Cathay Pacific Airways vs.

CA
G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993

Facts:
Respondent Tomas Alcantara was a first class passenger of petitioner
Cathay Pacific Airways from Manila to Hongkong and onward from
Hongkong to Jakarta. The purpose of his trip was to attend the
following day, a conference with the Director General of Trade of
Indonesia. 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.
Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that
his luggage was missing. Private respondent was told that his
luggage was left behind in Hongkong.
For this, respondent Alcantara was offered $20.00 as inconvenience
money" to buy his immediate personal needs until the luggage
could be delivered to him. The respondent, as a result of the
incident had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged
conference.
Issue:
1. WoN there was breach of contract
2. WoN Cathay Pacific is liable for damages
3. WoN the Warsaw Convention is applicable to this case

Held:
1. Petitioner 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.

2.

Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of

carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the
mishap results in death of a passenger, or where the carrier is
guilty of fraud or bad faith. But in the case at bar, the
inconvenience money offered to Alcantara was insulting
considering that he paid for a first class accommodation.
Petitioner or its agents should have been more courteous and
accommodating. The conduct of petitioner's representative
towards respondent justifies the grant of moral and exemplary
damages.

3. Although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of

law in this country, said 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. 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 wilful misconduct
on the part of the carrier's employees is found or established.

Mapa vs CA
G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997

Facts:
Mapa purchased from Trans World Airlines (TWA), 2 airline tickets
in Bankok Thailand, for Los Angeles- New York Boston St. Louis
Chicago, USA. Upon boarding, the Mapas checked in 7 pieces of
luggages at 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 they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggages which loss
was immediately reported to TWA with a total value of $2,560 as
constituting full satisfaction of their claim which the Mapas
accepted as partial payment for the actual loss of their
baggages.
Thereafter Mapa filed a case against TWA demanding
indemnification for the grave damage and injury suffered by the
plaintiffs.
Issue:
1. WoN Trans World Airlines are liable for dames for breach of
contract?
2. Warsaw churba
Held: