Transpo Matrix 7

8/13/2019 Transpo Matrix 7

1/16

TRANSPORTATION CASE MATRIX VII

Warsaw Convention

TITLE FACTS ISSUE/S HELD DOCTRINE

KLM v. CA - Sps. Mendoza, along with their daughter andniece wanted to take a world tour. Theyconsulted Tirso Reyes (A manager of hil.Tra!el "ureau# on a proposed itinerary. Theywanted to go to $ourdes, %rance.

- According to Reyes, there were two alternateroutes& aris to $ourdes, or "arcelona to$ourdes& The Mendozas decided to take thelatter route which was only ser!iced 'y Aer$inguis.

- Reyes 'ooked the Mendozas with $M andsecured them seat reser!ations. Their trip !iaAer $ingus was howe!er on a )re*uest+ status.hile in ermany, they were a'le to getconfirmation from Aer $ingus on flight /0.

- 1pon arri!al at "arcelona, at the airport enroute to $ourdes, the manager of Air $ingusdirected them to check-in.

- The daughter and niece of sps. Mendoza were

a'le to 'oard the plane howe!er, the sps. weredenied 'oarding as the manager of Aer $ingussho!ed them aside and shouted, uttering )2onos3 4gnorantes %ilipinos3+

- And as a result, the sps. were forced to take atrain to $ourdes, incurring unwanted e5pensesalong the way.

- They filed a case against $M for damages.- RT2 and 2A ruled in fa!or of the Sps. $M

denied lia'ility 'asing its defense on thearsaw 2on!ention under Section 67.

- %urther the ticket pro!ided for a limitation oflia'ility.

- The Sps. citing the same con!ention replied

that the con!ention does not apply it there wasmisconduct and that Aer $ingus was an agentof $M. %urther the 2onditions of the 2ontractfound on the ticket stated that&& )carriage to 'eperformed 'y successi!e carrier i s regarded as asingle operation+

- hether or not thearsaw 2on!entionapplies.

- 8o, Article 67 is not applica'le 'ecause therewas no accident or delay to speak of. hat waspro!en actually was the fact that there waswillful misconduct on the part of the employeesof Aer $ingus.

- Moreo!er, the passage tickets pro!ide that thecarriage to 'e performed 'y se!eral successi!ecarriers is to 'e considered as a singletransaction which is why the Sps. may file acase against $M.

- The Sps. dealt e5clusi!ely with $M whichissued them tickets for their entire trio andwhich in effect guaranteed them that theywould ha!e sure space at Aer $ingus.

- Moreo!er, the pro!ision on the ticket whichmake the air carrier lia'le only for occurrenceshappening on its own line is unaccepta'le. The2A ruled that the limitation was printed inletters so small that one needed a magnifying

glass to read it.- %urther, the court held that $M did not show

that it had instructed the Sps. to read the fineprint and limitations on the ti ckets.

- $M 'reached its guaranty to transport theMendozas. This was further aggra!ated 'y thediscourteous and ar'itrary way the officials ofAer $ingus which $M has engaged totransport the Mendozas for the "arcelona-$ourdes segment..

- Article 67 of the arsaw 2on!entioin 4nternational Air Transportationdoes not apply to a case where anairline refuses to transport a passengwith a confirmed reser!ation.

- An air carrier is charged withresponsi'ility of informing itscustomers of conditions limiting itslia'ility to its passengers.

- 9ffect of pro!ision in passage ticketthat carriage 'y successi!e air carrie)is to 'e regarded as a singleoperation+ is to make ticket-issuingcarrier lia'le for tortuous conduct ofother carriers.

al!in, cecille, c:, :ulie, lea, mars, nina, ryan ; ateneo law ; 62


2/16

- >ence this appeal.

Pan American

Wr!" Air#a$% v.

