breach of its contract of carriage, to be sure with the result
that she was unable to read the paper and make the scientific presentation (consisting of
slides, autoradiograms or films, tables and tabulations) that she had painstakingly
labored over, at the prestigious international conference, to attend which she had
traveled hundreds of miles, to her chagrin and embarrassment and the disappointment
and annoyance of the organizers. She felt, not unreasonably, that the invitation for her
to participate at the conference, extended by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic
Energy in Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, was a singular honor not only to
herself, but to the University of the Philippines and the country as well, an opportunity
to make some sort of impression among her colleagues in that field of scientific activity.
The opportunity to claim this honor or distinction was irretrievably lost to her
because of Alitalia's breach of its contract. (RIO: in essence there was a breach of
contract)
Apart from this, there can be no doubt that Dr. Pablo underwent profound distress and
anxiety, which gradually turned to panic and finally despair, from the time she learned
that her suitcases were missing up to the time when, having gone to Rome, she finally
3! 1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 250,000 francs . . . Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
2. a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogramme, unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a
special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that sum is greater than the
actual value to the consignor at delivery.
b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the
total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or delay of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same baggage
check or the same air way bill, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to 5000 francs per passenger.
4. The limits prescribed . . shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall
not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the
occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.
realized that she would no longer be able to take part in the conference. As she herself
put it, she "was really shocked and distraught and confused."
Certainly, the compensation for the injury suffered by Dr. Pablo cannot under the
circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the Warsaw Convention for
delay in the transport of baggage.
She is not entitled to be compensated for loss or damage to her luggage. As already
mentioned, her baggage was ultimately delivered to her in Manila, tardily but safely.
She is however entitled to nominal damages which, as the law says, is
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered and this Court agrees
that the respondent Court of Appeals correctly set the amount thereof at
P40,000.00.
As to the purely technical argument that the award to her of such nominal damages is
precluded by her omission to include a specific claim therefor in her complaint, it
suffices to draw attention to her general prayer, following her plea for moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees, "for such other and further just and equitable
relief in the premises," which certainly is broad enough to comprehend an application
as well for nominal damages. Besides, petitioner should have realized that the explicit
assertion, and proof, that Dr. Pablo's right had been violated or invaded by it absent
any claim for actual or compensatory damages, the prayer thereof having been
voluntarily deleted by Dr. Pablo upon the return to her of her baggage necessarily
raised the issue of nominal damages.: rd
Attorneys fees were also correctly awarded.
5 PAL V. CA, 207 SCRA 100* -SUPERABLE

PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ISIDRO
CO, respondents; March 6, 1992 (NONS)
KEYWORD: lost Samsonite suitcase
DIVISION: First Division
PONENTE: Grino-Aquino
Common Carrier
Philippine Airlines
Passenger
Isidro Co
Problem
Isidro came from San Francisco; when in MIA, he cant find his
Samsonite bag and PAL never returned the bag nor paid the value of
the bag and its contents
Who won
Passenger Co
Doctrine: New Civil Code governs the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods transported
by a common carrier. Those matters not regulated by the Civil Code will be governed by
special laws.
!31
EMERGENCY RECIT
Isidro Co and his family arrived in Manila from San Francisco on a PAL airplane. He had 9
bags, but only retrieved 8 (lost Samsonite suitcase!). He informed PAL of this loss. He
called PAL several times asking about his lost bag and had to resort to writing a demand letter
to ask about his lost bag. PAL replied that despite search, his bag cant be found. However,
PAL did not pay the value of the lost bag. RTC and CA ruled in Cos favor. PAL now
argues that the Warsaw Convention limits on liability should be applied.
ISSUE: Whether the Warsaw Convention should be applied.

HELD: NO! Under the Civil Code, all matters on the loss, destruction or deterioration of
goods transported by common carriers shall be governed by the Civil Code. Only when
theres no provision in the Civil Code will special laws apply. Here, Art. 1753 provides that
the law of destination of the goods shall govern and Art. 1735 presumed that the
common carrier is negligent if goods are lost. Here, PAL failed to overcome the
presumption that it was negligent, and it even falsified evidence to evade paying Co. Hence, it
should be liable for damages.
COMPLETE
FACTS:
On April 17, 1985, at 5:30am, Isidro Co with his wife and son arrived in Manila
International Airport from San Francisco aboard PAL Flight 107. They had 9 bags
with them, however he wasnt able to find his ninth bag.
The Samsonite suitcase measuring 62 inches in length (worth $200) contained

personal things as well as presents for their relatives and padala from friends abroad
(worth $500-600).
They informed Willy Guevarra, PALs employee in charge of the claim counter, of the
loss. A Property Irregularity Report was prepared acknowledging the loss of one bag.
Co also surrendered all the nine claim checks, including the one corresponding to the
lost bag.
Co called PALs office several times, inquiring about his lost bag but to no avail.
Co, through his lawyer, sent a demand letter to PAL through its manager of Central
Baggage Services, Rebecca Santos.
Santos replied, stating that they never found the bag despite their careful search.
However, PAL never paid the value of the lost bag.
Co sued PAL for damages. The RTC of Pasay ruled in favor of Co and held PAL liable
for P42k in actual damages, 20k in exemplary damages and P10k as attorneys fees. The
CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
One of PALs contention is that the trial court should have applied the limits of
liability that the Warsaw Convention imposes on an air carrier for loss, delay or
damage to checked-in baggage to US$20.00 based on weight.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC should have applied the Warsaw Conventions limits of liability
HELD: NO. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs
against the petitioner.
RATIO:
The ruling of the RTC on PALs report that the bag was retrieved was a complete
fabrication is a factual issue that the SC will not look into.
!32
PALs contention: that since Co did not declare the contents of his baggage nor pay
additional charges before the flight, the Warsaw Convention should apply pursuant to
Alitalia v IAC, where the SC applied limit imposed by the Warsaw Convention.
This is without merit. In Samar Mining v Nordeutscher Lloyd, the SC ruled that the
New Civil Code governs the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods transported
by a common carrier. Those matters not regulated by the Civil Code will be
governed by special laws.
Here, per Art. 1753 (law of country where goods to be shipped shall govern
liability of common carrier), Philippine law shall govern as country of destination.
PAL failed to overcome the presumption of its negligence per Art. 1735 (presumption
of negligence in case of loss of goods), and not only that, it also falsified evidence
showing that Co retrieved his baggage. The award of attorneys fees is also proper since
Co was forced to litigate because of PALs refusal to pay the value of his lost bag and
its contents.
6 LUNA V. CA, 216 SCRA 107 TANDOC

Common Carrier
Northwest Airlines
Passenger
Rufino Luna, Rodolfo Alonso and Porfirio Rodriguez attended a 4day convention in S.Korea
Problem
When they arrived in Seoul, they found out that their luggage were
missing. Luggage was flown to Seattle, U.S.A. Luggage arrived only
after 4 days.
Who won
Passengers
ISSUE:
1.
WON the Warsaw Convention operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of

an airlines liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. NOPE.
2.
WON the petitions to revoke orders and decisions may be entertained even after the
time to appeal had elapsed, in cases wherein the jurisdiction of the court had been
exceeded. YES.
RATIO:
1.
ER:
Luna, Alonso and Rodriguez boarded a flight of Northwest Airlines bound for Seoul,
South Korea to attend a convention. They checked in one (1) piece of luggage each.
There was a trouble in the engine of the plane so they were transferred to a plane
owned by Korean Airlines.
When they arrived in Seoul, they found out that their luggages were missing. It was
only after four days that their luggages arrived.
By this time, the convention was about to finish, which they were hardly able to
attend.
We ruled that the Warsaw Convention was a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by
the Philippine government; consequently, it has the force and effect of law in this
country. But, in the same token, We are also aware of jurisprudence that the Warsaw
Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for
declaring an airline liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit
of the extent of that liability.
a.

Doctrine: Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances
for declaring an airline liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the
extent of that liability
They filed a case with the RTC for breach of contract. Their case was dismissed for lack
of cause of action. Instead of filing an appeal, they filed a petition for certiorari with
CA. The petition for certiorari was dismissed because certiorari should not be a
substitute for an appeal as provided in the Warsaw Convention. Northwest said that the
petitioners were barred in recovering since the certiorari cannot be a substitute for the
proper appeal. Hence, the reglamentary period has already expired.
2.
Hence, petitioners alleged failure to file a claim with the common

carrier as mandated by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention
should not be a ground for the summary dismissal of their
complaints since private respondent may still be held liable for
breach of other relevant laws which may provide a different period
or procedure for filing a claim.
Private respondent cannot be allowed to escape liability by seeking refuge in the

argument that the trial courts orders have attained finality due to petitioners failure to
move for reconsideration or to file a timely appeal therefrom. Technicalities should be
disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is their due
FACTS:
-Petitioners Rufino Luna, Rodolfo Alonso and Porfirio Rodriguez boarded Flight 020 of
private respondent Northwest Airlines bound for Seoul, South Korea, to attend the four-day
Rotary International Convention from the 21st to the 24th of May 1989.
- They checked in one (1) piece of luggage each. After boarding, however, due to engine
trouble, they were asked to disembark and transfer to a Korean Airlines plane
scheduled to depart four (4) hours later. They were assured that their baggage would be
with them in the same flight.
!33
When petitioners arrived in Seoul, they discovered that their personal belongings were
nowhere to be found; instead, they were allegedly flown to Seattle, U.S.A.
It was not until four (4) days later, and only after repeated representations with Northwest
Airlines personnel at the airport in Korea were petitioners able to retrieve their luggage. By
then the Convention, which they were hardly able to attend, was almost over.
1.
WON the Warsaw Convention operate as an exclusive enumeration of the

instances of an airlines liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that
liability- Nope
2.
WON the petitions to revoke orders and decisions may be entertained even after the
time to appeal had elapsed, in cases wherein the jurisdiction of the court had been
exceeded.-yes
3.
WON that Art. 26 of the Warsaw Convention which prescribes the reglementary
period within which to file a claim cannot be invoked if damage is caused by the
carriers willful misconduct, as provided by Art. 25 of the same Warsaw
Convention
The Case
Petitioners Rufino Y. Luna and Rodolfo J. Alonso assert that on 6 June 1989, or thirteen (13)
days after they recovered their luggage, they sent a written claim to private respondents
office along Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila.
Petitioner Porfirio Rodriguez, on his part, asseverates that he filed his claim on 13 June 1989.
However, private respondent, in a letter of 21 June 1989,disowned any liability for the delay
and averred that it exerted its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable
dispatch.1
Thus, on 14 July 1989, petitioners Luna and Alonso jointly filed a complaint for breach of
contract with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, docketed as
Civil Case No. 58390, subsequently raffled to Br. 69,2 while petitioner Rodriguez filed his
own complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, docketed as Civil
Case No. 3194-V-89, assigned to Br. 172.3 However, upon motion of private respondent,
both complaints were dismissed for lack of cause of action due to petitioners failure to
state in their respective complaints that they filed a prior claim with private respondent
within the prescribed period.
Petitioner Luna and Alonso then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals to set aside the order of respondent Judge Cristina M. Estrada granting private
respondents motion to dismiss, while petitioner Rodriguez proceeded directly to this
Court on certiorari for the same purpose. However, in Our resolution of 26 February 1990,
We referred his petition to the Court of Appeals.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the assailed decisions and resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaints for breach of contract of carriage with
damages in Civil Case No. 3194-V-89 and Civil Case No. 58390 dismissed by respondent
Judges Teresita D. Capulong and Cristina M. Estrada, respectively, are ordered REINSTATED
and given due course until terminated. No costs.
RATIO:
1.
We ruled that the Warsaw Convention was a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by
the Philippine government; consequently, it has the force and effect of law in this
country.15 But, in the same token, We are also aware of jurisprudence that the Warsaw
Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for
declaring an airline liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit
The Convention merely declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases,
if the conditions therein specified are present. For sure, it does not regulate the liability,
much less exempt, the carrier for violating the rights of others which must simply be
respected in accordance with their contracts of carriage. The application of the
Convention must not therefore be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code
and other pertinent laws. In fact, in Alitalia v. IAC,18 We awarded Dr. Felipa Pablo
nominal damages, the provisions of the Convention notwithstanding.
Hence, petitioners alleged failure to file a claim with the common carrier as
mandated by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention should not be a ground for
the summary dismissal of their complaints since private respondent may still be
held liable for breach of other relevant laws which may provide a different period
or procedure for filing a claim. Considering that petitioners indeed filed a claim
which private respondent admitted having received on 21 June 1989, their demand may
have very well been filed within the period prescribed by those applicable laws.
Consequently, respondent trial courts, as well as respondent appellate court, were in
error when they limited themselves to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and
disregarding completely the provisions of the Civil Code.
CA RULING: On 26 March 1991, the Third Division of respondent Court of Appeals,

applying the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and ruling that certiorari was not a
substitute for a lost appeal, dismissed the petition of Luna and Alonso,5 and on 7 June 1991
denied their motion for reconsideration.
Meanwhile, on 28 February 1991 the Seventh Division of respondent Court of Appeals,
ruling that the questioned order of the trial court had already become final, similarly rejected
the petition of Rodriguez, and on 6 June 1991 denied his motion for reconsideration.
-Petitioners then went to the Supreme Court
- Northwest, on the other hand, argues that the dismissal orders of respondent courts had
already become final after petitioners failed to either move for reconsideration or appeal from
the orders within the reglementary period, hence, certiorari is no substitute for a lost appeal.
ISSUES:
!34
2. From the facts, it appears that private respondent Northwest Airlines indeed failed to
deliver petitioners baggage at the designated time and place. For this, all that respondent
carrier could say was that [w]e exerted all efforts to comply with this condition of the
contract. Hence, it is evident that petitioners suffered some special specie of injury for which
they should rightly be compensated. Private respondent cannot be allowed to escape liability
by seeking refuge in the argument that the trial courts orders have attained finality due to
petitioners failure to move for reconsideration or to file a timely appeal therefrom.
Technicalities should be disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is
their due. Thus, although We have said that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lapsed
appeal, We have, time and again, likewise held that where a rigid application of that rule
will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, the rule may be relaxed. Hence,
considering the broader and primordial interests of justice, particularly when there is grave
abuse of discretion, thus impelling occasional departure from the general rule that the
extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, respondent appellate court
may legally entertain the special civil action for certiorari
3. We are unable to agree however with petitioners that Art. 25 of the Convention
operates to exclude the other provisions of the Convention if damage is caused by the
common carriers willful misconduct. As correctly pointed out by private respondent, Art.
25 refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in Art. 22 should damage be caused
by the carriers willful misconduct. Hence, only the provisions of Art. 22 limiting the carriers
liability and imposing a monetary ceiling in case of willful misconduct on its part that the
carrier cannot invoke.19 This issue however has become academic in the light of our ruling
that the trial courts erred in dismissing petitioners respective complaints.
We are not prepared to subscribe to petitioners argument that the failure of private
respondent to deliver their luggage at the designated time and place amounted ipso facto to
willful misconduct. For willful misconduct to exist, there must be a showing that the acts
complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard
of ones rights. It must be evidenced by a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper
conduct.
7 LHUILLIER V. BRITISH AIRWAYS, 615 SCRA 380 TIU
ER: Edna Lhuiller took a flight on British Airways (BA) from London, UK to Rome Italy. On
board the plane, she was rudely refused aid by one of the flight attendants as regards placing
her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin. Also, when the plane was about to land in
Rome, another flight attended singled her out from all the other passengers and made her
appear ignorant as to safety regulations. In Rome, Edna complained to BAs manager, but
such was ignored. Thus, Edna filed a complaint for damages in the RTC, to which BA filed a
motion to dismiss, alleging lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction pursuant to the
Warsaw Convention (WC). Did the RTC have jurisdiction over the claim? No. First, under
Article 1 of the WC, when the (a) place of departure and (b) place of destination in a contract
of carriage are situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties, the said carriage
is deemed an "international carriage". Here, both London and Italy are contracting states to
the WC. Second, Article 28(1) of the WC, Edna had four choices where to file the case a)
the court where the carrier is domiciled (London); b) the court where the carrier has its
principal place of business (London); c) the court where the carrier has an establishment by
which the contract has been made (Italy); or d) the court of the place of destination (Italy).
Thus, the Makati RTC did not have jurisdiction.
Facts: On 28 April 2005, petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier (Edna) filed a complaint for
damages against respondent British Airways (BA) before the Makati RTC. Edna alleged that
on 28 February, she took BAs Flight 548 from London, UK to Rome, Italy.
- Once on board, she allegedly requested Julian Halliday (Halliday), one of the BAs flight
attendants, to assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin. However,
Halliday refused and even sarcastically remarked that "If I were to help all 300 passengers in
this flight, I would have a broken back!"
- Edna further alleged that when the plane was about to land in Rome another flight attendant,
Nickolas Kerrigan (Kerrigan), singled her out from among all the passengers in the business
class section to lecture on plane safety. Allegedly, Kerrigan made Edna appear to the other
passengers to be ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and in need of lecturing on the safety rules and
regulations of the plane. Affronted, Edna assured Kerrigan that she knew the planes safety
regulations being a frequent traveler. Thereupon, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a mere
few centimeters away from that of Edna and menacingly told her that "We dont like your
attitude."
- Upon arrival in Rome, Edna complained to BAs ground manager and demanded an apology,
but the manager declared that the flight stewards were "only doing their job."
- Thus, Edna filed the complaint for damages, praying that BA be ordered to pay 5M as moral
damages, 2M as nominal damages, 1M as exemplary damages, 300K as attorneys fees, 200K
as litigation expenses, and the cost of the suit.
- Summons, together with a copy of the complaint, was served on BA through Echevarria,
General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc.
- BA filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the case and over its
person, alleging that only the courts of London, UK or Rome, Italy, have jurisdiction over the
complaint for damages pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.
- The RTC of Makati dismissed the case. After Ednas Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, she elevated her case to the higher courts.
Issue: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a tortious conduct committed against a
Filipino resident-citizen by airline personnel of a foreign carrier travelling beyond the
territorial limit of any foreign country; which is allegedly outside the ambit of the Warsaw
Convention? NO.
Held: (1) The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the alleged tortious
conduct occurred, was between the UK and Italy, which are both signatories to the Warsaw
Convention.
- Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention provides:
1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods
performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft
performed by an air transport undertaking.
2. For the purposes of this Convention the expression "international carriage"
means any carriage in which, according to the contract made by the parties, the
place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break
in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two
High Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting
Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of another Power, even though that
Power is not a party to this Convention. A carriage without such an agreed stopping
!35
place between territories subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority

of the same High Contracting Party is not deemed to be international for the
purposes of this Convention. (Emphasis supplied)
- Thus, when the (a) place of departure and (b) place of destination in a contract of carriage
are situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties, the said carriage is deemed
an "international carriage". The High Contracting Parties referred to herein were the
signatories to the Warsaw Convention and those that subsequently adhered to it.
! Here, Ednas place of departure was London, UK while her place of destination was
Rome, Italy. Both the United Kingdom and Italy signed and ratified the Warsaw Convention.
As such, the transport of Edna is deemed to be an "international carriage" within the
contemplation of the Warsaw Convention.
! It is settled that the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country. The
Convention is, thus, a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government
and, as such, has the force and effect of law in this country. The Warsaw Convention applies
because the air travel, where the alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between the United
Kingdom and Italy, which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.
(2) Since the Warsaw Convention applies in the instant case, then jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action is governed by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Under Article
28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, Edna may bring the action for
damages before:
1. The court where the carrier is domiciled;
2. The court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
3. The court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been
made; or
4. The court of the place of destination.
! In this case, it is not disputed that BA is corporation domiciled in London, UK with
London as its principal place of business. Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional
rules, Edna may bring her case before the courts of London
! In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both Edna and BA, it appears that
the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy. Consequently, under the third jurisdictional rule, Edna
has the option to bring her case before the courts of Rome in Italy.
! Finally, both the parties aver that the place of destination is Rome, Italy, which is properly
designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage check.
Accordingly, Edna may bring her action before the courts of Rome, Italy.
! Thus, the Court finds that the Makati RTC correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction
over the case filed by Edna.
Route
Los Angeles-New YorkBostonSt. LouisChicago (all in USA)
C C s d o m i c i l e & Kansas City, Missouri USA

principal place of
business
Problem
MAPAS checked in 7 pieces of luggage at the TWA counter at

JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they went to the
wrong gate. When finally able to board, 4 out of the 7 pieces of
luggage were lost upon arrival at Boston.
Who Won
Passengers ! MAPAs
EMERGENCY:
MAPAs purchased from TWA 2 airline tickets in Bangkok Thailand, for Los Angeles-New
YorkBostonSt. LouisChicago, USA.
The domicile of TWA was Kansas City, Missouri USA, where its principal place of
business was likewise located.
The place of business of TWA where the contract was made was in Bangkok Thailand.
The place of destination was Chicago-USA.

The MAPAs left Manila on board PAL for LA. (KP: Note that the Manila-LA flight
is not part of the contract with TWA). Later, during the NY-Boston leg, MAPAS checked in 7
pieces of luggage at the TWA counter at JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they
went to the wrong gate. They were however allowed to take a later TWA plane to Boston
which was delayed because of the thunder storm. Upon arrival at Boston, 4 out of the 7 pieces
of luggage were lost. TWA reimbursed MAPAs $2,560 as full satisfaction of their claim
which the MAPAs accepted as partial payment for the actual loss of their baggage.
Thereafter MAPAs filed a case against TWA in the Philippines. TWA moved to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on section 28(1) warsaw contending that the
complaint should have been brought either in Bangkok where the contract was entered
into, or in Boston which was the place of destination or in Kansas City which was the
carriers domicile and principal place of business.
MAPAs claimed that the WARSAW convention was not applicable because the
contract was not a contract of International Transportation as contemplated under the
provision of the WARSAW convention the RTC as affirmed by the CA dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: WON the contracts of transportation between MAPAs and TWA were contracts of
international transportation under the Warsaw Convention? NO
8 MAPA V. CA, 275 SCRA 286 PASCUAL
PURITA S. MAPA, CARMINA S. MAPA and CORNELIO P. MAPA, petitioners, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES, INC., respondents. G.R. No. 122308. July
8, 1997.*
Common Carrier
Trans World Airlines
Passengers
Purita, & Cornelio Mapa, with daughter Carmina Mapa
HELD: The Warsaw convention is NOT APPLICABLE because the contract does not involve
a contract of international transportation based on the two categories.
Two categories of international transportation.There are then two categories of
international transportation, viz.,
(1) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are situated within the
territories of two High Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not there be a break in the
transportation or a transshipment; and
(2) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are within the territory of a
single High Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to
!36
the sovereignty, mandate, or authority of another power, even though the power is not a party
to the Convention.
Contracts cannot come within the purview of the first and second categories.The
contracts of transportation in this case are evidenced by the two TWA tickets, No.
015:9475:153:304 and No. 015:9475:153:305, both purchased and issued in Bangkok,
Thailand. On the basis alone of the provisions therein, it is obvious that the place of
departure and the place of destination are all in the territory of the United States, or of a
single High Contracting Party. The contracts, therefore, cannot come within the purview of
the first category of international transportation. Neither can it be under the second category
since there was NO agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty,
mandate, or authority of another power.
COMPLETE
DAVIDE, JR., J.: We are urged by the petitioners Purita, Carmina & Cornelio Mapa (MAPA)
to reverse the 31 May 1995 Decision of the CA affirming the Order of the RTC of Quezon
City, , which dismissed the Civil Case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of the
Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.
Plaintiffs Cornelio P. Mapa and Purita S. Mapa are respectable members of the society.
See footnote4
Plaintiffs MAPA entered into contract of air transportation with defendant TWA as
evidenced by TWA ticket Nos. 015:9475:153:304 and 015:9475:153:305, purchased in
Bangkok, Thailand. Said TWA tickets are for Los Angeles-New York-Boston-St.
Louis-Chicago.
Domicile of carrier TWA is Kansas City, Missouri, USA. Its principal place of
business is Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
TWAs place of business through which the contracts were made is Bangkok,
Thailand.
The place of destination is Chicago, USA.
On August 10, 1990, plaintiffs Carmina and Purita left Manila on board PAL flight No.
104 for Los Angeles. Carmina was to commence schooling and thus was accompanied
by Purita to assist her in settling down at the University.
They arrived in Los Angeles on the same date and stayed there until August 14, 1990
when they left for New York City.
On August 14, 1990, plaintiffs Purita and Carmina arrived at the JFK Airport, New
York, on TWA Flight No. 904.
On August 27, 1990, plaintiffs Purita and Carmina departed for Boston, taking a
connecting flight on TWAs carrier, TW 0901, from JFK Airport, New York, to Bostons
Logan Airport, checking in 7 pieces of luggage at the TWA counter in the JFK Airport.
The 7 bags were received by a porter who issued 7 TWA baggage receipts.
o
Purita and Carmina proceeded to TWAs ticket counter and presented their confirmed
TWA tickets with a 3:00 p.m. departure time.
4!
They were issued their boarding passes and were instructed to proceed to Gate 35 for
boarding.
At about 2:40 p.m., plaintiffs noticed that there was still no instruction to board the
aircraft so they made inquiries. The TWA ground stewardess informed plaintiffs that
they were at the wrong gate because their flight was boarding at Gate 1. Upon
hearing this, plaintiffs rushed to Gate 1which was in another building terminal. At
Gate 1, they were told by a TWA ground stewardess that flight 901 had just
departed.
However, they were consoled that another TWA flight was leaving for Boston
o
after 30 minutes and plaintiffs could use the same boarding pass for the next
flight.
At around 3:15 p.m., plaintiffs Purita and Carmina were able to board the next flight.
However, the plane was not immediately cleared for take off on account of a
thunderstorm. The passengers were instructed to stay inside the aircraft until 6:00 p.m.
when the plane finally left for Boston.
LOSS OF 4 pieces of LUGGAGE. Upon arriving in Boston, plaintiffs Purita and
Carmina proceeded to the carousel to claim their baggages and found only three out of
the seven they checked in, to wit:
one Samsonite on the carousel,
o
another Samsonite lying on the floor near the carousel and a third baggage,
o
an American Tourister, inside the unclaimed baggage office.
o
Plaintiffs MAPA immediately reported the loss of their 4 baggages to the TWA Baggage
Office at Logan Airport. TWAs representative confidently assured them that their
baggages would be located within 24 hours and not more than 48 hours.
On September 2, 1990, Plaintiffs MAPA received a letter from TWA, apologizing for
TWAs failure to locate the missing luggage and requesting Plaintiffs MAPA to
accomplish a passenger property questionnaire to facilitate a further intensive and
computerized search for the lost luggage. Plaintiffs MAPA duly accomplished the
passenger property questionnaire. The total value of the lost items amounted to
$11,283.79.
On September 20, 1990, Plaintiffs MAPA counsel wrote TWA thru its General Sales
Manager in the Philippines, Daniel Tuason, with office address at Makati, Metro
Manila5 demanding indemnification for the grave damage and injury suffered by the
Plaintiffs MAPA.
On October 8, 1990, TWA offered to amicably settle the case by giving Plaintiffs
MAPA two options:
(a) transportation credit for future TWA travel or
o
(b) cash settlement.
o
Five months lapsed without any result on TWAs intensive search.
On January 3, 1991, Plaintiffs MAPA opted for transportation credit for future TWA
travel.
CORNELIO is an established businessman and currently the Regional General Manager of Akerlund and Rausing, a multinational packaging material manufacturer based in Manila. He was previously the Senior Vice President of Phimco
Industries, an affiliate company of Swedish Match Company.
PURITA is a successful businesswoman engaged in the commercial transactions of high value antique and oriental arts decor items originating from Asian countries. Carmina S. Mapa is the daughter of plaintiffs Purita and Cornelio and is a
graduate of the International School in Bangkok, Thailand, now presently enrolled at the Boston University where she is majoring in communication.
5! Ground Floor, Saville Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue corner Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila
On January 11, 1991, TWA disregarded Plaintiffs MAPAs option and unilaterally
declared the payment of $2,560.00 as constituting full satisfaction of the Plaintiffs
MAPAs claim.
On July 19, 1991, Plaintiffs MAPA accepted the check for $2,560.00, as partial
payment for the actual cost of their lost baggages and their contents.
Despite demands by Plaintiffs MAPA, TWA failed and refused without just cause to
indemnify and redress Plaintiffs MAPA for the grave injury and damages they have
suffered.
Petitioners MAPA then filed with the trial court on 1 August 1991 a complaint for
damages6.
Before a responsive pleading was filed, the Petitioners MAPA filed an Amended
Complaint. 7
On 26 February 1992, TWA filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint raising, as
special and affirmative defense, lack of jurisdiction of Philippine courts over the
action for damages in that pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention,
the action could only be brought either in Bangkok where the contract was entered
into, or in Boston which was the place of destination, or in Kansas City which is
the carriers domicile and principal place of business.
TWA further alleged that pursuant to the Warsaw Convention and the Notice
o
of Baggage Limitations at the back of the tickets, its liability to the MAPA is
limited to US$9.07 per pound, or US$20.00 per kilo, which is in lieu of actual
and compensatory damages. Even assuming that MAPA bag weighed the
maximum acceptable weight of 70 pounds, TWAs maximum liability is
$640.00 per bag or $2,560.00 for the four pieces of baggage, which the
MAPA have been offered and have accepted.
!37
TWA also submitted that it could not be liable for moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees because it did not act in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
On 7 February 1992, MAPA filed their Second Amended Complaint8
For other procedural stuffS, see footnote9
RTC-QC DECISION: FAVORED TWA. On 24 July 1992, the trial court issued an
Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction in light of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw
Convention.
RTC-QC relied on the Passenger Property Questionnaire which shows
o
under the heading Your Complete Itinerary that the TWA tickets
included the Manila-Los Angeles leg (SC: Wrong!). Since the Philippines
and the United States are parties to the convention, plaintiffs contracts of
transportation come within the meaning of International Transportation.
In resolving whether Court has jurisdiction to try the present case in the
o
light of the provision of Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. RTC said
that whether Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction or only to venue is a question
over which authorities are sharply divided.
A number of reasons tends to support the characterization of Article 28(1) as a
o
jurisdiction and not a venue provision.10
It has been shown by the defendant that the domicile of the defendant Trans
o
World Airlines, Inc. is Kansas City, Missouri, its principal place of business is
also in Kansas City, Missouri, the carriers place of business through which
the contracts were made is Bangkok (Annexes A and A-1, Amended
Complaint), and the place of destination was Boston.
o
6! For lost luggage and its contents; expenses for hotel, board and lodging, and communication; moral damages; exemplary damages; attorneys fees; and expenses of litigation
7! They prayed that after due trial private respondent Trans-World Airlines, Inc. (hereafter, TWA), be ordered to pay them the following amounts:
(1) US$8,723.79 representing the cost of the lost luggage and its contents;
(2) US$2,949.50 representing the cost of hotel, board and lodging, and communication expenses;
(3) P1 million, by way of moral damages;
(4) P1 million, by way of exemplary damages, with legal interest on said amounts from the date of extrajudicial demand thereof; and
(5) P500,000.00 as attorneys fees, costs of the suit, and other expenses of litigation.
8! Second Amended Complaint further includes:
a claim of US$2,500 representing the additional replacement cost of the items and personal effects contained in their lost luggage;
and US$4,500 representing the travel expenses, hotel, lodging, food and other expenses of petitioner Cornelio Mapa, who was constrained to join his family in Boston to extend the necessary assistance in connection with the lost luggage.
9! After the filing of TWAs Answer to the second Amended Complaint, and petitioners Reply thereto, the trial court gave TWA ten days within which to submit a memorandum in support of its affirmative defenses; after which the incident
would be deemed submitted for resolution. However, after TWA filed its Memorandum, the trial court gave the MAPA five days within which to file a reply memorandum; and TWA, two days from receipt of the latter to file its comment thereon.
MAPA then filed their Opposition (by way of Reply Memorandum) to which TWA filed a Reply. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a Rejoinder; TWA, a Surrejoinder.
! First, the wording of Article 32, which indicates the places where the action for damages must be brought, underscores the mandatory nature of Article 28(1). Second, this characterization is consistent with one of the objectives of the Convention,
10
which is to regulate in a uniform manner the conditions of international transportation by air. Third, the Convention does not contain any provision prescribing rules of jurisdiction other than Article 28(1), which means that the phrase rules as to
jurisdiction used in Article 32 must refer only to Article 28(1). In fact, the last sentence of Article 32 specifically deals with the exclusive enumeration in Article 28(1) as jurisdictions, which, as such, cannot be left to the will of the parties regardless of
the time when the damage occurred.
!38
The Philippines not being one of the places specified in Art. 28(1) where
the complaint may be instituted, this Court therefore, does not have
jurisdiction over the present case.11
MAPA appealed to the CA. They claimed that their cause of action could be based on
breach of contract of air carriage founded on Articles 1733, 1734, 1735, 1755, and 1756
of the New Civil Code governing common carriers or Article 2176 of the same Code
governing tort or quasi-delict.
CA DECISION: FAVORED TWA, Affirmed the order of the trial court. It held that the
Warsaw Convention is the law which governs the dispute between the MAPA and TWA
because what is involved is international transportation defined by said Convention in
Article I(2). This holding is founded on its determination that the two TWA tickets for
Los Angeles-New York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago purchased in Bangkok, Thailand,
were issued in conjunction with, and therefore formed part of, the contract of
transportation performed from Manila, Philippines, to the United States.
Respondent Court of Appeals likewise held that MAPA could not claim
o
application of Articles 1733, 1734, 1735, 1755, and 1756 of the New Civil
Code on common carriers without taking into consideration Article 1753 of
the same Code, which provides that the law of the country to which the goods
are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their
loss, destruction, or deterioration. Since the country of ultimate destination is
Chicago, the law of Chicago shall govern the liability of TWA for the loss of
the four pieces of baggage.
MR denied. Hence, this petition.
They aver that respondent CA gravely erred (1) in holding that the Warsaw Convention
is applicable to this case and (2) in applying Article 1753 of the Civil Code and the
principle of lex loci delicti commissi.
MAPAs CONTENTION: that the Warsaw Convention is not applicable to their case
because the contracts they had with TWA did not involve an international
transportation. Whether the contracts were of international transportation is to be solely
determined from the TWA tickets issued to them in Bangkok, Thailand, which showed
that their itinerary was Los Angeles-New York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago. Accordingly,
since the place of departure (Los Angeles) and the place of destination (Chicago) are
both within the territory of one High Contracting Party, with no agreed stopping place
in a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, suzerainty or authority of another
Power, the contracts did not constitute international transportation as defined by the
convention.
They also claim to be without legal basis the contention of TWA that their
o
transportation contracts were of international character because of the
handwritten notations in the tickets re INTL TKT #079-4402956821-2 and
INTL TKT #079-4402956819. Notwithstanding such notations, the TWA
tickets, viz., (a) No. 015.9475:153:304 and (b) No. 015-9475:153:305 did not
cease to be for the itinerary therein designated.
o
! Under Art. 28(1)

