12.

PAL v Savillo Singapore to Jakarta - the profound distress, fear, anxiety and
humiliation that private respondent experienced when, despite
Doctrine: PAL's earlier assurance that Singapore Airlines confirmed his
passage, he was prevented from boarding the plane and he
The emotional harm suffered by a passenger as an incident of a breach faced the daunting possibility that he would be stranded in
of a contract of carriage should be distinguished from the actual Singapore Airport because the PAL office was already closed.
damages which resulted from the same incident.
Actual damages caused by the delay is covered by the which
reglementary period for filing a claim while the emotion harm suffered by
the passenger as an incident of the delay (breach of contract) is not
covered by the W/C. It is governed by the prescriptive period on torts

Facts:

1. Grino was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Seniors Golf

tournament in Jakarta. Thus, he purchased a MNL-SG-JAKARTA-SG-
Manila. PAL would carry him from MNL-Sg while Singapore Airlines
would carry him from SG-Jakarta.
2. Upon arrival in SG, they proceeded to check-in for their flight to Jakarta.
However, SG Airlines rejected his ticket because it was not endorsed by
PAL. He got stranded for a few hours and was forced to buy tickets from
GARUDA AIRLINES. He eventually arrived in Jakarta but he got sick so
he was unable to play in the tournament
3. When he got back, he sent a demand letter to PAL and to SGA. Both
airlines denied liability and blamed each other. He sued PAL and SGA
but it filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of PRESCRIPTION.

Issue: Whether the claim prescribed? [NO.]

In this case, Grinos complaint alleged that both PAL and SGA were
guilty of gross negligence which resulted in his being subject to
humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, etc.
The emotional harm suffered by GRINO 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. THEREFORE, the claim is not
barred by the 2 year period under the WC because it is covered by
the rules on tort.
Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the
airlines' delay in transporting their passengers, the private
respondent's Complaint would have been time- barred under Article
29 of the Warsaw Convention. However, the present case involves
a special species of injury resulting from the failure of PAL
and/or Singapore Airlines to transport private respondent from