IAC

- hile in the 1S, Rene ?. angan, president andgeneral manager of the Sotang "astos andArcher roductions, and rimo @uesada ofrime %ilms of San %rancisco, 2alifornia,entered into an agreement where'y the former'ound himself to supply the latt er with threefilms. Ang Ma'ait, Masungit at ang angit,"ig >appening with 2hikiting and 4king, and

am'al Bragon for e5hi'ition in the 1nitedStates.- hile in uam, angan likewise entered into a

!er'al agreement with Slutchnick for thee5hi'ition of two of the films at the >afa AdaiTheater in uam on May 67, 0C=.

- Dn May E=, 0C=, two hours 'efore departuretime angan was at the an-Am


3/16

Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo.- 1pon arri!al at Dkinawa, an agent of 8orthwest

rudely compelled him, in the presence of otherpassengers, to mo!e to the tourist cl ass.

- 2uenca protested, re!ealing that he wastra!eling in his official capacity as delegate ofthe hilippines to a conference in Tokyo.

- 4n order to reach the conference on time,2uenca o'eyed.

- The 2%4 of Manila granted moral ande5emplary damages and attorney


4/16

She re:ected the offer and commenced suit.- 4t turned out that her 'ags were found 'ut

arri!ed in 4spra on the day after her scheduledappearance and participation in the 18 meeting.

- RT2 awarded nominal damages and attorneye filled up the roperty 4rregularityReport, acknowledging one of the plaintiffsluggages to 'e missing, and signed after askingplaintiff himself to sign the same document. >ealso asked plaintiff to surrender to him the nineclaim checks corresponding to the nineluggages, i.e., including the one that wasmissing.

- hen A$ fai led to f ind the missingSamsonite luggage, plaintiff filed claim fordamages.

- ;8 A$ lia'ilityshould 'e limited.

- Bespite A$enry Alcantara shipped 06 pieces of luggagethrough $ufthansa from Teheran to Manila ase!idenced 'y an Airway "ill.

- The 06 pieces of luggage weighed at around07 kg as e!idenced 'y the "ill. Alcantara,howe!er did not declare an in!entory of thecontents nor their !alue when he deli!ered thesame to $ufthansa.

- After the luggage arri!ed in Manila, the

consignee Teresita Alcantara was only a'le toretrie!e from the cargo 'roker 0E of the'aggages, with a total weight of 0=G kilograms.

- >ence, the Alcantaras immediately ad!ised$ufthansa of the loss. >owe!er, despite sendingtele5 tracing messages to different stations,

- hether or 8ot theAlcantaras are entitled todamages 'eyond thelimitations prescri'edunder the arsaw2on!ention.

- Jes.- The arsaw 2on!ention does not e5clude

lia'ility for other 'reaches of contract 'y thecarrier. >ence, $ufthansa can 'e made lia'le'eyond the lia'ility restrict ions contained in the2on!ention.

- 4t is also important to note that $ufthansawai!ed the applica'ility of the arsaw2on!ention when it offered a higher amount

than what is pro!ided 'y the law. There wasalso wai!er when $ufthansa failed to o':ect tothe introduction of e!idence esta'lishing theactual damages suffered 'y the spouses.

- >ere, the finding of the lower courts show thatindeed the Alcantaras suffered actual and

- The limitations prescri'ed under thearsaw 2on!ention may'e wai!edeither 'y failing to timely o':ect on tintroduction of e!idence showingactual damages and 'y offering tosettle on an amount higher than thatprescri'ed 'y the law.

- The arsaw 2on!ention does note5clude the lia'ility for other 'reach

of contract 'y the carrier.



5/16

$ufthansa was not a'le to locate the missingluggage.

- Thereafter, the Alcantaras sent a demand letteragainst $ufthansa for the production of theluggage within 07 days from the receipt of theletter. %ailing to do so, the Alcantarascommenced a claim for damages against$ufthansa.

- 4n its answer, $uftansa alleged that its lia'ility

should 'e limited to only EK7 francs per kilo.

compensatory damages amounting to E77,777,which factual finding was not distur'ed 'y theSupreme 2ourt.

- Meanwhile, the Supreme 2ourt howe!erdeleted the award of attorney


6/16

e5clude the otherpro!isions of the2on!ention if damage iscaused 'y the commoncarrierence this petition.