11
ISSUE: WON the contracts of transportation between MAPAs and TWA were contracts
of international transportation under the Warsaw Convention.12 NOT CONTRACTS
OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
HELD: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the challenged decision of 31
May 1995 of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39896, as well as the Order of
24 July 1992 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, in Civil Case No.
Q-91-9620, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, is hereby DIRECTED to
proceed with the pre-trial, if it has not been terminated, and with the trial on the merits of the
case and then to render judgment thereon, taking into account the foregoing observations on
the issue of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
PART 1: Not Contracts of International Transportation
If the sole basis were the two TWA tickets for Los Angeles-New York-Boston-St.
Louis-Chicago, the contracts cannot be brought within the term international
transportation, as defined in Article I(2) of the Warsaw Convention.
As provided therein, a contract is one of international transportation only if
o
according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and the
place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a
transshipment, are situated either within the territories of two High
Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party,
if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, mandate or authority of another power, even though that power is
not a party to this convention.
There are then two categories of international transportation, viz.,

(1) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are
o
situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties regardless
of whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a
transshipment; and
(2) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are
o
within the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty,
mandate, or authority of another power, even though the power is not a
party to the Convention.
The High Contracting Parties referred to in the Convention are the signatories
thereto and those which subsequently adhered to it. In the case of the Philippines,
of the Warsaw Convention, a complaint for damages against an air carrier can be instituted only in any of the following places/courts:
(1) The court of the domicile of the carrier;
(2) The court of its principal place of business;
(3) The court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made;
(4) The court of the place of destination.
! If they were, then we should sustain the trial court and the CA in light of our ruling in Santos v. Northwest Orient Airlines.
12
Besides, it is a fact that petitioners Purita and Carmina Mapa traveled from
Manila to Los Angeles via Philippine Airlines (PAL) by virtue of PAL tickets
issued independently of the TWA tickets.
!39
the Convention was concurred in by the Senate, through Resolution No. 19, on 16 May
1950. The Philippine instrument of accession was signed by President Elpidio Quirino
on 13 October 1950 and was deposited with the Polish Government on 9 November
1950.
The Convention became applicable to the Philippines on 9 February 1951.
o
Then, on 23 September 1955, President Ramon Magsaysay issued
Proclamation No. 201, declaring the Philippines formal adherence thereto,
to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be
observed and fulfilled in good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the
citizens thereof.
The contracts of transportation in this case are evidenced by the two TWA tickets, No.
015:9475:153:304 and No. 015:9475:153:305, both purchased and issued in Bangkok,
Thailand.
CONTRACT NEITHER FALLS UNDER (1) NOR (2).
On the basis alone of the provisions therein, it is obvious that the place of
o
departure and the place of destination are all in the territory of the
United States, or of a single High Contracting Party. The contracts,
therefore, cannot come within the purview of the first category of
international transportation.
Neither can it be under the second category since there was NO agreed
o
stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, or
authority of another power.
The only way to bring the contracts between Purita and Carmina Mapa, on the one
hand, and TWA, on the other, within the first category of international transportation
is to link them with, or to make them an integral part of, the Manila-Los Angeles travel
of Purita and Carmina through PAL aircraft.
The linkages which have been pointed out by the TWA, the trial court, and
o
the CA are
(1) the handwritten notations, viz., INTL TKT #
079-4402956821-2 and INTL TKT # 079-4402956819, on the two
TWA tickets; and
(2) the entries made by petitioners Purita and Carmina Mapa in
column YOUR COMPLETE ITINERARY in TWAs Passenger
Property Questionnaire, wherein they mentioned their travel from
Manila to Los Angeles in flight PR 102.
The alleged international tickets mentioned in the notations in conjunction with
which the two TWA tickets were issued were not presented. Clearly then, there is at all
no factual basis of the finding that the TWA tickets were issued in conjunction with
the international tickets, which are even, at least as of now, non-existent.
As regards MAPAs entry in YOUR COMPLETE ITINERARY column of the
Passenger Property Questionnaire wherein they included the Manila-Los Angeles
travel, it must be pointed out that this was made on 4 September 199027 by petitioners
Purita and Carmina Mapa, and only in connection with their claim for their lost pieces
of baggage. The loss occurred much earlier, or on 27 August 1990.
The entry can by no means be considered as a part of, or supplement to,
o
their contracts of transportation evidenced by the TWA tickets which
covered transportation within the United States only.
It must be underscored that the first category of international transportation under the
Warsaw Convention is based on the contract made by the parties. TWA does not
claim that the Manila-Los Angeles contracts of transportation which brought
Purita and Carmina to Los Angeles were also its contracts. It does not deny the
assertion of MAPA that those contracts were independent of the TWA tickets issued in
Bangkok, Thailand. No evidence was offered that TWA and PAL had an agreement
concerning transportation of passengers from points of departures not served with
aircrafts of one or the other. There could have been no difficulty for such agreement,
since TWA admitted without qualification in paragraph 1 of its Answer to the second
Amended Complaint the allegation in paragraph 1.1 of the latter that TWA is a foreign
corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines with office address at Ground
Floor, Saville Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, corner Paseo de Roxas, Makati,
Metro Manila.
PART 2
TWA relies on Article I(3) of the Convention, which provides as follows:

3. A carriage to be performed by several successive air carriers is deemed, for
o
the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage, if it has been
regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed upon
under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it shall not
lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of
contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting
Party.
It also points to Article 15 of the IATA Recommend Practice 1724, which
o
provides: Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers under one
ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction ticket issued in connection
therewith, is regarded as a single operation.
The flaw of respondents position is the presumption that the parties have regarded as
an undivided carriage or as a single operation the carriage from Manila to Los
Angeles through PAL then to New York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago through TWA. The
dismissal then of the second Amended Complaint by the trial court and the Court of
Appeals affirmance of the dismissal were not based on indubitable facts or grounds,
but on inferences without established factual basis.
9 PAL V. CA, 214 SCRA 262 SANCHEZ

PAL v. CA and Chua Min
Common Carrier
PAL
Passenger
Chua Min
Problem
checked in 4 bags, but lost 2 bags containing cinematographic films
Who won
Passenger
Doctrine:
ER:

-
!40
Chua Min boarded PALs flight from HK to Manila and checked in 4 bags. Upon
arrival, Chua Min was unable to locate her two bags containing cinematographic
films. In response, Chua Min sued Pal for the loss of the baggage (20k value). In its
defense, PAL argues that its liability is limited as per the WC that it was a baggage
check13 and that Chua Min does not have personality to file the case because it was
owned by the Hongkong firm of "Loong Kee Pen Co., Film Exchange Dept.
On the aspect of the liability of PAL, the CFI held that because PAL did not introduce a
single document to prove the extent of its liability, and merely adopted the pieces of
evidence produced by CHUA, it may not invoke its limited liability under the Warsaw
Convention.
PAL filed a Motion for Reconsideration, this time arguing that the ticket which
CHUA bought was was a passenger ticket and baggage check at the same time.
(This was done in order to establish that PAL could not have produced any ticket
because the tickets are kept by the passenger in a baggage check).
PAL appeals to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
o
(1) Does CHUA have capacity to sue? YES.
(2) May PAL use the Warsaw Convention to limit its liability? NO
ISSUES:
Held:
-
(1) Yes. Because CHUA was directly liable to Loong Kee Pen for the loss of the
Cinematographic films.
(2) PAL failed to present the baggage check in evidence. It merely adopted the exhibits
presented in trial by CHUA. Consequently, it cannot capitalize on the limited liability
clause under Article 22 (2) of the Warsaw Convention because of the unequivocal
condition set forth under the second sentence of Article 4, paragraph 4 that: ". . . if the
carrier accepts baggage without a baggage check having been delivered, or if the
baggage check does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f), and (h) above, the
carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the Convention which
exclude or limit his liability."
WON CHUA has the personality to sue
WON PAL can avail of the limitations on liability under the Warsaw Convention
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
RATIO:
1st issue
-
When CHUA was being examined for his testimony, it was established that he is liable
to the company if he lost the films. Since what is important, per his narration, is that he
assume the loss while these films are in his custody and that he is accountable either to
Loong Kee Pen Company or to the De Mil Theatrical Corporation should he fail to
produce the films upon demand.
Also, the assurance made by PAL that it will compensate CHUAs loss is a sufficient
admission that indeed, CHUA has the right to avail himself of the suit for the sum of
money.
FACTS:
-
CHUA MIN boarded PALs flight from Hong Kong to Manila and checked-in 4 pieces
of baggage containing cinematographic films. PAL offered to compensate, but CHUA
opted to file an action to recover a sum of money estimated to be worth 20,000 PHP.
o
o
-
PAL filed a motion to dismiss based on the lack of personality to sue. PAL
alleged that the film rolls belonged to the Hongkong firm of "Loong Kee Pen
Co., Film Exchange Dept.", apart from the vacillating testimony spewed by
Chua Min on the witness stand which supposedly suggests that he has no
right to seek restitution for the lost films, including the damages resulting
therefrom.
PAL also argued that its liability is limited under the Warsaw Convention
to 250 francs per kilogram.
The denied the MTD, and ruled that CHUA has the capacity to sue because he can be
considered as if he were the owner on account of his responsibility for any eventuality
that may occur to the film rolls.
2nd issue
-
Now, as to whether PAL may utilize the provision under Article 22(2) of the Warsaw
Convention which limits the liability of a common carrier for loss of baggage, We have
to consider other salient features thereof such as Article 4, paragraph 1 that reads
o
"For the transportation of baggage, other than small personal objects of

which the passenger takes charge himself, the carrier must deliver a
baggage check." and the explicit wordings of Article 4, paragraph 4 of the
same Convention that:
! Baggage Check ! Bag tags, also known as baggage tags, baggage checks or luggage tickets, have traditionally been used by bus, train and airline companies to route passenger luggage that is checked on to the final destination. The passenger stub is
13
typically handed to the passenger or attached to the ticket envelope: a) to aid the passenger in identifying their bag among similar bags at the destination baggage carousel; b) as proofstill requested at a few airportsthat the passenger is not removing
someone else's bag from the baggage reclaim hall; c) as a means for the passenger and carrier to identify and trace a specific bag that has gone astray and was not delivered at the destination.

o
!41
"The absence, irregularity, or loss of the baggage checks shall not affect the
existence or the validity of the contract of transportation which shall
nonetheless be subject to the rules of this Convention. Nevertheless, if the
carrier accepts baggage without a baggage check having been delivered,
or if the baggage check does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f),
and (h) above, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those
provisions of the Convention which exclude or limit his liability."
PAL failed to present the baggage check in evidence because it merely relied on
CHUAs exhibits. Thus, it cannot limit its liability under this provision.14
Consequently, PAL cannot capitalize on the limited liability clause under Article 22 (2)
of the Warsaw Convention because of the unequivocal condition set forth under the
second sentence of Article 4, paragraph 4 that
". . . if the carrier accepts baggage without a baggage check having been delivered, a if the
baggage check does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f), and (h) above, the carrier
shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the Convention which exclude or
limit his liability."
10 CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. V. CA, 219 SCRA 520* -NATHAN
ODUCADO
Petitioner: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD, petitioner,
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS L. ALCANTARA, respondents.
G.R. No. 60501||March 5, 1993|| Bellosilo J.
Common Carrier
Cathay
Goods
Luggage
Passenger/ Shipper
Alcantara
Problem
Left in Hong Kong (while in transit)
Who won
Alcantara
Doctrine: The Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for
declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent
of that liability
SUMMARY:
Tomas Alcantara, representative of the Cement Industry Authority and the

Philippine Cement Corporation, went to Jakarta as a first class passenger of
Cathay Pacific. His flight itinerary was MNL-HK and thereafter HK-Jakarta.
Upon arrival in Jakarta his luggage was left in HK. His luggage contained clothing
and materials for his meeting with the Director of Trade of Indonesia.
When he asked for assistance from the Cathay officer in Jakarta he was told that his
luggage was left in HK and a $20 inconvenience money was given to him.
His luggage arrived more than 24H after and he was asked to pick it up in the
Philippine Embassy.
He filed a case in the CFI of Lanao del Norte for damages. CFI awarded the damages.
CA affirmed the decision while modifying the award for damages.
Issue: WON CA is liable for damages. YES; WON CA erred in not applying the Warsaw
Convention. NO ERROR.
Cathay is liable. CATHAY breached its contract of carriage with private

respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it
being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage
safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation.
Moreover CATHAY was negligent, it was not even aware that it left behind private
respondent's luggage until its attention was called by the Hongkong Customs
authorities. CATHAYs employees were also in bad faith, he was not only indifferent
and impatient; he was also rude and insulting. He simply advised Alcantara to buy
anything he wanted. But even that was not sincere because the representative knew that
the passenger was limited only to $20.00 which, certainly, was not enough to purchase
comfortable clothings appropriate for an executive conference.
Non-application of the Convention was correct. The Convention does not operate as
an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach
of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must
not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.
Moreover, Art. 25 of the Convention, states that the Carrier may not avail of it when the
damage is caused (1) by wilful misconduct on his part and (2) any agent acting within
his authority.
FACTS:
On 19 October 1975, Tomas L. Alcantara was a first class passenger of CATHAY on its
Flight No. CX-900 from Manila to Hongkong and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta
on Flight No. CX-711.
The purpose of his trip was to attend the following day, a conference with the Director
General of Trade of Indonesia, Alcantara being the Executive Vice-President and
General Manager of Iligan Cement Corporation, Chairman of the Export Committee of
the Philippine Cement Corporation, and representative of the Cement Industry
Authority and the Philippine Cement Corporation.
! KP!In its motion for reconsideration before the court a quo, petitioner had a sudden change of heart by asserting that the passenger ticket and the baggage check are one and the same thing (p. 81, Record on appeal). On a later occasion, it stressed that
14
the baggage tags were erroneously labeled as baggage checks under paragraph 7 of its Answer to the Complaint (p. 3, Reply Brief for the Petitioner; p. 97, Rollo). But the question of semantics on whether the passenger ticket, the baggage check, and
the tag refer to the same object is undoubtedly without legal significance and will not obliterate the fact that the baggage check was not presented by petitioner in the trial court inasmuch as it merely relied on, and adopted private respondents exhibits,
none of which was offered for the purpose of proving the missing link, so to speak (pp. 57-58, Record on Appeal). To rectify these lapses, petitioner argued that it is not in a position to introduce the baggage check in evidence since private
respondent as passenger, is the one who retains possession thereof. Yet, such pretense does not sit well with what is expected of petitioner as an air carrier under Article 4(2), Section II of the Warsaw Convention that: The baggage check
shall be made out in duplicate, one part for the passenger and the other part of the carrier. Consequently, petitioner can not capitalize on the limited liability clause under Article 22 (2) of the Warsaw Convention
He checked in his luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles for
personal use but also papers and documents he needed for the conference. However,
upon his arrival in Jakarta, he discovered that his luggage was missing.
When he inquired about his luggage from CATHAY's representative, he was told that
his luggage was left behind in Hongkong. For this, Alcantara was offered $20.00 as
"inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs until the luggage could be
delivered to him.
His luggage finally reached Jakarta more than twenty four (24) hours after his arrival.
However, it was not delivered to him at his hotel but was required by petitioner to be
picked up by an official of the Philippine Embassy.
On 1 March 1976, Alcantara filed his complaint with the CFI of Lanao del Norte
praying for temperate, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees.
The trial court rendered its decision ordering CATHAY to pay Plaintiff P20,000.00 for
moral damages, P5,000.00 for temperate damages, P10,000.00 for exemplary damages,
and P25,000.00 for attorney's fees, and the costs.
Both parties appealed to the CA. CATHAY assailed the conclusion of the trial court and
questioned the non-application by the court of the Warsaw Convention as well as the
excessive damages awarded.
Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming the findings of fact of the trial court
but modifying its award by increasing the moral damages to P80,000.00, exemplary
damages to P20,000.00 and temperate or moderate damages to P10,000.00. The award
of P25,000.00 for attorney's fees was maintained.
ISSUE:
1. W/N the CA erred in holding Cathay liable. NO
2. W/N the CA erred in not applying the Warsaw Convention. NO
HELD:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the
exception of the award of temperate damages of P10,000.00 which is deleted, while the award
of moral damages of P80,000.00 is reduced to P30,000.00. The award of P20,000.00 for
exemplary damages is maintained as reasonable together with the attorney's fees of
P25,000.00. The moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the legal rate from 1
March 1976 when the complaint was filed until full payment.
!42
RATIO:
Liability
CATHAYs arguments
CATHAY argues that although it failed to transport respondent Alcantara's
luggage on time, the one-day delay was not made in bad faith so as to justify
moral, exemplary and temperate damages.
It submits that the conclusion of respondent appellate court that private
respondent was treated rudely and arrogantly when he sought assistance from
CATHAY's employees has no factual basis, hence, the award of moral
damages has no leg to stand on.
CATHAY committed a breach in its contract of carriage
Petitioner's first assigned error involves findings of fact which are not
reviewable by this Court. At any rate, it is not impressed with merit.
CATHAY breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it
failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the
obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage
safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their
transportation and the evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
Both the CFI and CA found that CATHAY was grossly negligent and reckless
when it failed to deliver the luggage of petitioner at the appointed place and
time.
CATHAY alleges that as a result of mechanical trouble, all pieces of luggage
on board the first aircraft bound for Jakarta were unloaded and transferred to
the second aircraft which departed an hour and a half later.
Yet, as the CA noted, CATHAY was not even aware that it left behind private
respondent's luggage until its attention was called by the Hongkong Customs
authorities.
Bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be attributed to the employees of
petitioner.
While the mere failure of CATHAY to deliver respondent's luggage at the
agreed place and time did not ipso facto amount to willful misconduct since
the luggage was eventually delivered to private respondent, the Court was
persuaded that CATHAYs employees acted in bad faith.
Based on the deposition of Romulo Palma, Commercial Attache of the
Philippine Embassy at Jakarta, who was with respondent Alcantara when the
latter sought assistance from the employees of CATHAY: The CATHAY
officer said, What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything.'
something like it. 'Anyhow you can buy anything you need, charged to
Cathay Pacific.'
The CATHAY representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was
also rude and insulting. He simply advised Alcantara to buy anything he
wanted. But even that was not sincere because the representative knew that
the passenger was limited only to $20.00 which, certainly, was not enough to
purchase comfortable clothings appropriate for an executive conference.
Considering that Alcantara was not only a revenue passenger but even paid
for a first class airline accommodation and accompanied at the time by the
Commercial Attache of the Philippine Embassy who was assisting him in his
problem, petitioner or its agents should have been more courteous and
accommodating to private respondent, instead of giving him a curt reply,
"What can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything . . . Anyhow,
you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay Pacific."
To compound matters, CATHAY refused to have the luggage of Alcantara
delivered to him at his hotel; instead, he was required to pick it up himself
and an official of the Philippine Embassy. Under the circumstances, it is
!43
evident that petitioner was remiss in its duty to provide proper and adequate
assistance to a paying passenger, more so one with first class accommodation.
Warsaw Application
The Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for
declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit
The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the
enumerated cases and under certain limitations.
However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code
and other pertinent laws.
It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages
for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage,
especially if wilfull misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found
or established, which is clearly the case before us.
Art. 25 of the Convention expressly states that:
(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this
convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused
by his wilfull misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance
with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to
be equivalent to wilfull misconduct."
(2)
Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said
provisions, if the damage is caused under the same circumstances by any
agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment."
For sure, the latter underwent profound distress and anxiety, and the fear of
losing the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of his trip.
In fact, for want of appropriate clothings for the occasion brought about by
the delay of the arrival of his luggage, to his embarrassment and consternation
respondent Alcantara had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged
conference with the Director General of Trade of the host country.
11 SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES V. CA, 255 SCRA 38* -BASCARA

