Airlines case

7/24/2019 Airlines case

1/6

CHINA AIRLINES LTD V DANIEL CHIOK

FACTS:

Daniel Chiok purchased CAL ticket covering Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila for air transpo.Chiok took his trip from MNL to Taipei. Chiok proceeded to Hongkong International Airport forhis return trip to Manila. Hoever! upon reaching the "AL counter! Chiok sa a poster stating that

his flight as cancelled #ecause of a t$phoon in Manila. He as then informed that all theconfirmed ticket holders of "AL flight ere automaticall$ #ooked for its ne%t flight! hich as toleave the ne%t da$. He informed "AL personnel that! #eing the founding director of the "hilippine"ol$sterene "aper Corporation! he had to reach Manila on Novem#er &'! ()*( #ecause of a#usiness option hich he had to e%ecute on said date.

+n Novem#er &'! ()*(! Chiok ent to the airport. Catha$ "acific steardess Lok Chan had takenand received Chioks plane ticket and his luggage. Lok called the attention of Carmen Chan! "ALsterminal supervisor! and informed the latter that Chioks name as not in the computer list ofpassengers. Therefore! he could not #e permitted to #oard. Chiok re,uested Carmen to put intoriting the alleged reason h$ he as not alloed to take his flight. The latter sought to recoverhis luggage #ut found onl$ & hich ere placed at the end of the passengers line. eali/ing that

his ne 0amsonite luggage as missing! hich contained cosmetics orth H12(3!(&*.*4! hecomplained to Carmen.

Chiok proceeded to "ALs Hongkong office and confronted "ALs reservation officer! Carie Chao!ho previousl$ confirmed his flight #ack to MNL. 0he told Chiok that his name as on the listand pointed to the latter his computer num#er listed on the "AL confirmation sticker attached tohis plane ticket.

Chiok then decided to use another CAL ticket and asked Chao if this ticket could #e used to #ookhim for the said flight. The latter! once again! #ooked and confirmed the formers trip! this time on#oard "AL 5light No. " 6(( scheduled to depart that evening. Later! Chiok ent to the "ALcheck-in counter and it as Carmen ho attended to him. As this 7uncture! Chiok had alread$

placed his travel documents! including his clutch #ag! on top of the "AL check-in counter. Carmendirected "AL personnel to transfer counters. In the ensuing commotion! Chiok lost his clutch #agcontaining valua#le items and sum of mone$.

8hen he reached MNL! he filed a complaint against CAL for damages. He alleged that despiteseveral confirmations of his flight! defendant "AL refused to accommodate him! for hich reasonhe lost the #usiness option. He also alleged that "ALs personnel! specificall$ Carmen! ridiculedand humiliated him in the presence of so man$ people. 5urther! he alleged that defendants aresolidaril$ lia#le for the damages he suffered! since one is the agent of the other.

TC of Manila held CAL and "AL 7ointl$ and severall$ lia#le. Carriers appealed to CA. CAaffirmed it. CA de#unked petitioners claim that it had merel$ acted as an issuing agent for theticket covering the trip of respondents. CA cited the ruling in 1LM o$al Dutch v CA! hence! thispetition.

ISSUE:8+N CAL is lia#le for #reach of transportation contract.

HELD:

9es. CAL is lia#le. In the instant case! the CA ruled that under the contract of transportation!petitioner -- as the ticket-issuing carrier :like 1LM; -- as lia#le regardless of the fact that "ALas to perform or had performed the actual carriage

Defendant-appellant CAL is clearl$ lia#le under the contract of carriage ith


2/6

effect guaranteed that the carrier! such as defendant-appellant "AL ould honor his ticket! assurehim of a space therein and transport him on a particular segment of his trip. Notithstanding theerrant ,uotation! e have found after careful deli#eration that the assailed Decision is supported insu#stance #$ 1LM v. CA. The mis,uotation #$ the CA cannot serve as #asis for the reversal of itsruling.

It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation as #eteen petitioner andrespondent! ith the former endorsing to "AL the Hong 1ong-to-Manila segment of the 7ourne$.0uch contract of carriage has ala$s #een treated in this 7urisdiction as a single operation.Transportation to #e performed #$ several successive air carriers shall #e deemed! for thepurposes of this Convention! to #e one undivided transportation! if it has #een regarded #$ theparties as a single operation! hether it has #een agreed upon under the form of a single contractor of a series of contracts! and it shall not lose its international character merel$ #ecause onecontract or a series of contracts is to #e performed entirel$ ithin a territor$ su#7ect to thesovereignt$! su/eraint$! mandate! or authorit$ of the same High Contracting "art$

Carriage to #e performed #$ several successive carriers under one ticket! or under a ticket and an$con7unction ticket issued thereith! is regarded as a single operation

In American Airlines v. Court of Appeals! e have noted that under a general pool partnershipagreement! the ticket-issuing airline is the principal in a contract of carriage! hile the endorsee-airline is the agent.