- hether or not. Art.E(0# is a rule on:urisdiction or merely!enue

- hether or not the hil.has :urisdiction 'ecauseManila was thedestination of Santos.

- 4t is a rule on :urisdiction, therefore thehilippines has no :urisdiction on the matter.

- The wording of art. 6E indicates the placeswhere the action for damages )must+ 'e'rought, underscores the mandatory nature ofArt. E(0#.

- here the matter is go!erned 'y the arsaw2on!ention, :urisdiction takes place on a dualconcept. Lurisdiction in the international sensemust 'e esta'lished in accordance with Art.E(0# of the said con!ention, following whichthe :urisdiction of a particular court must 'eesta'lished pursuant to the applica'le domesticlaw.

- Dnly after the *uestion of which court has:urisdiction is determined will t he issue of!enue 'e taken up. This second *uestion shall'e go!erned 'y the law of the court to whichthe case is su'mitted.

- 8o, San %ran was the destination. lace ofdetermination according to the con!ention isdetermined 'y the terms of the contract ofcarriage, in this case the ticket.

- Although the date of return flight was left open,the contract of carriage 'etween the partiesindicates that airline was 'ound to transport

Santos to San %ran from Mla. Therefore Mlacan


7/16

ending with the ultimate destination.- The use of the singular in this e5pression

indicates the understanding of the parties to thecon!ention that e!ery contract of carriage hasone place of departure and one place ofdestination. And intermediate place where thecarriage may 'e 'roken is not regarded as aplace of destination.

Ma+a v. CA - laint if fs Mapa purchased in "angkok,

Thailand TA tickets forLos Angeles-Newor!-"oston-#t. Louis-Chicago.- Bomici le of carr ier TA is ansas 2ity,

Missouri, 1SA. 4ts principal place of 'usiness isansas 2ity, Missouri, 1SA. TAs place of'usiness through which the contracts were madeis "angkok, Thailand. The place of destinationis 2hicago, 1SA.

- T'e Ma+a% #en& & LA via PAL. Aftergoing to $A and 8J, urita and 2armina Mapadeparted for "oston, taking a connecting flighton TAs carrier, from L% Airport, 8ewJork, to "ostons $ogan Airport, checking inse!en (=# pieces of luggage at the TA counterin the L% Airport. The Mapas had to takeanother flight 'ecause they missed the originalflight 'ecause the stewardess told them to waitat gate 6K, when in fact they were supposed towait at gate 0.

- 1pon arr i!ing in "os ton, uri ta and2armina proceeded to the carousel to claimtheir 'aggages and found only three out of these!en they checked in.

- Tha Mapas duly accompl ished thepassenger property *uestionnaire and sta ted thatthe total !alue of the lost items amounted toF00,E6.=C.

- TA offered to amica'ly sett le the case'y gi!ing plaintiffs-appellant s two options& (a#

transportation credit for future TA tra!el or('# cash settlement.

- K months later , the Mapas opted fortransportation credit for future TA tra!el

- >owe!er, TA dis regarded the Mapasigh 2ontracting arty. The contracts,therefore, cannot come within the pur!iew ofthe first category of international transportation.8either can it 'e under the second categorysince there was 8D agreed stopping placewithin a territory su':ect to the so!ereignty,mandate, or authority of another power.

- The only way to 'ring the contracts'etween urita and 2armina Mapa, on the onehand, and TA, on the other, within the firstcategory of Hinternational transportationH is tolink them with, or to make them an integral partof, the Manila-$os Angeles tra!el of urita and2armina through A$ aircraft. >owe!er, theMapas< contract with A$ was independent ofthe TA tickets issued in "angkok, Thailand.8o e!idence was offered that TA and A$had an agreement concerning transportation ofpassengers from points of departures not ser!edwith aircrafts of one or the other.

- The S2 remanded the case to the RT2.The RT2 should ha!e denied the affirmati!edefense of lack of :urisdiction 'ecause it did notappear to 'e indu'ita'le. S2 noted that TA

stated in its Answer that it was a %oreigncorporation licensed to do business in the

&hilippineswith office address at round %loor,Sa!ille "uilding, Sen. il. L. uyat A!enue,corner aseo de Ro5as, Makati, Metro Manila.