Sabena vs San Agustin
Ma. Paula San Agustin was a passenger of Sabena Belgian World Airlines originating from
Casablanca to Brussels, Belgium on her way back to Manila. San Agustin checked in her
luggage, which contained her valuables (jewelry, clothes, shoes/bag, accessories, luggage
itself). When San Agustin arrived at the Manila airport, she found out that her luggage was
missing. Fifteen (15) days after filing a complaint with Sabenas Local Manager, she was
informed that the Brussels Office found her luggage and was assured that the luggage will be
shipped to Manila within a month. Unfortunately, the luggage was lost for a second time. San
Agustin demanded from Sabena Airlines the money value of the luggage and its contents but
the latter refused to settle the claim. The TC and CA ruled in favour of San Agustin, ordering
Sabena Airlines to pay the former actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
Sabena alleges that the negligence of San Agustin in not retrieving the luggage in Brussels
should be considered as the primary cause for the loss of her luggage. Furthermore, Sabena
Airlines claimed that San Agustin, in checking in her luggage, did not declare its contents or
value, notwithstanding the provisions in her flight ticket stating that items of value are
required to be hand-carried and that the liability of the airline for loss, delay or damage to
baggage would be limited to only US$20/kilo unless a higher value is declared and
corresponding additional charges are paid.
Lastly, Sabena Airlines cites the General
Conditions of Carriage, signed at Warsaw, Poland (as amended by the Hague
Protocol) generally observed by International carriers, stating that: Passengers shall not
include in his checked baggage, and the carrier may refuse to carry as checked baggage,
fragile or perishable articles, money, jewelry, precious metals, negotiable papers, securities or
other valuables.
Issue: Whether or not Sabena Airlines should be held liable for the lost luggage- YES
The loss of said baggage not only once by twice, said the appellate court, underscores the
wanton negligence and lack of care on the part of the carrier. The above findings foreclose
whatever rights Sabena Airlines might have had to the possible limitation of liabilities
enjoyed by international air carriers under the Warsaw Convention. The Warsaw Convention
however denies to the carrier availment of the provisions which exclude or limit his liability,
if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in
accordance with the law of the court seized of the case, is considered to be equivalent to
wilful misconduct, or if the damage is (similarly) caused x x x by any agent of the carrier
acting within the scope of his employment. The Conventions provisions, in short, do not
regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its
officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. Otherwise, an
air carrier would be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal,
in bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd.
Facts:
Ma. Paula San Agustin was a passenger on board Flight SN 284 of Sabena Belgian
World Airlines originating from Casablanca to Brussels, Belgium on her way back to
Manila. San Agustin checked in her luggage which contained her valuables, namely
jewelries valued at $2,350.00; clothes $1,500.00; shoes/bag $150;
accessories $75; luggage itself $10.00; or a total of $4,265.00, for which she was issued
Tag No. 71423. She stayed overnight in Brussels and her luggage was left on board
Flight SN 284.
When San Agustin arrived at the Manila International Airport, she immediately
submitted her Tag No. 71423 to facilitate the release of her luggage, but the luggage
was missing. She was submitted and filed a Property Irregularity Report on the same
day.
After following up her claim 12 days after, she filed a formal complaint with the office
of Ferge Massed, Sabena Airlines Local Manager
15 days thereafter, she was furnished copies of Sabena Airlines telexes with an
information that Sabena Airlines Brussels Office found the luggage and that they broke
the locks for identification. San Agustin was assured by the Airline that it had notified
its Manila Office that the luggage will be shipped to Manila within a
month. Unfortunately, San Agustin was informed that the luggage was lost for the
second time.
At the time of the filling of the complaint, the luggage with its content has not been
found.
San Agustin demanded from Sabena Airlines the money value of the luggage and its
contents amounting to $4,265 but the latter refused to settle the claim.
!44
Sabena Airlines, while admitting in its answer that San Agustin was a passenger on
board Flight No. SN 284 with a piece of checked in luggage bearing Tag No. 71423, it
averred, among others, that the loss of the luggage was due to San Agustins sole if not
contributory negligence.
The TC rendered judgment ordering Sabena Belgian World Airlines to pay San Agustin
US$4,265 or its legal exchange in Philippine pesos;
o
o
P30,000 as moral damages;
P10,000 as exemplary damages
P10,000 attorneys fees
The costs of the suit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed TCs judgment
Sabena Airlines, in contending that the alleged negligence of San Agustin should be
considered the primary cause for the loss of her luggage, avers that, despite her
awareness that the flight ticket had been confirmed only for Casablanca and Brussels,
and that her flight from Brussels to Manila had yet to be confirmed, she did not retrieve
the luggage upon arrival in Brussels.
Sabena Airlines insists that San Agustin, being a seasoned international traveler, must
have likewise been familiar with the standard provisions in her flight ticket that items of
value are required to be hand-carried by the passenger and that the liability of the airline
for loss, delay or damage to baggage would be limited, in any event, to only US$20/ kilo
unless a higher value is declared in advance and corresponding additional charges are
paid thereon. And at the Casablanca International Airport, San Agustin, in checking in
her luggage, evidently did not declare its contents or value.
Sabena Airlines cites Section 5(c), Article IX, of the General Conditions of Carriage,
signed at Warsaw, Poland, as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955, generally
observed by International carriers, stating, among other things, that: Passengers shall
not include in his checked baggage, and the carrier may refuse to carry as checked
baggage, fragile or perishable articles, money, jewelry, precious metals, negotiable
papers, securities or other valuables.
Issue: Whether or not Sabena Airlines should be held liable for the lost luggage- YES
Ratio:
The rules with respect to the extraordinary diligence of common carriers remain
basically unchanged even when the contract is breached by tort although
noncontradictory principles on quasi-delict may then be assimilated as also forming part
of the governing law. Sabena Airlines is not thus entirely off track when it has likewise
raised in its defense the tort doctrine of proximate cause. Unfortunately for the Airline,
the doctrine cannot, in this particular instance, support its case.
It remained undisputed that San Agustins luggage was lost while it was in the custody
of the Airline. It was supposed to arrive on the same flight that she took in returning to
Manila on 02 September 1987. When she discovered that the luggage was missing, she
promptly accomplished and filed a Property Irregularity Report. She followed up her
claim on 14 September 1987, and filed, on the following day, a formal letter-complaint
with petitioner. She felt relieved when, on 23 October 1987, she was advised that her
luggage had finally been found, with its contents intact when examined, and that she
could expect it to arrive on 27 October 1987. She then waited anxiously only to be told
later that her luggage had been lost for the second time. Thus, the appellate court, given
all the facts before it, sustained the trial court in finding Sabena Airlines ultimately
guilty of gross negligence in the handling of San Agustins luggage. The loss of said
baggage not only once by twice, said the appellate court, underscores the wanton
negligence and lack of care on the part of the carrier.
The above findings foreclose whatever rights Sabena Airlines might have had to the
possible limitation of liabilities enjoyed by international air carriers under the Warsaw
Convention.
The Warsaw Convention however denies to the carrier availment of the provisions
which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or
by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court seized of the case,
is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct, or if the damage is (similarly)
caused by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. The
Hague Protocol amended the Warsaw Convention by removing the provision that if the
airline took all necessary steps to avoid the damage, it could exculpate itself completely,
and declaring the stated limits of liability not applicable if it is proved that the damage
resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to
cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.
The same deletion was effected by the Montreal Agreement of 1966, with the result that
a passenger could recover unlimited damages upon proof of wilful misconduct.
The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of
an airlines liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. Moreover,
slight reflection readily leads to the conclusion that it should be deemed a limit of
liability only in those cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or
destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or
attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness or otherwise improper
conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier is responsible, and
there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of resulting injury.
The
Conventions provisions, in short, do not regulate or exclude liability for other
breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its officers and employees, or for
some particular or exceptional type of damage. Otherwise, an air carrier would be
exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in bad faith,
to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd. Nor may it for a moment be
supposed that if a member of the aircraft complement should inflict some physical
injury on a passenger, or maliciously destroy or damage the latters property, the
Convention might successfully be pleaded as the sole gauge to determine the carriers
liability to the passenger. Neither may the Convention be invoked to justify the
disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a passenger and preclude
recovery therefor beyond the limits set by said Convention. It is in this sense that the
Convention has been applied, or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts presented by
each case.
Under domestic law and jurisprudence (the Philippines being the country of
destination), the attendance of gross negligence (given the equivalent of fraud or bad
faith) holds the common carrier liable for all damages which can be reasonably
attributed, although unforeseen, to the non-performance of the obligation, including
moral and exemplary damages.
!45
12 FEDERAL EXPRESS V. AMERICAN HOME, 437 SCRA 50 RESPICIO

Emergency: Smithkline shipped vaccines to a Filipino consignee thru Fedex. The airway bill
states: Perishable, Refrigerate. The vaccines arrived. But they were stored in a warehouse
room with only 2 aircons functioning. A representative of the Filipino consignee inspected the
goods. Why is this stored in aircon only? Sir because the box containing the vaccines says do
not expose to extreme heat or cold. The vaccines were found sira. Consignee rescinded
contract. Smithkline asked for payment from insurer. Paid. Insurer now wants to collect from
the warehouse people. The defense was, the insurer did not notify before filing the
complaint. According to the warsaw convention and the airway bill, it is a condition
precedent. Without complying to it, cause of action does not arise. This is to afford the person
sought to confirm the deteriorated/destroyed goods. Therefore, case dismissed.
Doctrine: Basic is the requirement that before suing to recover loss of or damage to
transported goods, the plaintiff must give the carrier notice of the loss or damage, within the
period prescribed by the Warsaw Convention and/or the airway bill.
The Facts
On January 26, 1994, SMITHKLINE Beecham (SMITHKLINE for brevity) of Nebraska,
USA delivered to Burlington Air Express (BURLINGTON), an agent of [Petitioner] Federal
Express Corporation, a shipment of 109 cartons of veterinary biologicals for delivery to
consignee SMITHKLINE and French Overseas Company in Makati City, Metro Manila. The
shipment was covered by Burlington Airway Bill No. 11263825 with the words,
REFRIGERATE WHEN NOT IN TRANSIT and PERISHABLE stamp marked on its
face. That same day, Burlington insured the cargoes in the amount of $39,339.00 with
American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). The following day, Burlington turned over
the custody of said cargoes to Federal Express which transported the same to Manila. The
first shipment, consisting of 92 cartons arrived in Manila on January 29, 1994 in Flight No.
0071-28NRT and was immediately stored at [Cargohaus Inc.s] warehouse. While the second,
consisting of 17 cartons, came in two (2) days later, or on January 31, 1994, in Flight No.
0071-30NRT which was likewise immediately stored at Cargohaus warehouse. Prior to the
arrival of the cargoes, Federal Express informed GETC Cargo International Corporation, the
customs broker hired by the consignee to facilitate the release of its cargoes from the Bureau
of Customs, of the impending arrival of its clients cargoes.
On February 10, 1994, DARIO C. DIONEDA (DIONEDA), twelve (12) days after the
cargoes arrived in Manila, a non-licensed customs broker who was assigned by GETC to
facilitate the release of the subject cargoes, found out, while he was about to cause the release
of the said cargoes, that the same [were] stored only in a room with two (2) air conditioners
running, to cool the place instead of a refrigerator. When he asked an employee of Cargohaus
why the cargoes were stored in the cool room only, the latter told him that the cartons where
the vaccines were contained specifically indicated therein that it should not be subjected to
hot or cold temperature. Thereafter, DIONEDA, upon instructions from GETC, did not
proceed with the withdrawal of the vaccines and instead, samples of the same were taken and
brought to the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines
by SMITHKLINE for examination wherein it was discovered that the ELISA reading of
vaccinates sera are below the positive reference serum.
As a consequence of the foregoing result of the veterinary biologics test, SMITHKLINE

abandoned the shipment and, declaring total loss for the unusable shipment, filed a claim
with AHAC through its representative in the Philippines, the Philam Insurance Co., Inc.
(PHILAM) which recompensed SMITHKLINE for the whole insured amount of THIRTY
NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE DOLLARS ($39,339.00).
Thereafter, [respondents] filed an action for damages against the [petitioner] imputing
negligence on either or both of them in the handling of the cargo.
The Issues
Is Federal Express liable for damage to or loss of the insured goods?

Proper Payee
The Certificate specifies that loss of or damage to the insured cargo is payable to order
x x x upon surrender of this Certificate. Such wording conveys the right of collecting on any
such damage or loss, as fully as if the property were covered by a special policy in the name
of the holder itself. At the back of the Certificate appears the signature of the representative
of Burlington. This document has thus been duly indorsed in blank and is deemed a bearer
instrument.
Since the Certificate was in the possession of Smithkline, the latter had the right of
collecting or of being indemnified for loss of or damage to the insured shipment, as fully as if
the property were covered by a special policy in the name of the holder. Hence, being the
holder of the Certificate and having an insurable interest in the goods, Smithkline was the
proper payee of the insurance proceeds.
Subrogation
Upon receipt of the insurance proceeds, the consignee (Smithkline) executed a
subrogation Receipt[12] in favor of respondents. The latter were thus authorized to file claims
and begin suit against any such carrier, vessel, person, corporation or government.
Undeniably, the consignee had a legal right to receive the goods in the same condition it was
delivered for transport to petitioner. If that right was violated, the consignee would have a
cause of action against the person responsible therefor.
Upon payment to the consignee of an indemnity for the loss of or damage to the insured
goods, the insurers entitlement to subrogation pro tanto -- being of the highest equity -equips it with a cause of action in case of a contractual breach or negligence.[13]Further, the
insurers subrogatory right to sue for recovery under the bill of lading in case of loss of or
damage to the cargo is jurisprudentially upheld.[14]
In the exercise of its subrogatory right, an insurer may proceed against an erring carrier.
To all intents and purposes, it stands in the place and in substitution of the consignee. A
fortiori, both the insurer and the consignee are bound by the contractual stipulations under the
bill of lading.[15]
!46
Prescription of Claim
From the initial proceedings in the trial court up to the present, petitioner has tirelessly
pointed out that respondents claim and right of action are already barred. The latter, and even
the consignee, never filed with the carrier any written notice or complaint regarding its claim
for damage of or loss to the subject cargo within the period required by the Warsaw
Convention and/or in the airway bill. Indeed, this fact has never been denied by respondents
and is plainly evident from the records.
Airway Bill No. 11263825, issued by Burlington as agent of petitioner, states:
6.
No action shall be maintained in the case of damage to or partial loss of the shipment
unless a written notice, sufficiently describing the goods concerned, the approximate date of
the damage or loss, and the details of the claim, is presented by shipper or consignee to an
office of Burlington within (14) days from the date the goods are placed at the disposal of the
person entitled to delivery, or in the case of total loss (including non-delivery) unless
presented within (120) days from the date of issue of the [Airway Bill].[16]
Relevantly, petitioners airway bill states:
12./12.1 The person entitled to delivery must make a complaint to the carrier in writing in
the case:
12.1.1 of visible damage to the goods, immediately after discovery of the damage
and at the latest within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the goods;
12.1.2 of other damage to the goods, within fourteen (14) days from the date of
receipt of the goods;
12.1.3 delay, within twenty-one (21) days of the date the goods are placed at his
disposal; and
12.1.4 of non-delivery of the goods, within one hundred and twenty (120) days
from the date of the issue of the air waybill.
12.2 For the purpose of 12.1 complaint in writing may be made to the carrier whose air
waybill was used, or to the first carrier or to the last carrier or to the carrier who performed
the transportation during which the loss, damage or delay took place.[17]
Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, on the other hand, provides:
ART. 26. (1) Receipt by the person entitled to the delivery of baggage or goods without
complaint shall be prima facie evidence that the same have been delivered in good condition
and in accordance with the document of transportation.
(2) In case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith
after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within 3 days from the date of receipt in
the case of baggage and 7 days from the date of receipt in the case of goods. In case of delay
the complaint must be made at the latest within 14 days from the date on which the baggage
or goods have been placed at his disposal.
(3)
Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of transportation or by
separate notice in writing dispatched within the times aforesaid.
(4) Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save
in the case of fraud on his part.[18]
carrier for loss of or damage to the goods.[19] The shipper or consignee must allege and prove
the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can
accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition
precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.[20]
The requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods is not an empty
formalism. The fundamental reasons for such a stipulation are (1) to inform the carrier that
the cargo has been damaged, and that it is being charged with liability therefor; and (2) to give
it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This protects the carrier by
affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and
easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims.[21]
When an airway bill -- or any contract of carriage for that matter -- has a stipulation that
requires a notice of claim for loss of or damage to goods shipped and the stipulation is not
complied with, its enforcement can be prevented and the liability cannot be imposed on the
carrier. To stress, notice is a condition precedent, and the carrier is not liable if notice is not
given in accordance with the stipulation.[22] Failure to comply with such a stipulation bars recovery for the
loss or damage suffered.[23]
Being a condition precedent, the notice must precede a suit for enforcement.[24] In the
present case, there is neither an allegation nor a showing of respondents compliance with this
requirement within the prescribed period. While respondents may have had a cause of action
then, they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply with the aforesaid condition
precedent.
In view of the foregoing, we find no more necessity to pass upon the other issues raised
by petitioner.
We note that respondents are not without recourse. Cargohaus, Inc. -- petitioners codefendant in respondents Complaint below -- has been adjudged by the trial court as liable
for, inter alia, actual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of US $39,339.[25] This
judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is already final and executory.[26]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED,
13 UNITED AIRLINES V. UY, 318 SCRA 576 -JAYPEE ORTIZ
United Airlines v. Uy, 318 SCRA 576
Common Carrier:
United Airlines
Passenger:
William Uy
Problem
Uy was rebuked by an airline employee because a piece of