In the instant case! folloing the 7urisprudence cited a#ove! "AL acted as the carr$ing agent ofCAL. In the same a$ that e ruled against >ritish Aira$s and Lufthansa in the aforementionedcases! e also rule that CAL cannot evade lia#ilit$ to respondent! even though it ma$ have #eenonl$ a ticket issuer for the Hong 1ong-Manila sector.


3/6

3. CATHAY V CA (219 SCRA 520)

5ACT0? Tomas L. Alcantara as a first class passenger of petitioner Catha$ "acific Aira$s on itsflight from MNL to H1! H1 top @1. The purpose of his trip in Indonesia as to attend aconference regarding his #usiness. He checked in his luggage hich contained not onl$ hisclothing and articles for personal use #ut also papers and documents he needed for the conference.

pon his arrival in @akarta! respondent discovered that his luggage as missing. 8hen he in,uireffrom CATHA9Bs representative in @akarta! he as told that his luggage as left #ehind inHongkong. Alcantara as offered 2&4.44 as inconvenience mone$ to #u$ his immediatepersonal needs until the luggage could #e delivered to him.

His luggage finall$ reached @akarta more than tent$ four :&3; hours after his arrival. Hoever! itas not delivered to him at his hotel #ut as re,uired #$ petitioner to #e picked up #$ an officialof the "hilippine m#ass$.

espondent filed his complaint against petitioner ith the C5I of Lanao del Norte for damages.TC held Catha$ lia#le. +n appeal! Catha$ assailed the conclusion of the TC that it as

accounta#le for #reach of contract and ,uestioned the non-application #$ the court of the 8arsaConvention as ell as the e%cessive damages aarded on the #asis that respondent as rudel$treated #$ its during the time that his luggage could not #e found. CA affirmed it. Hence! thispetition. CA raised the pertinent issue!

ISSUE:CA erred in failing to appl$ the 8arsa Convention on the lia#ilit$ of a carrier to its passengers.

HELD:

No. "etitioner airline contends that the e%tent of its lia#ilit$ for #reach of contract should #elimited a#solutel$ to that set forth in the 8arsa Convention. 8e do not agree. As 8e haverepeatedl$ held! although the 8arsa Convention has the force and effect of la in this countr$!

#eing a treat$ commitment assumed #$ the "hilippine government! said convention does notoperate as an e%clusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier lia#le for #reach ofcontract of carriage or as an a#solute limit of the e%tent of that lia#ilit$.

The 8arsa Convention declares the carrier lia#le for damages in the enumerated cases and undercertain limitations. Hoever! it must not #e construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Codeand other pertinent las. It does not regulate! much less e%empt! the carrier from lia#ilit$ fordamages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage! especiall$ ifilful misconduct on the part of the carrierBs emplo$ees is found or esta#lished! hich is clearl$the case #efore s.

8hen petitioner airline misplaced respondentBs luggage and failed to deliver it to its passenger atthe appointed place and time! some special species of in7ur$ must have #een caused to him. 5orsure! the latter underent profound distress and an%iet$! and the fear of losing the opportunit$ tofulfil the purpose of his trip. In fact! for ant of appropriate clothing for the occasion #roughta#out #$ the dela$ of the arrival of his luggage! to his em#arrassment and consternationrespondent Alcantara had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged conference ith the DirectorEeneral of Trade ofthe host countr$.

In one case! this Court o#served that a traveller ould naturall$ suffer mental anguish! an%iet$ andshock hen he finds that his luggage did not travel ith him and he finds himself in a foreign landithout an$ article of clothing other than hat he has on.Thus! respondent is entitled to moral ande%emplar$ damages. 8e! hoever find the aard #$ the CA of "*4!444.44 for moral damagese%cessive.


4/6

4. ALITALIA V IAC

FACTS:

Dr. 5elipa "a#lo :professor; as invited to take part of a meeting in Ital$ ith regard to hisprofession! thus! she #ooked from petitioner airline! ALITALIA. 8hen she arrived in Mila$ on theda$ #efore the meeting! she as told #$ the personal of ALITALIA that her luggage as dela$ed

in one of the succeeding flights from ome to Milan. Her luggage consisted of & suitcases? herclothing and other personal itemsF the other! her scientific papers! slides and other researchmaterial. >ut! the other flights arriving from ome did not have her #aggage on #oard.