- There are then two categories of

international transportation, !iz., (0#that where the place of departure andthe place of destination are situatedwithin the territories of two >igh2ontracting arties regardless ofwhether or not there 'e a 'reak in thetransportation or a transshipmentI and(E# that where the place of departureand the place of destination are withithe territory of a single >igh2ontracting arty if there is an agreestopping place within a territory su':to the so!ereignty, mandate, orauthority of another power, e!enthough the power is not a party to the2on!ention.



8/16

FE,K/7.77 as constituting full satisfaction of theMapas< claim.

- The Mapas accepted the check forFE,K/7.77 as partial payment for the actual costof their lost 'aggages and their contents, andsu'se*uently filed a suit for damages - TAraised lack of :urisdiction of hilippine courtso!er the action for damages in that pursuant toArticle E(0# of the arsaw 2on!ention, theaction could only 'e 'rought either in "angkokwhere the contract was entered into, or in"oston which was the place of destination, or inansas 2ity which is the carriers domicile andprincipal place of 'usiness.

- TA further alleged that pursuant to thearsaw 2on!ention and the 8otice of "aggage$imitations at the 'ack of the tickets, its lia'ilityto the petitioners is limited to 1SFC.7= perpound, or 1SFE7.77 per kilo, which is in lieu ofactual and compensatory damages.

- - - -

Ca&'a$ Paci)ic

Air#a$% v. CA

- Alcantara was a first class passenger of2athay acific on its flight from Manila to>ongkong and onward from >ongkong toLakarta.

- >e was to supposed to at tend aconference with Birector eneral of Trade of4ndonesia. Alcantara was then the 9? and Mof 4ligan 2ement 2orporation and representati!eof the 2ement 4ndustry Authority.

- >e check in his luggage which containedhis clothing and papers and documents heneeded for the conference.

- 1pon arri!al in Lakar ta , he disco!eredthat his luggage was missing. >e was theninformed that his luggage was left 'ehind in>ongkong and was offered FE7 as)incon!enience money+ to 'uy his immediate

personal needs until the luggage could 'edeli!ered to him.

- >is luggage reached Lakar ta more than EGhours after his arri!al. >owe!er, it was notdeli!ered to him 'ut instead 2athay re*uired itto 'e picked up 'y an official of the hil.

- hether the 2Aerred in holding 2athaylia'le to Alcantara formoral, e5emplary andtemperate damages aswell as attorneyongkong 2ustomsauthorities.

- The 2ourt also considered that theemployees of 2athay acted in 'ad faith. The S2cited the deposition of Romulo alma,2ommercial Attache of the hilippine 9m'assyat Lakarta which narrates that when they soughtassistance from 2athay employees, an agenttold Alcantara, )hat can we do, the 'aggage ismissing. 4 cannot do anything. Anyhow, youcan 'uy anything you need, charged to 2athay

acific.+- The S2 said that the employee was not

only indifferent or impatient, he was also rudeand insulting. The S2 also considered the factthat 2athay also refused to ha!e the luggagedeli!ered to Alcantara at his hotel.

- The arsaw 2on!ention declares thcarrier lia'le for damages in theenumerated cases and under certainlimitations.

- >owe!er, it must not 'e construed topreclude the operation of the 2i!il2ode and other pertinent laws. 4t doenot regulate, much less e5empt, thecarrier from lia'ility for damages for!iolating the rights of its passengersunder the contract of carriage,especially if willful misconduct on thpart of the carrier


9/16

9m'assy.- Thus, Alcantara filed a complaint against

2athay for damages.- The 2%4 ruled in fa!or Alcantara and

awarded damages. 2A affirmed.- 2athay claims that although i t fai led to

deli!er luggage on time, the delay was not madein 'ath faith so as to :ustify moral, e5emplaryand temperate damages.