his luggage was beyond the 70kg limit. He was ordered to
repack his luggage and was compelled to pay additional fees.
When he arrived in Manila, he discovered that one of his bags
was slashed and its contents stolen.
He filed an action for damages. CC insists that the action has
prescribed pursuant to the Warsaw Convention.
Who won:
Passenger- UY.
Condition Precedent
In this jurisdiction, the filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation
therefor actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a
!47
ER: William Uy is a passenger on United Airlines flight from San Francisco bound for
Manila. At the airline counter, he was rebuked by an airline employee because a piece of his
luggage was beyond the 70 kg limit. In a loud voice (he was humiliated), the employee told
Uy to repack his luggage. He acceded, but still his luggage was overweight. He was
compelled to pay overweight charges with his credit card. When he arrived in Manila, he
discovered that one of his bags was slashed and its contents stolen. He wrote a letter to the
airline to demand reimbursement. The airline mailed him a check representing an amount
which he believed to be inadequate to compensate him for the loss and the humiliation he
suffered. He sent two more demand letters hoping to have an out of court settlement for 1
million. The airline did not accede to his demands. Hence, Uy filed an action for damages.
The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Uys action had already prescribed
pursuant to Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention which provides that The right to damages
shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two (2) years
Issue w/n Uys action had already prescribed?
Despite Uys explanation that the last figure written on the MCO represented his
balance, the Airline employees did not accommodate him.
Faced with the prospect of leaving without his luggage, Uy paid the overweight charges
with his American Express credit card.
Upon arrival in Manila, he discovered that one of his bags had been slashed and its
contents stolen. He particularized his losses to be around US $5,310.00.
Uy wrote a letter to United Airlines and bewailed the insult, embarrassment and
humiliating treatment he suffered in the hands of United Airlines employees, he notified
the airline of his loss and requested reimbursement thereof.
United Airlines did not refute any of Uys allegations and mailed a check representing
the payment of his loss based on the maximum liability of US $9.70 per pound.
Thinking the amount to be grossly inadequate to compensate, Uy, sent 2 more letters to
the airline on separate dates. The first was from Atty. Pesigan, and the latter through
Atty. Ramon U. Ampil demanding an out-of-court settlement of P1,000,000.00.
United Airlines did not accede to his demands.
Hence, Uy filed a complaint for damages against United Airlines. Alleging the
following:
Held: No.
SC held that although the 2-year prescriptive period under the Warsaw Convention has
lapsed, it did not preclude the application of other pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code. (The Court said that Uy has two causes of action 1) damages for the humiliating
treatment -governed by Civil Code 2) loss of contents of luggage- governed by Warsaw
Convention) As per the Civil code, the action for damages could still be filed based on
tort which can be filed within 4 years from the time cause of action accrued.
RE : loss of the contents of the luggage. Despite the express mandate of Art. 29 of the
Warsaw Convention that an action for damages should be filed within two (2) years
from the arrival at the place of destination, such rule shall not be applied in the instant
case because of the delaying tactics employed by petitioner airline itself.
Complete:
Willie J. Uy, a revenue passenger on United Airlines Flight No. 819 for the San
Francisco - Manila route, checked in together with his luggage.
One piece of his luggage was found to be overweight at the airline counter.
An employee of the AIRLINE rebuked him saying that he should have known the
maximum weight allowance to be 70 kgs. / bag and that he should have packed his
things accordingly. Then, in a loud voice in front of the milling crowd, she told
respondent to repack his things and transfer some of them from the overweight
luggage to the lighter ones.
UY acceded but still his luggage was overweight.
The airline
billed him overweight charges which he offered to pay with a
miscellaneous charge order (MCO) or an airline pre-paid credit.
However, the airlines employee, and its airport supervisor, refused to honor the MCO
pointing out that there were conflicting figures listed on it.
He was a person of good station, sitting in the board of directors of

several top 500 corporations and holding senior executive positions
for such similar firms
the airline accorded him ill and shabby treatment to his extreme
embarrassment and humiliation;
He should be paid moral damages of at least P1,000,000.00,

exemplary damages of at least P500,000.00, plus attorney's fees of
at least P50,000.00
The damage to his luggage and its stolen contents amounted to

around $5,310.00,
United Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondents cause
of action had prescribed, invoking Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention which provides Art. 29 (1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not
brought within two (2) years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination,
or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on
which the transportation stopped.
(2) The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by
the law of the court to which the case is submitted. (TAKE NOTE)
Uy countered that par. (1) of Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention must be reconciled with
par. (2) thereof which states that "the method of calculating the period of limitation
shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted."
Uy noted that according to Philippine laws the prescription of actions is interrupted

"when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand
by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor." Since he made several demands on separate dates upon United Airlines: first,
through his personal letter second, through from Atty. Pesigan; and, finally, through a
letter written for him by Atty. Ampil, the two (2)-year period of limitation had not yet
been exhausted.
TRIAL COURT: (dismissed case- concluded that Art. 29 excludes the application of our
interruption rules.)
TC ruled that the language of Art. 29 is clear that the action must be
brought within two (2) years from the date of arrival at the
destination.
Although the second paragraph of Art. 29 speaks of deference to the

law of the local court in "calculating the period of limitation," the
same does not refer to the local forums rules in interrupting
the prescriptive period but only to the rules of determining the
time in which the action may be deemed commenced, and
within our jurisdiction the action shall be deemed "brought" or
commenced by the filing of a complaint.
On appeal to the CA, United Airlines moved to dismiss on the ground that the notice of
appeal was filed beyond the 15 day period. On this note the CA said that Uys delay of
two (2) days in filing his notice of appeal did not hinder it from reviewing the appealed
order of dismissal since jurisprudence dictates that an appeal may be entertained
despite procedural lapses anchored on equity and justice.
CA Ruling: REVERSED TC- Uys cause of action had not yet prescribed and ordered
the records remanded to the QC trial court for further proceedings CA held that under
Philippine laws, prescription of actions is interrupted where, among others, there is a
written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and since respondent Uy sent several
demand letters to petitioner United Airlines, the running of the two (2)-year prescriptive
period was in effect suspended
ISSUE:
!48
w/n Uys action against United Airlines has already prescribed?
Held: CA affirmed (but take note of the SC interpretation of the 2 year prescriptive period)
SC held that although the 2-year prescriptive period under the Warsaw Convention has
lapsed, it did not preclude the application of other pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code. (The Court said that Uy has two causes of action 1) damages for the humiliating
treatment 2) loss of contents of luggage) Thus, the action for damages could still be filed
based on tort which can be filed within 4 years from the time cause of action accrued. As
for the action pertaining to the loss of the contents of the luggage, while it was well
within the bounds of the Warsaw Convention, the SC found that there was an exception
to the applicability of the 2-year prescriptive period that is when the airline employed
delaying tactics and gave the passenger the run-around.
I) Applicability of the Warsaw Convention:

Courts have discretion whether to apply them or not;
Within our jurisdiction we have held that the Warsaw Convention can be applied, or
ignored, depending on the peculiar facts presented by each case. Thus, SC have ruled the
following:
Neither may the Convention be invoked to justify the disregard of some

extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a passenger and preclude recovery
therefor beyond the limits set by said Convention.
Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent
laws.
It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for
violating 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 established.
Convention's provisions do not regulate or exclude liability for other

breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its officers and
employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage.
Uy's complaint reveals that he is suing on two (2) causes of action:

(a) the shabby and humiliating treatment he received from the employees at the San Francisco
Airport which caused him extreme embarrassment and social humiliation; and,
(b) the slashing of his luggage and the loss of his personal effects amounting to US $5,310.00.
While his second cause of action - an action for damages arising from theft or damage to
property or goods - is well within the bounds of the Warsaw Convention, his first cause of
action -an action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline employees and the
violation of respondent's rights as passenger - clearly is not.
Action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline employees and the violation of
the respondents rights as passengers is covered under the Civil Code
Consequently, insofar as the first cause of action is concerned, Uy's failure to file his
!49
complaint within the two (2)-year limitation of the Warsaw Convention does not bar his
action since petitioner airline may still be held liable for breach of other provisions of
the Civil Code which prescribe a different period or procedure for instituting the action,
specifically, Art. 1146 thereof which prescribes four (4) years for filing an action based
on torts.
II. EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICATION OF THE 2-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD: When airline employed delaying tactics
As for Uy's second cause of action, indeed the travaux preparatories of the Warsaw
Convention reveal that the delegates thereto intended the two (2)- year limitation
incorporated in ART. 29 AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO SUIT AND NOT TO BE MADE
SUBJECT TO THE VARIOUS TOLLING PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE
FORUM.
This therefore forecloses the application of our own rules on interruption of prescriptive
periods. Article 29, par. (2), was intended only to let local laws determine whether an action
had been commenced within the two (2)-year period, and within our jurisdiction an action
shall be deemed commenced upon the filing of a complaint.
It is undisputed that Uy filed the present action beyond the two (2)-year time frame his second
cause of action must be barred. Nonetheless, it cannot be doubted that Uy exerted efforts to
immediately convey his loss to United Airlines, he even employed the services of two lawyers
to follow up his claims, and that the filing of the action itself was delayed because of
petitioner's evasion.
Uy was forestalled from immediately filing an action because airline gave him the runaround,
answering his letters but not giving in to his demands. True, Uy should have already filed an
action at the first instance when his claims were denied by the airline but the same could only
be due to his desire to make an out-of-court settlement for which he cannot be faulted.
Despite the express mandate of Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention that an action for
damages should be filed within two (2) years from the arrival at the place of destination,
such rule shall not be applied in the instant case because of the delaying tactics
employed by petitioner airline itself.
Trivia: Willie J. Uy had his MBA in Ateneo Graduate School of Business, He is the Vice
President for Operations of Phinma Property Holdings Corporation, etc.
Uy, this Court distinguished between the (1) damage to the passengers baggage and (2)
humiliation he suffered at the hands of the airlines employees. The first cause of action was
covered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribes in two years, while the second was
covered by the provisions of the Civil Code on torts, which prescribes in four years.
Facts:
14 PAL V. SAVILLO, 557 SCRA 66 AQUINO
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. ADRIANO SAVILLO, Presiding

Judge of RTC Branch 30, Iloilo City, and SIMPLICIO GRIO, respondents.
By Alexis Aquino
Emergency Recit: Grio et. al. purchased tickets from PAL for Manila-Singapore-Jakarta
and back. They were made to understand that upon arrival to Singapore, they would take
Singapore Airlines to Jakarta. However, upon arrival to Singapore, Singapore Airlines
rejected the tickets because they were not endorsed by PAL. They were forced to buy new
tickets from another airline. Because of the nerve-racking experience, Grio wasnt able to
participate in a golf tournament. Grio filed a case for damages. He won in both RTC and
CA. PAL appeals saying that the courts erred in not applying the Warsaw Convention, which
provides for a 2-year prescriptive period. The SC held that jurisprudence in the Philippines
and the United States recognizes that the Warsaw Convention does not exclusively regulate
the relationship between passenger and carrier on an international flight. In United Airlines v.
Grio was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Seniors Annual Golf Tournament
held in Jakarta, Indonesia. He and several purchased tickets from PAL with the
following points of passage: MANILA-SINGAPORE-JAKARTA-SINGAPOREMANILA.
Grio and his companions were made to understand by PAL that its plane would take
them from Manila to Singapore, while Singapore Airlines would take them from
Singapore to Jakarta.
Grio et. al. took the PAL flight to Singapore and arrived at 6PM. Upon their arrival,
they proceeded to the Singapore Airlines office to check-in for their flight to Jakarta
scheduled at 8PM.
Singapore Airlines rejected the tickets of private respondent and his group because they
were not endorsed by PAL. Grio tried to contact PALs office at the airport, only to
find out that it was closed.
Stranded at the airport in Singapore and left with no recourse, Grio was in panic and at
a loss where to go; and was subjected to humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, fear and distress.
Eventually, Grio et. al. were forced to purchase tickets from Garuda Airlines and board
its last flight bound for Jakarta. When they arrived in Jakarta at about 12AM, the party
who was supposed to fetch them from the airport had already left and they had to
arrange for their transportation to the hotel at a very late hour.
After the series of nerve-wracking experiences, Grio became ill and was unable to
participate in the tournament.
Upon his return to the Philippines, Grio sent a demand letter to PAL and another to
Singapore Airlines. However, both airlines disowned liability and blamed each other for
the fiasco.
Grio filed a Complaint for Damages before the RTC, seeking compensation for moral
damages in the amount of P1M and attorneys fees.
PAL filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the said complaint was barred on the
ground of prescription under Section 1(f) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, particularly Article 29 thereof,
o
governed this case, as it provides that any claim for damages in connection
with the international transportation of persons is subject to the prescription
period of two years. Since the Complaint was filed on 15 August 1997, more
than three years after PAL received the demand letter on 25 January 1994, it
was already barred by prescription.
RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. It maintained that the provisions of the Civil Code
and other pertinent laws of the Philippines, not the Warsaw Convention, were
applicable to the present case.
The CA, likewise dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by PAL and RTC Decision.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in not applying the provisions of the Warsaw Convention
despite the fact that Grios cause of action arose from a breach of contract for international
air transport.
!50
Held: PAL lost.

Ratio:
The Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation of persons, baggage

or goods performed by any aircraft for hire. It seeks to accommodate or balance the
interests of passengers seeking recovery for personal injuries and the interests of air
carriers seeking to limit potential liability.
It employs a scheme of strict liability favoring passengers and imposing
o
damage caps to benefit air carriers.
The cardinal purpose of the Warsaw Convention is to provide uniformity of
o
rules governing claims arising from international air travel; thus, it precludes
a passenger from maintaining an action for personal injury damages under
local law when his or her claim does not satisfy the conditions of liability
under the Convention.
Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention provides for liability on the part of a carrier for
damages occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or
goods. Article 24 excludes other remedies by further providing that (1) in the cases
covered by articles 18 and 19, any action for damages, however founded, can only be
brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this convention. Therefore, a
claim covered by the Warsaw Convention can no longer be recovered under local law, if
the statute of limitations of two years has already lapsed.
Nevertheless, this Court notes that jurisprudence in the Philippines and the United
States also recognizes that the Warsaw Convention does not exclusively regulate the
relationship between passenger and carrier on an international flight.
United Airlines v. Uy, this Court distinguished between the (1) damage to the
passengers baggage and (2) humiliation he suffered at the hands of the airlines
employees. The first cause of action was covered by the Warsaw Convention, which
prescribes in two years, while the second was covered by the provisions of the Civil
Code on torts, which prescribes in four years.
Mahaney v. Air France, where the plaintiff alleged that the airlines subjected her to
unjust discrimination or undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage, an act
punishable under the United States laws, then the plaintiff may claim purely nominal
compensatory damages for humiliation and hurt feelings, which are not provided for by
the Warsaw Convention.
Wolgel v. Mexicana Airlines, the court pronounced that actions for damages for the
bumping off itself, rather than the incidental damages due to the delay, fall outside the
Warsaw Convention and do not prescribe in two years.
In the Petition at bar, private respondents Complaint alleged that both PAL and
Singapore Airlines were guilty of gross negligence, which resulted in his being
subjected to humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, serious anxiety, fear and
distress. The emotional harm suffered by the private respondent as a result of having
been unreasonably and unjustly prevented from boarding the plane should be
distinguished from the actual damages, which resulted from the same incident. Under
the Civil Code provisions on tort, such emotional harm gives rise to compensation
where gross negligence or malice is proven.
Lathigra v. British Airways - It was held that the airlines negligent act of reconfirming
the passengers reservation days before departure and failing to inform the latter that the
flight had already been discontinued is not among the acts covered by the Warsaw
Convention, since the alleged negligence did not occur during the performance of the
contract of carriage but, rather, days before the scheduled flight.
In the case at hand, Singapore Airlines barred private respondent from boarding
the Singapore Airlines flight because PAL allegedly failed to endorse the tickets of
private respondent and his companions, despite PALs assurances to respondent
that Singapore Airlines had already confirmed their passage. While this fact still
needs to be heard and established by adequate proof before the RTC, an action
based on these allegations will not fall under the Warsaw Convention, since the
purported negligence on the part of PAL did not occur during the performance of
the contract of carriage but days before the scheduled flight. Thus, the present
action cannot be dismissed based on the statute of limitations provided under
Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention.
Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the airlines
o
delay in transporting their passengers, the private respondents Complaint
would have been time-barred under Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention.
These claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort, and not within the
purview of the Warsaw Convention.
15 AIR FRANCE V. CA, 171 SCRA 399 BENEDICTO
AIR FRANCE vs. CA (1989) - Quijano- Benedicto