Desperate! she ent to ome to tr$ to locate her #ags herself. There! she in,uired a#out hersuitcases in the domestic and international airports! and filled out the forms prescri#ed #$ALITALIA for people in her predicament. Hoever! her #aggage could not #e found. Completel$distraught and discouraged! she returned to Manila ithout attending the meeting in Ispra! Ital$.

+nce #ack in Manila she demanded that ALITALIA make reparation for the damages suffered.ALITALIA offered her free airline tickets to compensate her for an$ alleged damages. . . . 0here7ected the offer! and commenced the action. Her items ere also located and recovered #ut onl$

after fe months. C5I rendered 7udgment in favor of her. CA affirmed and modified the 7udgmentin favor of her. Hence! this petition.

ISSUE:

8hether or not 8arsa Convention is applica#le to limit ALITALIAs lia#ilit$ to Dr. "edroG

HELD?No ALITALIA invoked the applica#ilit$ of 8arsa Convention to limitsits lia#ilit$.

It is provided in the Convention that the action for damages! hoever! founded! can onl$ #e#rought su#7ect to conditions and limits set out therein. In the case at #ar! no #ad faith or

otherise improper conduct ma$#e ascri#ed to the emplo$ees of petitioner airlineF and Dr. "a#loBsluggage as eventuall$ returned to her! #elatedl$! it is true! #ut ithout apprecia#le damage. Thefact is! nevertheless! that some special species of in7ur$ as caused to Dr. "a#lo #ecause petitionerALITALIA misplaced her #aggage and failed to deliver it to her at the time appointed a #reachof its contract of carriage! to #e sure ith the result that she as una#le to read the paper andmake the scientific presentation :consisting of slides! autoradiograms or films! ta#les andta#ulations; that she had painstakingl$ la#ored over! at the prestigious international conference! toattend hich she had traveled hundreds of miles! to her chagrin and em#arrassment and thedisappointment and anno$ance of the organi/ers. 0he felt! not unreasona#l$! that the invitation forher to participate at the conference! e%tended #$ the @oint 5A+IAA Division of Atomic nerg$in 5ood and Agriculture of the nited Nations! as a singular honor not onl$ to herself! #ut to theniversit$ of the "hilippines and the countr$ as ell! an opportunit$ to make some sort ofimpression among her colleagues in that field of scientific activit$. The opportunit$ to claim thishonor or distinction as irretrieva#l$ lost to her #ecause of

AlitaliaBs #reach of its contract. Apart from this! there can #e no dou#t that Dr. "a#lo underentprofound distress and an%iet$! hich graduall$ turned to panic and finall$ despair! from the timeshe learned that her suitcases ere missing up to the time hen! having gone to ome! she finall$reali/ed that she ould no longer #e a#le to take part in the conference. As she herself put it! sheas reall$ shocked and distraught and confused. Certainl$! the compensation for the in7ur$suffered #$ Dr. "a#lo cannot under the circumstances #e restricted to that prescri#ed #$ the8arsa Convention for dela$ in the transport of #aggage. 0he is not! of course! entitled to #ecompensated for loss or damage to her luggage. As alread$ mentioned! her #aggage as ultimatel$delivered to her in Manila! tardil$ #ut safel$.


5/6

5. KOREAN AIRLINES V CA

FACTS:

1orean Airlines issued to A/ucena Tomas a plane ticket to Los Angeles! CL5! .0.A.! on flightdeparting from the Manila International Airport. 0he paid the fare! and she and her hus#andarrived at 1AL check-in counter and presented her ticket to Augusto Torres ho refused to check

her in! sa$ing that the Immigration +ffice as alread$ closed.

@anuario! her hus#and! rushed to the said office! hich as still open! and as told #$ theimmigration officer on dut$ that his ife could still #e cleared for departure. @anuario rushed #ackto Torres to conve$ this information and asked that his ife #e checked in. Torres said this as nolonger possi#le #ecause her seat had alread$ #een given to another passenger. His reason as thatA/ucena had arrived late and had not checked in ithin fort$ minutes #efore departure time.TCand CA held the carrier lia#le for damages to Tomas.

ISSUE:

8hether or not the carrier is lia#le for damages.

HELD:No merit. No evidence in the record of an$ rule re,uiring passengers to check in at least fort$minutes #efore departure time! as invoked #$ Torres. 1AL admits that it has not #een a#le to citean$ statutor$ or administrative re,uirement to this effect. In fact! the alleged rule is not even acondition of the plane ticket purchased #$ A/ucena.1AL invokes the memorandum-circular of 5e#ruar$ &3! ()J'! issued #$ the Commission onImmigration and Deportation hich sa$s that all passengers authori/ed to leave for a#road shall#e re,uired to check in ith the Immigration Departure Control +fficer at least thirt$ minutes#efore the scheduled departure. The record shos that A/ucena as read$ to compl$.