- hether the 2Aerred in not applying thearsaw 2on!ention onthe lia'ility of a carrier toits passenger.

- Thus, it is e!ident that 2athay was remissin its duty to pro!ide proper assistance to apaying passenger.

- 8D. The arsaw 2on!ention declaresthe carrier lia'le for damages in the enumeratedcases and under certain limitations.

- >owe!er, it must not 'e construed topreclude the operation of the 2 i!il 2ode andother pertinent laws.

- The S2 granted moral and e5emplarydamages as well as attorney


10/16

>onolulu on Lune E0, 0CI from Manila to2e'u on Lune EG, 0CI and from 2e'u toSurigao also on Lune EG, 0C.

- 1pon arri!al in Manila on Lune E6, theywere told that their 'aggage consisting of twobali!bayan'o5es, two pieces of luggage andone fishing rod case were off-loaded at>onolulu, >awaii due to weight limitations.2onse*uently, pri!ate respondents missed theirother connecting flights since they had to waitfor their 'aggage which arri!ed the followingday.

- Dn the way to Surigao 2ity, the pilotannounced that they had to return to MactanAirport due to some mechanical pro'lem. hileat Mactan Airport, the passengers werepro!ided 'y A$ with lunch and were 'ookedfor the afternoon flight to Surigao 2ity whichwas likewise cancelled.

- Since they had to stay o!ernight in 2e'u,they asked to 'e 'illeted at the 2e'u laza >otel'ut A$ employees told them that they couldnot 'e accommodated at said hotel supposedly'ecause it was fully 'ooked. 2ontrarily, when

Br. Miranda called the hotel, he was informedthat he and his wife could 'e accommodatedthere. Although reluctant at first, A$e!entually agreed to pri!ate respondentso!ernight stay at said hotel with standard meals.4t was only after pri!ate respondents insistencethat their meals 'e ordered a la cartethat theywere allowed to do so.

- Since the shuttle 'us had already left 'ythe time pri!ate respondents were ready to go tothe hotel, A$ offered them 0K7.77 to includethe fare for the return trip to the airport. Br.Miranda asked for 0K7.77 more as he and hiswife, along with all of their 'aggage, could not

'e accommodated in :ust one ta5i, aside fromthe need for tipping money for hotel 'oys. 1ponrefusal of this simple re*uest, Br. Miranda thendeclared that he would forego the amenitiesoffered 'y A$. Thus, the !oucher for 0K7.77and the authority for the hotel accommodations

- ;8 A$


11/16

prepared 'y A$ were !oided due to pri!aterespondents decision not to a!ail themsel!esthereof.

- hen they tried to retrie!e their 'aggage,they were told this time that the same wereloaded on another earlier A$ flight to Surigao2ity. Thus, upon arri!al in Surigao 2ity, theyinstituted the present claim for damages which,after trial as well as on appeal, was decided intheir fa!or.

Uni&e" Air!ine% v.

U$

- illie L. 1y was a passenger on 1nited Airlines%light for the San %rancisco-Manila Route.

- 1pon checking in his 'aggage he was rudelyinformed 'y the airline personnel that hisluggage was o!erweight, and that he shouldha!e known the ma5imum weight allowance to'e =7 kgs per 'ag and that he should ha!epacked accordingly. Then the personnel, in aloud !oice in front of the crowd, asked 1y totransfer some of the contents of the o!erweightluggage to the lighter ones.

- 8ot wishing to create further scene, 1y accededonly to find that his luggage was stillo!erweight. >ence, the airline 'illed him with

o!erweight charges. >e offered to pay it with aMiscellaneous charge order, 'ut the same wererefused 'y the employees. >ence, 1y wasconstrained to use his credit card instead.

- %inally, upon arri!al to Manila, 1y disco!eredthat one of his 'ags had 'een slashed and itscontents stolen. >e particularized his losses to'e around FK,777.

- >ence, sometime in 0CC, 1y sent a letter to1nited Airlines regarding the humiliatinge5perience he suffered and the loss hesustained. This was followed 'y two moree5tra-:udicial demand sent in 0CC7 and theother in 0CC0.