G.R. No. 76093 March 21, 1989
AIR FRANCE vs. CA AND NARCISO O. MORALES
PADILLA, J.:
COMMON CARRIER: Air France

PASSENGER: Narciso O. Morales
PROBLEM: Morales had to cut his trip due to ear infection. Some parts/route of the ticket
are non endorseable and valid for AF only.
Who WON: Air France, but need to refund unused portion of the ticket.
EMERGENCY DIGEST: Atty. Narciso Morales, thru his representative, purchased an

airline ticket from ASPAC, Air France's general sales agent in Makati. The itinerary covered
by the ticket included several cities, with certain segments restricted by markings of "non
endorsable" and "valid on Air France only." While in New York, USA, Morales suffered an
ear infection which needed medical treatment. He obtained 3 medical certificates. From NY,
he flew to Paris, Stockholm and then Copenhagen where he made representations with Air
France's office to shorten his trip by deleting some cities in his itinerary. Morales was
informed that, as a matter of procedure, confirmation of AF Manila must be secured before
shortening of the route. AF Manila denied the request to shorten the trip. After reiterating his
need to fly home on a shorter route due to his ear infection, again, the request to AF Manila.
Still, the request was denied. Morales had to buy an entirely new set of tickets. Morales filed
a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages. CFI found Air France in evident
bad faith for violation of contract of carriage and awarded damages. CA modified the amount
of damages. SC held that Air France is not guilty of breach of contract Mere refusal to accede
to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence of bad
faith. Morales has failed to show wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct imputable to
petitioner in its refusal to re-route. Of importance, however, is the fact that Morales is a
lawyer, and the restriction box clearly indicated the non-endorsable character of the ticket.
COMPLETE DIGEST:
Sometime in October 1977, Narciso Morales thru his representative, Ms. Janet
Tolentino, purchased an airline ticket from Aspac Management Corporation
(ASPAC), Air France's General Sales Agent in Makati, for P 9,426.00 plus P
1,413.90 travel tax, of which P 413.90 were later refunded to Ms. Tolentino.
The itinerary covered by the ticket included several cities, with certain segments
thereof restricted by markings of "non endorsable' and 'valid on AF (meaning Air
France) only', as herein specified:
CARRIER EXPRESS
ITINERARY SPECIFIED RESTRICTIONS
New York/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Paris/Stockholm Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Stockholm/Copenhagen None
Copenhagen/London None
London/Amsterdam None
Amsterdam/Hamburg None
Humburg/Frankfurt None
Frankfurt/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Paris/Geneva Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Geneva/Madrid None
Madrid/Nice Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Nice/Rome Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Rome/Athens None
Athens/Tel Aviv None
Tel Avive/Bangkok Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Bangkok/Manila Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
!51
While in New York, U.S.A. on 3 November 1977, Morales obtained 3 medical

certificates (Exhibits G, G-1, G-2) attesting to ear an infection which necessitated
medical treatment. From New York, he flew to Paris, Stockholm and then
Copenhagen where he made representations with Air France's office to shorten his
trip by deleting some of the cities in the itinerary. Morales was informed that, as a
matter of procedure, confirmation of Air France's office in Manila (as ticketing
office) must be secured before shortening of the route (already paid for). AF in
Amsterdam telexed AF Manila requesting for rerouting of the passenger to
Amsterdam, Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong, Manila.
As there was no immediate response to the telex, Morales proceeded to Hamburg
where he was informed of AF Manila's negative reply. After reiterating his need to
fly home on a shorter route due to his ear infection, and presentation of supporting
medical certificates, again, the airline office made the necessary request to Manila
on 23 November 1977 for a Hamburg, Paris, Geneva, Rome, Paris, Hongkong and
Manila route. Still, the request was denied. Morales, therefore, had to buy an
entirely new set of tickets, paying 1,914 German marks for the homeward route,
namely:
Itinerary Carrier Date Reservation

Hamburg/Frankfurt LH 26 Nov. OK (Lufthansa)
Frankfurt/Geneva SR 26 Nov. OK (Swissair)
Geneva/Rome AZ 29 Nov. OK (Alitalia)
Rome/Hongkong BA 02 Dec. OK (British Airways)
Hongkong/Manila PR Open Open (Philippine Airlines)
Upon arrival in Manila, Morales sent a letter-complaint to Air France thru ASPAC.
Morales was advised to surrender the unused flight coupons for a refund of its
value, but he kept the same and, instead, filed a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage and damages.
CFI Judge Marcelino Sayo found Air France in evident bad faith for violation of
the contract of carriage, aggravated by the threatening attitude of its employees in
Hamburg. Considering the social and economic standing of Morales, who is
chairman of the board of directors of a multi-million corporation and a member of
several civic and business organizations, an award of moral and exemplary
damages, in addition to the actual damages incurred, was deemed proper under the
circumstances. CFI ordered Air France to pay Morales the sum of 1,914 German
Marks, in its equivalent in Philippine Peso, as actual damages, the sum of P
1,000,000.00 as moral damages, and the further sum of P 800,000.00 as exemplary
damages, with legal interest thereon from date of the filing of the complaint until
fully paid, plus the sum equal to 20% thereof as attorney's fees.
CA modified the award of damages, as follows:

(1) 1,914 German Marks in its equivalent in Philippine peso at prevailing rate of exchange as
actual damages, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until
fully paid;
(2) P 500,000.00, as moral damages;
(3) P 150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
(4) 5% of the amount of actual, moral and exemplary damages which are recoverable, as
attorney's fees.
ISSUE: Whether there is a breach of contract of carriage to justify actual, moral and
exemplary damages.
HELD: CA judgment is Reversed and Set Aside. Air France is ordered, however, to refund
to Morales the value of the unused coupons in the passenger's ticket.
RATIO:
International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Resolution No. 275 e, 2.,

special note reads: "Where a fare is restricted and such restrictions are not clearly
evident from the required entries on the ticket, such restrictions may be written,
stamped or reprinted in plain language in the Endorsement/Restrictions" box of
the applicable flight coupon(s); or attached thereto by use of an appropriate
notice." Voluntary changes to tickets, while allowable, are also covered by IATA
Resolution No. 1013, Art. II, which provides: "1. changes to the ticket requested by
the passenger will be subject to carriers regulations.
Morales wanted a rerouting to Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong and Manila

which shortened the original itinerary on the ticket issued by Air France Manila.
!52
Considering the original restrictions on the ticket, it was not unreasonable for Air
France to deny the request.
Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention15 , an airline carrier is liable only to untoward

occurrences on its own line. CA affirmed RTC.
Besides, a recurring ear infection was pleaded as reason necessitating urgent return
to Manila. Assuming arguendo a worsening pain or discomfort, Morales appears to
have still proceeded to 4 other cities covering a period of at least 6 days and
leaving open his date of departure from Hongkong to Manila. Even if he claimed
to have undergone medical examination upon arrival in Manila, no medical
certificate was presented. He failed to even remember his date of arrival in Manila.
ISSUE W/N Lufthansa is liable. YES!!!

W/N respondent court erred as a matter of law in refusing to apply the Warsaw
Convention to the instant case. NO!!!
Air France employees in Hamburg informed Morales that his tickets were partly
stamped "non-endorsable" and "valid on Air France only." Mere refusal to accede
to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the
absence of bad faith. Morales has failed to show wanton, malevolent or reckless
misconduct imputable to petitioner in its refusal to re-route.
Air France Manila acted upon the advise of ASPAC in denying Morales' request. There was
no evident bad faith when it followed the advise not to authorize rerouting. At worst, the
situation can be considered a case of inadvertence on the part of ASPAC in not explaining the
non-endorsable character of the ticket. Of importance, however, is the fact that Morales is a
lawyer, and the restriction box clearly indicated the non-endorsable character of the ticket.
16 LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES V. CA, 238 SCRA 290* -CHAN

Lufthansa vs CA
G.R. No. 83612, November 24, 1994
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TIRSO
V. ANTIPORDA, SR., respondents.
EMERGENCY RECIT
Antiporda was an associate director of the Central Bank and a registered consultant of the
Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the UNDP. Antiporda was contracted by SGV
to be the institutional financial specialist for a project of the Investment and Development
Bank of Malawi in Africa. Lufthansa, through SGV, issued a ticket for Antipordas confirmed
5-leg flight to Malawi. The itinerary was Manila-Singapore-Bombay-Nairobi-LilongweBlantyre. Antiporda boarded Lufthansa in the flight to Singapore and to Bombay. In Bombay,
there was no Lufthansa representative waiting at the gate so he called up Lufthansa. 10
minutes later, Gerard Matias, Lufthansas traffic officer, arrived and asked for his ticket and
told him to sit down and wait. Matias returned with Leslie Benent, duty officer of Lufthansa,
who informed Antiporda that his seat was given to a VIP of Bombay who was going to attend
a religious function in Nairobi. Antiporda was stranded and it was only until the next day that
he was able to book a flight for Nairobi. This resulted to Antiporda being late for his
appointment. Antiporda filed a case with the RTC of QC. RTC ruled against Lufthansa.
Lufthansa argued that it was a mere ticket-issuing agent and that under sections (1) and (2) of
The 4th paragraph of the conditions in the ticket indubitably showed that the contract
was considered as one of continuous air transportation. Therefore, the argument that it
is Air Kenya that is liable is untenable.
4. carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is
o
regarded as a single operation.
Lufthansa cannot claim that its liability ceased at Bombay Airport. We,
o
therefore, reject Lufthansa's theory that from the time another carrier was
engaged to transport Antiporda on another segment of his trip, it merely acted
as a ticket-issuing agent. Lufthansa is clearly the principal in the contract of
carriage with Antiporda and remains to be so, regardless of those instances
when actual carriage was to be performed by various carriers.
Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention is also not applicable. The article
presupposes the occurrence of either an accident or a delay. Neither took place. What
is here manifest is that there was refusal to transport Antiporda.
Lufthansa prays that the SC take note of US jurisprudence where the term delay
includes bumping-off or failure to carry a passenger with a confirmed reservation.
SC: These decisions in the US are not controlling in this jurisdiction. The ordinary
language of a statute must be given its ordinary meaning and limited to a reasonable
interpretation. Mere simple delay is what the provision contemplates.
DETAILED DIGEST
FACTS
Tirso V. Antiporda, Sr. was an associate director of the Central Bank of the Philippines
and a registered consultant of the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the
UNDP.
Antiporda was contracted by SGV to be the institutional financial specialist for the
agricultural credit institution project of the Investment and Development Bank of
Malawi in Africa.
Antiporda was to render services as an independent contractor and he would be
provided a round-trip economy ticket from Manila to Blantyre and back with a travel
allowance of $50 per day, a travel insurance coverage of P100,000 and major
hospitalization with AFIA, and an accident insurance coverage of P150,000.
Lufthansa, through SGV, issued a ticket for Antipordas confirmed flights to Malawi,
Africa. The itinerary was Manila-Singapore-Bombay-Nairobi-Lilongwe-Blantyre.
Antiporda took the Lufthansa flight to Singapore. He proceeded to Bombay on the same
airline. He arrived in Bombay and waited at the transit area of the airport for his
connecting flight to Nairobi. There was no representative of Lufthansa waiting for him
! Art. 30 (1). In the case of transportation to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in the third paragraph of Article I, each carrier who accepts passengers, baggage, or goods shall be subject to the rules set
15
out in the convention, and shall be deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of transportation insofar as the contract deals with that part of the transportation which is performed under his supervision.
(2) In the case of transportation of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action only against the carrier who performed the transportation during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement,
the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey. (Emphasis supplied).
at the gate so he asked the officer of Air India how he could get in touch with
Lufthansa. He was told to call up Lufthansa.
10 minutes later, Gerard Matias, Lufthansas traffic officer, arrived and asked for
Antipordas ticket and told him to just sit down and wait. Matias returned with Leslie
Benent, duty officer of Lufthansa, who informed Antiporda that his seat in Air Kenya
Fliight 203 to Nairobi was given to a VIP of Bombay who was attending a religious
function in Nairobi.
Antiporda was left stranded in Bombay. He only got to book a flight for Nairobi via
Addis Ababa only on the next day. He finally arrived in Blantyre, more than a couple of
days late for his appointment.
Antipordas counsel wrote the general manager of Lufthansa in Manila demanding
damages for the airlines malicious, wanton, disregard of the contract of carriage.
Lufthansas general manager assured Antiporda that the matter would be investigated.
Antiporda filed with the RTC of QC a complaint against Lufthansa
LOWER COURT
Lufthansa breached the contract to transport Antiporda
The case is one of a contract of carriage. The ticket issued by Lufthansa to Antiporda is
the written agreement between the parties.
It is clear that Lufthansa had the duty to transport Antiporda from Manila to Blantyre.
The argument of Lufthansa that it was Air Kenyas liability is unacceptable. Antiporda
dealt exclusively with Lufthansa. He had the right to expect that his ticket would be
honored by Air Kenya to which Lufthansa had endorsed and in effect guaranteed the
performance of its engagement to carry out Antipordas scheduled itinerary.
The 4th paragraph of the Conditions of Contracts of the ticket indubitably shows that the
contract was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Blantyre.
4 . . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is
o
Also, under the pool arrangement of the International Air Transportation Association
(IATA), of which Lufthansa and Air Kenya are members, member airlines are agents of
each other. An airline company is considered bound by the mistakes committed by
another member of IATA.
It also gave moral and exemplary damages because the breach of contract was
"aggravated by the discourteous and highly arbitrary conduct of Gerard Matias, an
official of petitioner Lufthansa in Bombay."
when plaintiff insisted on taking his scheduled flight to Nairobi, Gerard
o
Matias got angry and threw the ticket and passport on plaintiff's lap and was
ordered to go to the basement with his heavy luggages for no reason at all. It
was a difficult task for the plaintiff to carry three luggages and yet Gerard
Matias did not even offer to help him. Plaintiff requested accommodation but
Matias ignored it and just left. Not even Lufthansa office in Bombay, after
learning plaintiff's being stranded in Bombay and his accommodation
problem, provided any relief to plaintiff's sordid situation. Plaintiff had to stay
in the transit area and could not sleep for fear that his luggages might be lost.
Everytime he went to the toilet, he had to drag with him his luggages. He
tried to eat the high-seasoned food available at the airport but developed
stomach trouble.
COURT OF APPEALS
!53
-
Lufthansa argued that it merely acted as a ticket-issuing agent and that under sections
(1) and (2) of Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention, an airline carrier is liable only to
untoward occurrences on its own line.
CA denied appeal.
Lufthansa cannot rely on the provisions of the Warsaw Convention based on the
circumstances of the case.
Art. 30 (1). In the case of transportation to be performed by various
o
successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in the third
paragraph of Article I, each carrier who accepts passengers, baggage, or
goods shall be subject to the rules set out in the convention, and shall be
deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of transportation
insofar as the contract deals with that part of the transportation which is
performed under his supervision.
(2) In the case of transportation of this nature, the passenger or his

representative can take action only against the carrier who performed the
transportation during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in
the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed
liability for the whole journey. (Emphasis supplied).
The action is not premised on the occurrence of an accident or delay but on Air
Kenyas refusal to transport.
ISSUE W/N Lufthansa should be held liable for damages occasioned by the bumping off of
Antiporda by Air Kenya, one of the airlines contracted to carry him to a particular destination
of the five-leg trip. YES!!!
W/N respondent court erred as a matter of law in refusing to apply the Warsaw
Convention to the instant case. NO!!!
HELD - WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED and the decision of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
RATIO
The 4th paragraph of the conditions in the ticket indubitably showed that the contract
was considered as one of continuous air transportation.
4. carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is
o
Lufthansa cannot claim that its liability ceased at Bombay Airport. We, therefore, reject
Lufthansa's theory that from the time another carrier was engaged to transport
Antiporda on another segment of his trip, it merely acted as a ticket-issuing agent.
Lufthansa is clearly the principal in the contract of carriage with Antiporda and remains
to be so, regardless of those instances when actual carriage was to be performed by
various carriers.
Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention is also not applicable. The article
presupposes the occurrence of either an accident or a delay. Neither took place. What is
here manifest is that there was refusal to transport Antiporda.
Lufthansa prays that the SC take note of US jurisprudence where the term delay
includes bumping-off or failure to carry a passenger with a confirmed reservation.
SC: These decisions in the US are not controlling in this jurisdiction. The ordinary
language of a statute must be given its ordinary meaning and limited to a reasonable
interpretation. Mere simple delay is what the provision contemplates.
Moral damages awarded. There is bad faith. Despite Berndt Loewe's knowledge that
Antiporda's seat was allowed to be given to another passenger, the same suppressed the
information and feigned ignorance of the matter. Exemplary damages likewise awarded.
There is every indication that Lufthansa, through its representatives in Bombay, acted in a
reckless and malevolent manner in dealing with Antiporda. This can be seen in the actions
taken by Gerard Matias.
17 BRITISH AIRWAYS V. CA 285 SCRA 450 CORTEZ
British Airways vs Court of Appeals (285 SCRA 450, 1998)