If! as Torres said! he gave A/ucenaBs seat to a chance passenger thirt$-eight minutes #eforedeparture time instead of aiting for A/ucena! then he as intentionall$ violating the said circular.

0ignificantl$! it as proved he as not telling the truth hen he said the Immigration +ffice asalread$ closed although it as in fact still open at the time the private respondents arrived.

The immigration officer on dut$ e%pressed his illingness to clear A/ucena Tomas for departure!thus indicating that she as ell ithin the provisions of the memorandum-circular. TorresBrefusal to check her in as clearl$ un7ustified. The real reason h$ she could not #e checked inas not her supposed tardiness #ut the circumstance that Torres had prematurel$ given her seat toa chance passenger. That person certainl$ had less right to prior accommodation than the privaterespondent herself.

The claim that the real part$ in interest is the Eold N. Apparel Manufacturing. It is clear that thepetitioner acted in #ad faith in violating the private respondentBs rights under their contract ofcarriage and is therefore lia#le for the in7uries she has sustained as a result.

6. TRANSWORLD AIRLINES V CA


6/6

FACTS:

ogelio Kinluan :la$er; entered into a contract for air carriage ith @apan Airlines from MNL tovarious cities around the orld #ack to MNL. He as issued first class tickets for entire trip.8hilein "aris! he ent to the office of Transorld Airlines :T8A; at the De Eaulle Airport and securedconfirmed reservation for first

class accommodation on #oard flight to 0an 5rancisco.

A validated stu# as attached to the N9-LA on his ticket evidencing his confirmed reservation forsaid flight ith the mark +1. He! then! reconfirmed his ticket. >ut! hen he reached the check-incounter at the T8A at @51 airport! he as informed that there as no first class seat availa#le forhim on the flight. He asked for an e%planation #ut T8A emplo$ees on dut$ declined to give an$reason.

8hen he #egan to protest! one of the T8A emplo$ees! a certain Mr. >raam! rudel$ threatened himith the ords DonBt argue ith me! I have a ver$ #ad temper. Kinluan as compelled to takethe econom$ seat offered to him and he as issued a refund application. 8hile aiting for thedeparture of 5light No. 3(. Kinluan noticed that other passengers ho ere hite Caucasians and

ho had checked-in later than him ere given preference in some first class seats hich #ecameavaila#le due to no sho passengers.

Kinluan filed an action for damages against the T8A in the C5I of i/al alleging #reach ofcontract and #ad faith. Court ruled in his favor. CA affirmed! #ut modified. Hence! this petition.

ISSUE:

8hether or not! T8A is lia#le for damages incurred #$ the respondentpassengerG

HELD:9es. T8A argued that! due to the cancellation of the flight! passengers ho first class reservationson 5light No. 3( had had to #e accommodated on 5light No. 43( on a first-come! first-served

#asis. An announcement as allegedl$ made to all passengers in the entire terminal of the airportadvising them to get #oarding cards for 5light No. 43( to 0an 5rancisco and that the first onesgetting them ould get first preference as to seats in the aircraft. It denied declining to give an$e%planation for the dongrading of private respondent as ell as the discourteous attitude of Mr.>raam.

"rivate respondent asserts that he did not hear such announcement at the terminal and that he asamong the earl$ passengers to present his ticket for check-in onl$ to #e informed that there as nofirst class seat availa#le for him and that he had to #e dongraded. 8e donBt agree ith "etitioner.espondent had a first class ticket for 5light No. 3( of petitioner from Ne 9ork to 0an 5ranciscoon April &4! ()J). It as tice confirmed and $et respondent unceremoniousl$ told him that thereas no first class seat availa#le for him and that he had to #e dongraded to the econom$ class.As he protested! he as arrogantl$ threatened #$ one Mr. >raam. 8orst still! hile he as aitingfor the flight! he sa that several Caucasians ho arrived much later ere accommodated in firstclass seats hen the other passengers did not sho up. The discrimination is o#vious and thehumiliation to hich private respondent as su#7ected is undenia#le.

"rivate respondent had shon that the alleged sitch of planes from a Lockheed (4(( to a smaller>oeing J4J as #ecause there ere onl$ (6* confirmed econom$ class passengers ho couldver$ ell #e accommodated in the smaller plane and not #ecause of maintenance pro#lems."etitioner sacrificed the comfort of its first class passengers including private respondent Kinluanfor the sake of econom$. More so in this case here instead of courteousl$ informing privaterespondent of his #eing dongraded under the circumstances! he as angril$ re#uffed #$ anemplo$ee ofpetitioner.

Airlines case

Documents

Transcript of Airlines case