- >owe!er, 1A merely sent a check for thepayment of the lost 'aggage 'ased on thema5imum limit of F C.=7 per pound.

- %inding this to 'e grossly inade*uate, 1y askedfor an out-of-court settlement of 0,777,777.1A did not o'lige. >ence, 1y filed a complaint

- hether or 8ot 1yence, although the arsaw 2on!entionpro!ides that an in:ured party must commencehis action within two years from the date of hisarri!al, 1y is still not 'arred in instituting thecomplaint for the first cause of action since theairline may still 'e held lia'le for 'reach ofother pro!isions of the 2i!il 2ode whichprescri'e a different period of prescript ion.

More particularly, Art 00G/ pro!ides four yearsfor the filing of an action 'ased on torts.

- The second cause of action of 1y is 'ased onthe loss of his personal effects amounting toFK,607. Such loss of 'aggage is go!erned 'ythe pro!ision of the arsaw 2on!ention onprescription.

- 4ndeed, Art EC (E# of the 2on!ention pro!idesthat the method of calculating the period oflimitation shall 'e determined 'y the law of thecourt to which the case is su'mitted.

- 4t is 1y


12/16

for damages against 1A on 0CCE, or almostthree years from the accident.

to 'e su':ect to the tolling pro!isions of thelaws of the forum. The S2 further e5plainedthat Art EC (E# was intended only to let locallaws determine whether an action ahs 'eencommenced within the E year period, and in thehilippines an action is deemed commencedonly upon filing of a complaint. >ence the suitfiled 'y 1y under the second cause of actionwas 'elatedly filed.

- >owe!er, the S2 allowed the same to 'e heardupon afindig that the 'elated filing of thecomplaint was 'rought a'out 'y the delayingtactics of 1nited Airlines. 4t appeared that 1Acontinually ga!e 1y the runaround, answeringhis letters 'ut not gi!ing in to his demands.

- >ence, the case is remanded for furtherproceedings.

Air France v. CA - 8arciso Morales, a lawyer, purchased an airlineticket from Aspac Management 2orporation,Air %ranceam'urg wherehe was informed of A% Manilaam'urg,ene!a, Rome, >ongkong and Manila whichshortened the original itinerary on the ticketissued 'y A% Manila through ASA2, itsgeneral sales agent. 2onsidering the originalrestrictions on the ticket and as it was allowedunder 4ATA resolution, it was not unreasona'le

for Air %rance to deny the re*uest.- "esides, a recurring ear infection was pleaded

as reason necessitating urgent return to Manila.Assuming arguendo a worsening pain ordiscomfort, Morales appears to ha!e stillproceeded to four (G# other citi es co!ering aperiod of at least si5 (/# days and l ea!ing openhis date of departure from >ongkong to Manila.And, e!en if he claimed to ha!e undergonemedical e5amination upon arri!al in Manila, nomedical certificate was presented. >e failed toe!en remem'er his date of arri!al in Manila.

- ith a claim for a large amount of damages, the2ourt found it unusual for Morales, a lawyer, to

easily forget !ital information to su'stantiate hisplea. 4t is also essential 'efore an award ofdamages that the claimant must satisfactorilypro!e during the trial the e5 istence of the factual'asis of the damages and its causal connectionto defendants acts.

- 4nternational Air TransportationAssociation (4ATA# Resolution&Hchanges to the ticket re*uested 'y tpassenger will 'e su':ect to carriersregulations.H

- Mere refusal to accede to thepassengers wishes does not necessar

translate into damages in the a'senceof 'ad faith. Morales has failed to showanton, male!olent or recklessmisconduct imputa'le to petitioner inits refusal to reroute.

- Dmissions 'y ordinary passengers m'e condoned 'ut more is e5pected ofmem'ers of the 'ar who cannot feignignorance of such limitations andrestrictions.



13/16

refund of its !alue, 'ut he kept the same and,instead, filed a complaint for 'reach of contractof carriage and damages.