DOCTRINE:
In a contract of air carriage, a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is

needed to recover a greater amount
BUT the benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as when
o
the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when
questions and answers regarding the actual claims and damages
sustained by the passenger were asked
Member airlines of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) are
regarded as agents of each other in the issuance of tickets and other matters
pertaining to their relationship
EMERGENCY DIGEST:
Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay so he hired Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel
plant. Mr. Gumar bought a ticket from British Airways (BA) with a MNL-HK-BOM-HKGMNL route; the reason being theres no direct flight from Manila to Bombay so Mahtani hast
to take a connecting flight to HK via PAL. Upon arrival in Bombay, he discovered that his
luggage was. And upon inquiry to BA, it said that that his belongings might have been
directed to London. After waiting for about a week, Mahtani filed a Property Irregular
Report and back in the Philippines, he filed a complaint for damages and attorneys fees
against BA and Mr. Gumar before the trial court. BA in its answer said that Mahtani does not
have a cause of action and it filed a 3rd party complaint against PAL. PAL, in its answer,
disclaimed liability and blamed BA for the loss of the luggage. The trial court ruled in favour
of Matani (P7,000 for the value of 2 suitcases; $400 representing the luggages contents; and
P50k moral & actual damages), and 3rd party complaint against PAL was dismissed. CA
affirmed the decision. BA now questions the amount awarded for the loss luggage, since
Mahtani failed to declare a higher valuation of his luggage, a condition provided in the ticket,
and the dismissal of the 3rd party complaint.
!54
ISSUES: W/N the separate amount awarded for the loss luggage was proper (YES); and W/N
the 3rd party complaints dismissal was proper (NO)
HELD & RATIO: CA decision is MODIFIED; 3rd-party complaint against PAL is reinstated.
In a contract of air carriage, a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is needed to
recover a greater amount, pursuant to art 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention. However, the SC
has ruled against blind reliance on adhesion contracts where the facts and circumstances
justify that they should be disregarded. The benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver
such as when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when questions
and answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked.
The courts conclusion is that BA had waived the defense of limited liability when it allowed
Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the misplacement of his
luggage, without any objection. BAs counsel failed to object to Mahtanis testimony when he
was asked how much his his belongings were. Lastly, It worth mentioning that both BA and
PAL are members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), wherein member
airlines are regarded as agents of each other in the issuance of the tickets and other matters
pertaining to their relationship. Therefore, in this case, the contractual relationship between
BA and PAL is one of agency, the former being the principal, since it was the one which
issued the confirmed ticket, and the latter the agent. Since this petition was based on breach of
contract of carriage, Mahtani can only sue BA, and not PAL. However, this is not to say that
PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of its negligent acts. It is but logical, fair and
equitable to allow BA to sue PAL for indemnification.
FACTS:
On April 16, 1989, GOP Mahtani (MAHTANI) decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India.
He engaged the services of a certain Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans.
Mr. Gumar purchased a ticket from British Airways (BA) with the ff. Itinerary:
CARRIER
FILIGHT
DATE
TIME
STATUS
MNL
PR 310 Y
Apr 16
17:30
OK
H O N G HKG
KONG
BA 20 M
Apr 16
21:00
OK
BOM
BA 19 M
Apr 23
8:40
OK
H O N G HKG
KONG
PR 311 Y
MANILA
BOMBAY
MANILA
MNL
OK
OK
Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a Hong Kong
flight via Philippine Airlines (PAL);
and upon arrival in Hong Kong, he had to take a connecting flight to Bombay thru
BA.
!55
Prior to his departure, Mahtani checked in at the PAL counter in Manila his 2 pieces of
luggage containing his clothes, and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hong
Kong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay.
Upon Mahtanis arrival in Bombay, he discovered that his luggage was missing. And upon
inquiry, from BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been diverted to
London.
After waiting for 1 week for his luggage, BA advised him to file a claimProperty Irregularity Report
1)
2)
W/N award of compensatory damages in the separate sum of P7,000 with respect
to the amount awarded for the loss luggage was proper (YES)
W/N dismissal of the 3rd party complaint against PAL was proper (NO)
HELD: CA decision is MODIFIED, reinstating the 3rd-party complaint filed by British

Airways against PAL
BA, in its answer with counter claim said that Mahtani did not have a cause of action against
it.
It also filed a 3rd party complaint against PAL alleging that the reason for the
luggages non-transfer was due to its late arrival in Hong Kong thus; leaving
hardly any time to properly transfer Mahtanis belongings to the BA plane bound
for Bombay.
RATIO:
RE: ISSUE OF BAs LIABILITY
The nature of an airlines contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: a contract to
deliver a cargo or merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers
to their destination.
A business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, it is imbued with

public interest, hence, the law governing common carriers imposes an exacting
standard.
Neglect or malfeasance by the carriers employees could predictably furnish

bases for an action for damages
PAL, in its answer, disclaimed any liability, arguing that there was sufficient time to transfer
the luggage to BA in Hong Kong.
That the transfer of the luggage to Honk Kong should be considered as transfer to
BA
In this case, it is apparent that the contract of carriage was between Mahtani and BA.
Moreover, it is indubitable that his luggage never arrived in Bombay on time.
Therefore, as in a number of cases we have assessed the airlines culpability in the

form of damages for breach of contract involving misplaced luggage.
Back in the Philippines, Mahtani filed a complaint for damages and attorneys fees against BA
and Mr. Gumar before the trial court (note: case didnt say what branch, etc).
The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani:
BA was ordered to pay Mahtani P7,000 for the value of 2 suitcases
Pay $400 representing the luggages contents
Award of P50,000 for moral and actual damages and 20% attorneys fees
3rd party complaint against PAL was dismissed for lack of cause of action
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts findings.
BA asserts that the award of compensatory damages in the separate amount of P7,000 for loss
of the 2 pieces of luggage has no basis since Mahtanis complaint stated as value of his
personal belongings:
1.
Personal belonging ! P10,000
2.
Gifts for parents and relatives ! $5,000
o
Moreover, he failed to declare a higher valuation with respect to his luggage,
a condition provided in the ticket:
Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited unless a higher
value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid:
ISSUES:
1.
For most international travel (including domestic corporations of

international journeys) the liability limit is approximately U.S. $9.07 per
pound (U.S. $20) per kilo for checked baggage and U.S. $400 per
passenger for unchecked baggage
In determining the amount of compensatory damages in this kind of cases, it is vital that
the claimant satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the
damages and its causal connection to defendants acts.
However, as earlier stated, it is BAs position that there should have been no separate award
for the luggage and the contents thereof since Mahtani failed to declare a separate higher
valuation for the luggage, and therefore, its liability is limited, at most, only to the amount
stated in the ticket.
Considering the facts of the case, we cannot assent to such specious argument.
Admittedly, in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value

is needed to recover a greater amount. Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention, provides
as follows:
x x x
xxx xxx
(2)
In the transportation of checked baggage and goods, the liability of the carrier
shall be limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at
the time the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at
delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the
carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that
the sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery.
American jurisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an
amount in excess of the limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper
authorities, such tariff being binding on the passenger regardless of the passengers lack of
knowledge thereof or assent thereto. This doctrine is recognized in this jurisdiction.
!56
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we have, nevertheless, ruled against blind reliance on

adhesion contracts where the facts and circumstances justify that they should be
disregarded.
In addition, we have held that benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as
when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when questions and
answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked
The courts conclusion is that BA had waived the defense of limited liability when
it allowed Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the
misplacement of his luggage, without any objection
According to the Stenographic notes of Mahtanis testimony, in which he
o
testified that the amount of his belongings amounted to P10,000 and
$5,000;
BAs counsel failed, not only to interpose a timely objection,
but even conducted his own cross-examination as well.
RE: ISSUE OF 3rd PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST PAL:

Undeniably, for the loss of his luggage, Mahtani is entitled to damages from BA, in view of
their contract of carriage. Yet, BA adamantly disclaimed its liability and instead imputed it to
PAL which the latter naturally denies. In other words, BA and PAL are blaming each other
for the incident.
In resolving this issue, it is worth observing that the contract of air transportation was
exclusively between Mahtani and BA, the latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hongkong
leg of the formers journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. In fact, the 4th paragraph of
the Conditions of Contracts of the ticket issued by BA to Mahtani confirms that the contract
was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay.
4.
x x x carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is
Prescinding from the above discussion, it is undisputed that PAL, in transporting Mahtani
from Manila to Hongkong acted as the agent of BA.
The CA should have been cognizant of the well-settled rule that an agent is also responsible
for any negligence in the performance of its function and is liable for damages which
the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act.
Hence, the CA erred when it opined that BA, being the principal, had no cause of
action against PAL, its agent or sub-contractor.
Also, it is worth mentioning that both BA and PAL are members of the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), wherein member airlines are regarded as agents of each
other in the issuance of the tickets and other matters pertaining to their relationship.
Therefore, in this case, the contractual relationship between BA and PAL is

one of agency, the former being the principal, since it was the one which
issued the confirmed ticket, and the latter the agent.
Since this petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Mahtani can only sue BA, and
not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract. However, this is not to say that PAL
is relieved from any liability due to any of its negligent acts.
It is but logical, fair and equitable to allow BA to sue PAL for indemnification, if it
is proven that the latters negligence was the proximate cause of Mahtanis
unfortunate experience, instead of totally absolving PAL from any liability.
18 AMERICAN AIRLINES V. CA, 327 SCRA 482 (READ ANNOTATION) CRUZ NENZO
American Airlines v CA
AMERICAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO LL.
SALAS and DEMOCRITO MENDOZA, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 116044-45. March 9, 2000.
Common Carrier: American Airlines

Passenger: Democrito Mendoza
Problem: Mendoza was treated badly in an airport in Geneva. What is the proper venue? Who
is liable?
Who won: Mendoza
Emergency Digest
Private respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila conjunction tickets from
Singapore Airlines for nine cities in different countries with New York as the final destination.
In Geneva, private respondent bought from petitioner a ticket in exchange for the unused
conjunction ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York. However, because of the
embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered in Geneva when he was prevented by
petitioner's security officer from boarding the plane, detained for about an hour and allowed
to board the plane only after all the other passengers have boarded, private respondent filed an
action for damages against petitioner in Cebu. Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue and that the ticket issued by petitioner in Geneva was a separate and distinct
contract of carriage from that entered into by the private respondent with Singapore Airlines
in Manila. When its motion was denied, petitioner presented a deposition of its security
officer taken in Geneva.
The trial court ruled that under the pool partnership agreement among the IATA members,
including Singapore Airlines and American Airlines, the members act as agents of each other
in the issuance of tickets. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals.
Hence, this petition. Meanwhile, the security officer of petitioner subsequently appeared
before the Philippine consul and answered the cross-interrogatories of private respondent.T
A contract of carriage although performed by different carriers under a series of airline tickets
constitutes a single operation as members of the IATA act as agents of each other in the
issuance of tickets and that the number of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of
the contract of carriage as long as the parties regard the contract as a single operation. Thus,
petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment when it accepted the unused portion of the
conjunction tickets, entered it in the IATA clearing house and undertook to transport the
private respondent over the route covered by the unused portion of the conjunction tickets.
Venue is deemed waived when a party assailing the same presented evidence before the trial
court.
The subsequent appearance of petitioner's security officer to answer the cross-interrogatories
of private respondent constitute full compliance with the requisites of the right of private
respondent to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses.
NATURE / ISSUES
Before us is a petition for review of the decision dated December 24, 1993 rendered by the
Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases docketed as CA-G.R. SP nos. 30946 and 31452
entitled American Airlines vs. The Presiding Judge Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu and Democrito Mendoza, petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
Issues
In September 1989, Mendoza filed an action for damages before the regional trial court of
Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva Airport in
the hands of AAs security officers.
prevented him from boarding the plane,
detained him for about an hour and
allowed him to board the plane only after all the other passengers have boarded.
AA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of Philippine courts to entertain the said
proceedings under Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention.
The trial court denied the motion.
The order of denial was elevated to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling
of the trial court.
In SP no. 30946, the petitioner assails the trial court's order denying the petitioner's
motion to dismiss the action for damages filed by the private respondent for lack
of jurisdiction under Section 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention; and
o
!57
Both the trial and the appellate courts held that (and the SC essentially agreed)
The sole issue raised in SP No. 30946 is the questioned jurisdiction of

the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to take cognizance of the action for
damages filed by the private respondent against herein petitioner in view
of Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention.
in SP No. 31452 the petitioner challenges the validity of the trial court's order
striking off the record the deposition of the petitioner's security officer taken in
Geneva, Switzerland for failure of the said security officer to answer the cross
interrogatories propounded by the private respondent.
The contract of carriage perfected in Manila between the AA and

Singapore Airlines binds AA as an agent of Singapore Airlines
American Airlines (AA, petitioner) was not (yet) a participating airline

in any of the segments in the itinerary under the said conjunction tickets.
In Geneva, Mendoza decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and to go straight to New York
In such partnership, the members act as agents of each other in the

issuance of tickets to those who may need their services.
Manila -> Singapore -> Athens -> Larnaca -> Rome-> Turin -> Zurich -> Geneva > Copenhagen -> New York.
o
Democrito Mendoza (Private respondent) purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila

conjunction tickets for
the suit may be brought in the Philippines under the pool partnership
agreement among the IATA members, which include Singapore Airlines
and American Airlines.
FACTS
In the absence of a direct flight under his conjunction tickets from Geneva to New
York, the private respondent on June 7, 1989 exchanged the unused portion of the
conjunction ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York from the
petitioner airline.
AA issued its own ticket to Mendoza in Geneva and claimed the value of the
unused portion of the conjunction ticket from the IATA clearing house in Geneva.
Mendoza was treated badly in Geneva: files suite in Cebu.
And considering that the petitioner has a place of business in Manila, the
third option of the plaintiff under the Warsaw Convention
i.e. the action may be brought in the place where the contract
was perfected and where the airline has a place of business, is
applicable.
Hence this petition assailing the order upholding the

jurisdiction of Philippine courts over the instant action.
Both parties filed simultaneous memoranda pursuant to the resolution of this Court giving due
course to the petition.
AAS THEORY IS AS FOLLOWS:
The petitioner filed in the Philippines which was not a proper venue pursuant to
Warsaw ; when Mendoza exchanged for new tickets, a completely new contract was
formed (rejected).
Under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw convention an action for damages must be brought at the
option of the plaintiff ( in this case Mendoza) either before the court of the
1)
domicile of the carrier;
but AA is not domiciled in the Phil (correct)

2)
but AAs principle place of business is US (correct)
the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was
made;
4)
the carrier's principal place of business;
3)
!58
AA CONTENDS that since the Philippines is not the place where the
contract of carriage was made between the parties herein, Philippine
courts do not have jurisdiction over this action for damages. (refuted by
courts)
the place of destination.
But Philippines was not the destination, it was NY (correct)
Further arguments against viability of third option (all rejected by courts) :
The issuance of Mendoza's own ticket in Geneva in exchange for the conjunction
ticket issued by Singapore Airlines for the final leg of the private respondent's trip
gave rise to a separate and distinct contract of carriage from that entered into by
the private respondent with Singapore Airlines in Manila.
the plane ticket for a direct flight from Geneva to New York was purchased by
"exchange and cash" which signifies that the contract of carriage with Singapore
Airlines was terminated and a second contract was perfected.
o
Moreover, the second contract of carriage cannot be deemed to have

been an extension of the first as AA is not a participating airline in any of
the destinations under the first contract.
Also the Action is based on the incident at the pre-departure area of the Geneva airport and
not during the process of embarking nor disembarking from the carrier and that security
officers of the petitioner airline acted in bad faith.
Even if Warsaw applied; still as single transaction. Final leg still part of the original
CoC perfected in Manila (correct)
assuming that the convention applies, his trip to nine cities in different countries performed by
different carriers under the conjunction tickets issued in Manila by Singapore Airlines is
regarded as a single transaction;
o
as such the final leg of his trip from Geneva to New York with the petitioner airline
is part and parcel of the original contract of carriage perfected in Manila.
Thus, the third option of the plaintiff under Art. 28 (1) e.g., where the carrier has a
place of business through which the contract of carriage was made, applies herein
and the case was properly filed in the Philippines.
The private respondent seeks affirmance of the ruling of the lower courts that the petitioner
acted as an agent of Singapore Airlines under the IATA Rules and as an agent of the principal
carrier the petitioner may be held liable under the contract of carriage perfected in Manila,
citing
o
Rules on agency do not apply here (rejected) just use Warsaw convention.
The petitioner claims that the private respondent's argument that the petitioner is bound under
the IATA Rules as agent of the principal airline is irrelevant and the alleged bad faith of the
airline does not remove the case from the applicability of the Warsaw Convention.
Further, the IATA Rule cited by the private respondent which is admittedly printed
on the ticket issued by the petitioner to him which states,
that under Article 25 (1) thereof the provisions of the convention will not
apply if the damage is caused by the "willful misconduct" of the carrier.
the judicial admission made by the petitioner that it claimed the value of the
unused portion of the private respondent's conjunction tickets from the IATA
Clearing House in Geneva where the accounts of both airlines are respectively
credited and debited. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot now deny the contract of
agency with Singapore Airlines after it honored the conjunction tickets issued by
the latter.
RATIO
The petition is without merit.
TOPIC STUFF
"An air carrier issuing a ticket for carriage over the lines of another
carrier does so only as its agent"
Warsaw convention; has force and effect of law in countries like the Philippines which
are parties thereto; convention applies to international transportation.
..does not apply herein, as neither Singapore Airlines nor AA issued a ticket to the
private respondent covering the route of the other.
The Warsaw Convention to which the Republic of the Philippines is a party and which has the
force and effect of law in this country applies to all international transportation of persons,
baggage or goods performed by an aircraft gratuitously or for hire.
Since the conjunction tickets issued by Singapore Airlines do not include

the route covered by the ticket issued by the petitioner, the petitioner
airline submits that it did not act as an agent of Singapore Airlines.
MENDOZAS CLAIMS
Warsaw Convention not applicable here. (kinda rejected)
He posits that under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention
o
a carrier may be held liable for damages if the "accident" occurred on

board the airline or in the course of "embarking or disembarking" from
the carrier and
As enumerated in the Preamble of the Convention, one of the objectives is "to regulate in a
uniform manner the conditions of international transportation by air." The contract of carriage
entered into by the private respondent with Singapore Airlines, and subsequently with the
petitioner, to transport him to nine cities in different countries with New York as the final
destination is a contract of international transportation and the provisions of the Convention
automatically apply and exclusively govern the rights and liabilities of the airline and its
passengers.
This includes Section 28 (1) which enumerates the four places where an action for damages
may be brought.
1)
domicile of the carrier;
!59
2)
the carrier's principal place of business;
Number of tickets issued does not detract from oneness of contract of carriage; purpose.
3)
the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was
made;
4)
the place of destination.
The quoted provision of the Warsaw Convention Art. 1(3) clearly states that a contract of air
transportation is taken as a single operation whether it is founded on a single contract or a
series of contracts. The number of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of the
contract of carriage as long as the parties regard the contract as a single operation. The
evident purpose underlying this Article is to promote international air travel by facilitating the
procurement of a series of contracts for air transportation through a single principal and
obligating different airlines to be bound by one contract of transportation. Petitioner's
acquiescence to take the place of the original designated carrier binds it under the contract of
carriage entered into by the private respondent and Singapore Airlines in Manila.
Members of IATA under general pool partnership agreement: a contract of carriage

although performed by different carriers under a series of airline tickets, constitutes a
single operation.
The contract of carriage between the AA and Singapore Airlines although performed by
different carriers under a series of airline tickets, including that issued by the AA, constitutes
a single operation.
Members of the IATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they
act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to
boost ticket sales worldwide and at the same time provide passengers easy access
to airlines which are otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the world.
OTHER PROCEDURAL STUFF
Booking and reservation among airline members are allowed even by

telephone and it has become an accepted practice among them.
A member airline which enters into a contract of carriage consisting of a

series of trips to be performed by different carriers is authorized to
receive the fare for the whole trip and through the required process of
interline settlement of accounts by way of the IATA clearing house an
airline is duly compensated for the segment of the trip serviced.
Motion to dismiss; wrong venue; waived where party presented evidence.

The third option of the plaintiff under Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention e.g., to sue in the
place of business of the carrier wherein the contract was made, is therefore, Manila, and
Philippine courts are clothed with jurisdiction over this case. We note that while this case was
filed in Cebu and not in Manila the issue of venue is no longer an issue as the petitioner is
deemed to have waived it when it presented evidence before the trial court.
Right to cross-examine witness; complied with by subsequent appearance of witness
before Philippine consul and answer to cross-interrogatories transmitted to trial court.
Acceptance by another airline of unused portion of conjunction ticket and undertaking

to transport passenger over route covered by unused ticket, tacit recognition of
commitment to act as agent of principal contracting airline
The issue raised in SP No. 31452 which is whether or not the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion in ordering the deposition of the petitioner's security officer taken in
Geneva to be stricken off the record for failure of the said security officer to appear before the
Philippine consul in Geneva to answer the cross-interrogatories filed by the private
respondent does not have to be resolved. The subsequent appearance of the said security
officer before the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 19, 1994 and the answer to the
cross-interrogatories propounded by the private respondent was transmitted to the trial court
by the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 23, 1994 should be deemed as full
compliance with the requisites of the right of the private respondent to cross-examine the
petitioner's witness. The deposition filed by the petitioner should be reinstated as part of the
evidence and considered together with the answer to the cross-interrogatories.
Thus, when AA
1.
accepted the unused portion of the conjunction tickets,
2.
entered it in the IATA clearing house and
3.
undertook to transport the private respondent over the route covered by the unused
portion of the conjunction tickets, i.e., Geneva to New York,
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 30946 is affirmed.
The case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. The decision of
the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP. No. 31452 is set aside. The deposition of the petitioner's
security officer is reinstated as part of the evidence.
AA tacitly recognized its commitment under the IATA pool arrangement to act as agent of the
principal contracting airline, Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip AA agreed to
undertake.
As such, AA thereby assumed the obligation to take the place of the carrier
originally designated in the original conjunction ticket.
19 CHINA AIRLINES V. DANIEL CHIOK, 407 SCRA 432 -DELA PAZ
AA's argument that it is not a designated carrier in the original conjunction tickets and that it
issued its own ticket is not decisive of its liability.
The new ticket was simply a replacement for the unused portion of the conjunction
ticket, both tickets being for the same amount of US$2,760 and having the same
points of departure and destination.
By constituting itself as an agent of the principal carrier the petitioner's

undertaking should be taken as part of a single operation under the contract of
carriage executed by the private respondent and Singapore Airlines in Manila.
China Airlines v. Daniel Chiok, 407 SCRA 432

DOCTRINE: A common carrier has a peculiar relationship with and an exacting
responsibility to its passengers. For reasons of public interest and policy, the ticket-issuing
airline acts as principal in a contract of carriage and is thus liable for the acts and the
omissions of any errant carrier to which it may have endorsed any sector of the entire,
continuous trip.
Common Carrier: CAL AND PAL Passenger: Daniel Chiok
Problem: Daniel Chiok was not accommodated on a flight from Hong-Kong to Manila and he
lost the right to execute an option.
Who won: Daniel Chiok
Emergency Digest:
Daniel Chiok purchased a ticket from China Airlines Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila. The
ticket was exclusively endorseable to Philippine Airlines.
The problem occurred on the HK-Manila Leg. First, due to a typhoon the flight scheduled on
the 24th was cancelled. He informed the ticket counter that he needed to be in the Philippines
to exercise an option on the 25th. On the 25th he was not allowed to take the flight because his
name did not appear on the list. In the commotion of transferring check in counters, CHiok
lost some of his belongings. He was finally able to check in and board a plane bound for
Manila at 730 on the 25th. Chiok filed a case for damages against both CAL AND PAL for the
failure to accommodate him on the flight which resulted in the failure to execute the option,
he was humiliated by one of the ticketing officers.
Yes both are liable. PAL was the carrying agent and CAL was the ticket issuer. They are both
liable under the Warsaw Convention.
Complete Digest:
Facts:
On September 18, 1981, Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL for brevity)
airline passenger ticket number 297:4402:004:278:5 for air transportation covering ManilaTaipei-Hongkong-Manila. Said ticket was exclusively endorseable to Philippine Airlines,
Ltd. (PAL for brevity).
Subsequently, on November 21, 1981, Chiok took his trip from Manila to Taipei using [the]
CAL ticket. Before he left for said trip, the trips covered by the ticket were prescheduled and confirmed by the former. When he arrived in Taipei, he went to the CAL
office and confirmed his Hongkong to Manila trip on board PAL Flight No. PR 311. The
CAL office attached a yellow sticker appropriately indicating that his flight status was
OK.
When Chiok reached Hongkong, he went to the PAL office and sought to reconfirm his flight
back to Manila. The PAL office confirmed his return trip on board Flight No. PR 311 and
attached its own sticker.
On November 24, 1981, Chiok proceeded to Hongkong International Airport for his return
trip to Manila. However, PAL Flight No. PR 311 was cancelled because of a typhoon in
Manila. He was then informed that all the confirmed ticket holders of PAL Flight No. PR
311 were automatically booked for its next flight, which was to leave the next day. He
then informed PAL personnel that, being the founding director of the Philippine Polysterene
Paper Corporation, he had to reach Manila on November 25, 1981 because of a business
option which he had to execute on said date.
!60
On November 25, 1981, Chiok went to the airport. Cathay Pacific stewardess Lok Chan had
taken and received Chioks plane ticket and his luggage. Lok called the attention of Carmen
Chan PALs terminal supervisor, and informed the latter that Chioks name was not in the
computer list of passengers. Subsequently, Carmen informed Chiok that his name did not
appear in PALs computer list of passengers and therefore could not be permitted to board
PAL Flight No. PR 307.
Meanwhile, Chiok requested Carmen to put into writing the alleged reason why he was not
allowed to take his flight to wit: PAL STAFF CARMEN CHAN CHKD WITH R/C KENNY AT
1005H NO SUCH NAME IN COMPUTER FOR 311/24 NOV AND 307/25 NOV. The latter
sought to recover his luggage but found only 2 which were placed at the end of the passengers
line. Realizing that his new Samsonite luggage was missing, which contained cosmetics
worth HK$14,128.80, he complained to Carmen.
Thereafter, Chiok proceeded to PALs Hongkong office and confronted PALs reservation
officer, Carie Chao who told Chiok that his name was on the list and pointed to the latter his
computer number listed on the PAL confirmation sticker attached to his plane ticket, which
number was R/MN62.
Chiok then decided to use another CAL ticket with No. 297:4402:004:370:5 and asked Chao
if this ticket could be used to book him for the said flight. Chao, once again, booked and
confirmed the formers trip, this time on board PAL Flight No. PR 311 scheduled to depart
that evening. Later, Chiok went to the PAL check-in counter and it was Carmen who attended
to him. As this juncture, Chiok had already placed his travel documents, including his clutch
bag, on top of the PAL check-in counter.
Thereafter, Carmen directed PAL personnel to transfer counters. In the ensuing commotion,
Chiok lost his clutch bag containing the following, to wit: (a) $2,000.00; (b) HK
$2,000.00; (c) Taipei $8,000.00; (d)P2,000.00; (e) a three-piece set of gold (18 carats) cross
pens valued at P3,500; (f) a Cartier watch worth about P7,500.00; (g) a tie clip with a garnet
birthstone and diamond worth P1,800.00; and (h) a [pair of] Christian Dior reading
glasses. Subsequently, he was placed on stand-by and at around 7:30 p.m., PAL
personnel informed him that he could now check-in.
Chiok filed a Complaint for damages, against PAL and CAL with Branch 31, Regional Trial
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Manila. He alleged therein that despite several
confirmations of his flight, defendant PAL refused to accommodate him in Flight No.
307, for which reason he lost the business option aforementioned. He also alleged that
PALs personnel, specifically Carmen, ridiculed and humiliated him in the presence of so
many people. Further, he alleged that defendants are solidarily liable for the damages
he suffered, since one is the agent of the other.
RTC: CAL and PAL jointly and severally liable to respondent. It did not, however, rule on
their respective cross-claims.
CA: RTC AFFIRMED. Citing KLM unofficial syllabus.

ISSUE: WON PAL AND CAL ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE? YES
HELD: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
RATIO:JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
*We agree with petitioner that the CA committed a lapse when it relied merely on the
unofficial syllabus of our ruling in KLM v. CA. Indeed, lawyers and litigants are mandated to
quote decisions of this Court accurately.[14] By the same token, judges should do no less by
!61
strictly abiding by this rule when they quote cases that support their judgments and decisions.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins them to perform official duties diligently by
being faithful to the law and maintaining their professional competence.
Notwithstanding the errant quotation, we have found after careful deliberation that the
assailed Decision is supported in substance by KLM v. CA. The misquotation by the CA
cannot serve as basis for the reversal of its ruling.
TRANSPO: WARSAW CONVENTION
It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was between Chiok and
CAL, with the former endorsing to PAL the Hong Kong-to-Manila segment of the
journey. Such contract of carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a single
operation.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Warsaw Convention states: Transportation to be performed
by several successive air carriers shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be
one undivided transportation, if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation,
whether it has been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts,
and it shall not lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of
contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty,
mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting Party.
Article 15 of IATA-Recommended Practice similarly provides:Carriage to be
performed by several successive carriers under one ticket, or under a ticket and any
conjunction ticket issued therewith, is regarded as a single operation.
American Airlines v. Court of Appeals: that under a general pool partnership agreement, the
ticket-issuing airline is the principal in a contract of carriage, while the endorsee-airline is the
agent.
As the principal in the contract of carriage, the petitioner in British Airways v. Court of
Appealswas held liable, even when the breach of contract had occurred, not on its own flight,
but on that of another airline. The Decision followed our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines
v. Court of Appeals in which we had held that the obligation of the ticket-issuing airline
remained and did not cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to carry
the passengers to one of their destinations.
BOTH PAL AND CAL LIABLE: PAL acted as the carrying agent of CAL. In the same
way that we ruled against British Airways and Lufthansa in the aforementioned cases,
we also rule that CAL cannot evade liability to respondent, even though it may have
been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES:
In the present case, we stress that respondent had repeatedly secured confirmations of
his PR 311 flight on November 24, 1981 -- initially from CAL and subsequently from the
PAL office in Hong Kong. The status of this flight was marked OK on a validating sticker
placed on his ticket. That sticker also contained the entry RMN6V. Ms Chan explicitly
acknowledged that such entry was a computer reference that meant that respondents name
had been entered in PALs computer.
Since the status of respondent on Flight PR 311 was OK, as a matter of right testified
to by PALs witness, he should have been automatically transferred to and allowed to board
Flight 307 the following day. Clearly resulting from negligence on the part of PAL was its
claim that his name was not included in its list of passengers for the November 24, 1981 PR
311 flight and, consequently, in the list of the replacement flight PR 307. Since he had
secured confirmation of his flight -- not only once, but twice -- by personally going to the
carriers offices where he was consistently assured of a seat thereon -- PALs negligence was
so gross and reckless that it amounted to bad faith.
In view of the foregoing, we rule that moral and exemplary damages were properly
awarded by the lower court
PROPRIETY OF CROSS-CLAIMS:
PALs interest may be affected by any ruling of this Court on CALs crossclaim. Hence, it is imperative and in accordance with due process and fair play that PAL
should have been impleaded as a party in the present proceedings, before this Court can make
a final ruling on this matter.
Although PAL was petitioners co-party in the case before the RTC and the CA, petitioner
failed to include the airline in the present recourse. Hence, the Court has no jurisdiction over
it. Consequently, to make any ruling on the cross-claim in the present Petition would not be
legally feasible because PAL, not being a party in the present case, cannot be bound thereby.

08 Transpo Digests 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

08 Transpo Digests 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

08 Transpo Compiled Digests. Week 9. Atty. Ampil.

B. WARSAW CONVENTION ........................................................................4

Warsaw Convention !Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules

Chapter I - Scope - Definitions ..................................................................5

Chapter IV - Provisions Relating to Combined Carriage ...........................8

Chapter II - Documents of Carriage ...........................................................5

Chapter V - General and Final Provisions ..................................................8

Section I - Passenger Ticket ...................................................................5

Section II - Luggage Ticket ....................................................................5

Section III - Air Consignment Note .......................................................5

Additional Protocol ....................................................................................9

Montreal Convention !Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for

Chapter 1 - General Provisions ................................................................10

Article 1 - Scope of application .......................................................................................................................10

Article 2 - Carriage performed by State and carriage of postal items .............................................................10

Chapter III - Liability of the Carrier ...........................................................7

Chapter II - Documentation and Duties of the Parties Relating to the

Article 3 - Passengers and baggage .................................................................................................................10

Article 4 - Cargo ..............................................................................................................................................10

Article 5 - Contents of air waybill or cargo receipt .........................................................................................10

Article 6 - Document relating to the nature of the cargo .................................................................................11

Article 7 - Description of air waybill ...............................................................................................................11

Article 8 - Documentation for multiple packages ............................................................................................11

08 Transpo Compiled Digests. Week 9. Atty. Ampil.

Article 9 - Non-compliance with documentary requirements ..........................................................................11

Article 40 - Respective liability of contracting and actual carriers .................................................................15

Article 10 - Responsibility for particulars of documentation ..........................................................................11

Article 41 - Mutual liability .............................................................................................................................15

Article 11 - Evidentiary value of documentation .............................................................................................11

Article 42 - Addressee of complaints and instructions ....................................................................................15

Article 12 - Right of disposition of cargo ........................................................................................................11

Article 43 - Servants and agents ......................................................................................................................15

Article 13 - Delivery of the cargo ....................................................................................................................11

Article 44 - Aggregation of damages ...............................................................................................................15

Article 14 - Enforcement of the rights of consignor and consignee ................................................................11

Article 45 - Addressee of claims ......................................................................................................................16

Article 46 - Additional jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................16

Article 16 - Formalities of customs, police or other public authorities ...........................................................12

Article 47 - Invalidity of contractual provisions ..............................................................................................16

Chapter III - Liability of the Carrier and Extent of Compensation for

Article 48 - Mutual relations of contracting and actual carriers ......................................................................16

Chapter VI - Other Provisions ..................................................................16

Article 17 - Death and injury of passengers - damage to baggage ..................................................................12

Article 49 - Mandatory application ..................................................................................................................16

Article 18 - Damage to cargo ...........................................................................................................................12

Article 50 - Insurance .......................................................................................................................................16

Article 19 - Delay .............................................................................................................................................12

Article 51 - Carriage performed in extraordinary circumstances ....................................................................16

Article 20 - Exoneration ...................................................................................................................................12

Article 52 - Definition of days .........................................................................................................................16

Article 21 - Compensation in case of death or injury of passengers ...............................................................12

Chapter VII - Final Clauses ......................................................................16

Article 22 - Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo ...........................................................13

Chapter IV - Combined Carriage .............................................................15

Chapter V - Carriage by Air Performed by a Person other than the

Article 53 - Signature, ratification and entry into force ...................................................................................16

DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2012 .................................17

08 Transpo Compiled Digests. Week 9. Atty. Ampil.

1 KLM v. CA, 65 SCRA 237 Narvasa ................................................23

08 Transpo Compiled Digests. Week 9. Atty. Ampil.

In particular, the Warsaw Convention:

mandates carriers to issue passenger tickets;

requires carriers to issue baggage checks for checked luggage;

creates a limitation period of 2 years within which a claim must be brought