Choice of

Presented
Law
by: CARO
NONGAN,
KARLA MARIA
4B
When can
foreign laws
be applied
in the
forum?
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
From New York
(TWA)
To Los Angeles
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
They were placed on waitlist
Out of 42 only 22 names were eventually allowed to
board the flight
Only Cesar(husband) was allowed and Suthira(wife)
and Liana (daughter) were not able to fly
They found out only those holding full fare tickets
were given first priority among the wait-listed.
They were also not accommodated in the next TWA
flights to LA because it was fully booked
Bought 2 new tickets from American airlines
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
Upon their arrival in the Philippines, the
spouses Zalamea filed an action for damages
based on breach of contract of air carriage

RTC of Makati which rendered a decision in

their favor ordering the TWA to pay the price
of the tickets bought from American Airlines
together with moral damages and attorneys
fees.
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
CA held that moral damages are recoverable in a
damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract
of carriage only where there is fraud or bad faith.

It further stated that since it is a matter of record

that overbooking of flights is a common and
accepted practice of airlines in the United States
and is specifically allowed under the Code of
Federal Regulations by the Civil Aeronautics
Board, neither fraud nor bad faith could be
imputed on TWA.
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
CA erred in
accepting the finding
that overbooking is
specifically allowed
by the US Code of
Federal Regulations?
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
RULING:
CA was incorrect.
SC held that the US
Code of Federal
Regulations allegedly
authorizing
overbooking has
never been proved.
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA)
RULING:
Here, TWA relied solely on the testimony of its
customer service agent in her deposition that the
Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil Aeronautic
Board allows overbooking.

Aside from said statement, no official publication of

said code was presented as evidence. Thus, the
CAs finding that overbooking is specifically allowed
by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no basis
in fact.
Sps. Zalamea vs CA and
Trans World Airlines
(TWA) RULING:
Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the
court take judicial notice of them. Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proved.

Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal Regulations does

exist, the same is not applicable to the case at bar in
accordance with the principle oflex loci contractuswhich
require that the law of the place where the airline ticket
was issued should be applied by the court where the
passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and
the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant
airline.Since the tickets were sold and issued in the
Philippines, the applicable law in this case would be
Philippine law
Borrowing
Statute as an
exception to
application of
Philippine
Procedural
laws
Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
 Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
Cadalin, et. Al are Filipino workers recruited
by Asia Intl Builders Co. (AIBC) a domestic
corp. for employment to Bahrain to work for
Brown and Root Intl Inc. (BRII) a foreign
corporation with HQ in Texas, USA.
Plaintiffs instituted this class suit with the
POEA for money claims arising from their
unexpired portion of their employment
contract that was prematurely terminated
They filed the suit after 1 year from
termination of their employment contracts
 Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
Art. 156 of the Amiri Decree aka as the Labor Law
of the Private Sector of Bahrain: a claim arising out of
a contract of employment shall not be actionable after
the lapse of 1 year from the date of the expiry of the
contract, it appears that their suit has prescribed.
Plaintiff contends that the prescription period should
be 10 years as provided by Art. 1144 of the New
Civil Code as their claim arise from a violation of a
contract.
NLRC asserts that Art. 291 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines with a 3 year prescription period should be
applied. However, Solicitor General expressed his
personal point of view that the 1 yr period provided by
the Amiri Decree should be applied.
Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
ISSUE:
What will
govern?
The Amiri
Decree, the
New Civil code
or the Labor
Code?
Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
RULING:
The Supreme Court
held that as a
general rule a
foreign procedural
law will not be
applied in our
country as we must
adopt our own
procedural laws.
 Cadalin et. al. vs.
POEA
RULING:
As an exception, Philippines may adopt foreign procedural law
under the Borrowing Statute such as Sec. 48 of the Civil Procedure
Rule stating if by the laws of the State or country where the cause
of action arose the action is barred, it is also barred in the
Philippines. Thus, Bahrain law must be applied.

However, the SC said that Bahrains law on prescription cannot be

applied because the court will not enforce any foreign claim that is
obnoxious to the forums public policy and the 1 year rule on
prescription of Bahrain law is against public policy on labor as
enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The court ruled that the prescription period applicable to the case
should be Art 291 of the Labor Code of the PH with a 3 year
prescription period since the claim arose from labor employment.
Application
of Lex Loci
Contractus
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA
Fontanilla bought from United Airlines, through the
Philippine Travel Bureau in Manila, three Visit the U.S.A.
tickets for himself, his wife and his minor son, Mychal, to
visit the cities of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles.

All flights had been confirmed previously by United

Airlines. Having used the first coupon to DC and while at
the Washington Dulles Airport, Aniceto changed their
itinerary, paid the penalty for rewriting their tickets and
was issued tickets with corresponding boarding passes
with the words: Check-in-required.

According to United Airlines, the Fontanillas did not initially

go to the check-in counter to get their seat assignments
for UA Flight 1108.Having no seat assignments, the
stewardess at the door of the plane instructed them to go
to the check-in counter.
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

When they proceeded to the check in counter they

were denied boarding because the flight was
overbooked.

The plane then took off with the Fontanillas baggage in

tow, leaving them behind.

The Fontanillas then complained to Linda (united

airlines employee), who in turn gave them an ugly stare
and rudely uttered statements in front of other people
in the airport causing the Fontanillas to suffer shame,
humiliation and embarrassment.
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

The Fontanillas were not booked on the next

flight, which departed for San Francisco at
11:00 a.m.It was only at 12:00 noon that
they were able to leave Los Angeles on
United Airlines Flight No. 803.

The incident prompted the Fontanillas to file

Civil Case No. 89-4268 for damages before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati which
dismissed the complaint.
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that even

assuming there was a failure to observe the check-in
requirement, United Airlines failed to comply with the
procedure laid down in cases where a passenger is
denied boarding.

The CA ruled that private respondents failure to

comply with the check-in requirement will not defeat
thier claim as the denied boarding rules were not
complied with applying the laws of the USA, relying
on the Code of Federal Regulation Part on Oversales
of the USA.
United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

ISSUE:
Whether or not the
Court of Appeals is
correct in applying the
laws of USA?
United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

RULING:

No. According to the

doctrine of lex loci
contractus, the law of the
place where a contract is
made or entered into
governs with respect to its
nature and validity,
obligation and
interpretation shall govern.
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA

RULING:
The appellate court erred in applying the laws of
the United States as, in the case at bar, Philippine
law is the applicable law.

The law of the forum on the subject matter is

Economic Regulations No. 7 as amended by
Boarding Priority and Denied Boarding
Compensation of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which
provides that the check-in requirement be
complied with before a passenger may claim
against a carrier for being denied boarding.
 United Airlines, Inc. vs CA
RULING:
Hence, the court should apply the law of the place where
the airline ticket was issued.

Therefore, although, the contract of carriage was to be

performed in the United States, the tickets were purchased
through petitioners agent in Manila. It is true that the
tickets were "rewritten" in D.C., however, such fact did not
change the nature of the original contract of carriage
entered into by the parties in Manila.

The Court is of the opinion that the private respondents

were not able to prove that they were subjected to coarse
and harsh treatment by the ground crew of United
Airlines.Neither were they able to show that there was bad
faith on part of the carrier airline. Hence, the award of
moral and exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is
improper.
END