- The 2%4 held that Air %rance was in e!ident 'adfaith for !iolation of the contract of carriage.The 2ourt also held that due to the social andeconomic standing of Morales, who waschairman of "DB of se!eral multi-millioncorporations, the award of moral and e5emplarydamages, in addition to actual damages were

awarded.- 2A modified the amounts of damages.

- The S2 held that as compared to the $M casewere the 'reach of contract was aggra!ated 'ydiscourteous and ar'itrary conduct of anemployee, here, Air %rance employees in>am'urg informed Morales that his tickets werepartly stamped )non-endorsa'le+ and )!alid onAir %rance only.+ Mere refusal to accede to thepassenger


14/16

time to transfer the 'aggage of Mahatini. 4t wasalso argued that Mahatini failed to declare ahigher !aluation with respect to his 'aggage, acondition precedent pro!ided in the ticket.I thuslimiting the lia'ility.

- Dn the other hand, A$ said there wasade*uate time to transfer the luggage to "A in>

American Air!ine%

v. CA

- Mendoza purchased from SingaporeAirlines in Manila con:unction tickets for

Manila-Singapore-Athens-$arnaca-Rome-Turin-urich-ene!a-2openhagen-8ew Jork.American Air was not a participating airline inany of the segments in the itinerary under thesaid con:unction tickets. 4n ene!a, Mendozadecided to forego his trip to 2openhagen and togo straight to 8ew Jork and in the a'sence of adirect flight under his con:unction tickets fromene!a to 8ew Jork, Mendoza e5changed theunused portion of the con:unction ticket for aone-way ticket from ene!a to 8ew Jork fromAmerican Air. American Air issued its ownticket to the Mendoza in ene!a and claimedthe !alue of the unused portion of the

con:unction ticket from the 4ATA E clearinghouse in ene!a.

- $ater, Mendoza f i led an act ion fordamages 'efore RT2 2e'u for the allegedem'arrassment and mental anguish he sufferedat the ene!a Airport when the American Airsecurity officers pre!ented him from 'oardingthe plane, detained him for a'out an hour andallowed him to 'oard the plane only after all theother passengers ha!e 'oarded. American Airfiled a motion to dismiss for lack of :urisdictionof hilippine courts to entertain the saidproceedings under Art. E (0# of the arsaw2on!ention.

- $ower courts held that the suit may 'e'rought in the hilippines under the poolpartnership agreement among the 4ATAmem'ers, which include Singapore Airlines andAmerican Airlines, wherein the mem'ers act asagents of each other in the issuance of tickets to

- hether theRegional Trial 2ourt of

2e'u can takecognizance of the actionfor damages filed 'yMendoza againstAmerican Air in !iew ofArt E (0# of the arsaw2on!ention.

- J9S. The contract of carriage 'etweenMendoza and Singapore Airlines although

performed 'y different carriers under a series ofairline tickets, including that issued 'yAmerican Air, constitutes a single operation.Mem'ers of the 4ATA are under a general poolpartnership agreement wherein they act as agentof each other in the issuance of tickets tocontracted passengers to 'oost ticket salesworldwide and at the same time pro!idepassengers easy access to airlines which a reotherwise inaccessi'le in some parts of theworld.

- A mem'er air line which enters into acontract of carriage consisting of a series oftrips to 'e performed 'y different carriers is

authorized to recei!e the fare for the whole tripand through the re*uired process of interlinesettlement of accounts 'y way of the 4ATAclearing house an airline is duly compensatedfor the segment of the trip ser!iced. Thus, whenAmerican Air accepted the unused portion ofthe con:unction tickets, entered it in the 4ATAclearing house and undertook to transport thepri!ate respondent o!er the route co!ered 'y theunused portion of the con:unction tickets, i.e.,ene!a to 8ew Jork, American Air tacitlyrecognized its commitment under the 4ATApool arrangement to act as agent of the principalcontracting airline, Singapore Airlines, as to the

segment of the trip American Air agreed toundertake. As such, American Air there'yassumed the o'ligation to take the place of thecarrier originally designated in the originalcon:unction ticket.

- American Air Ns argument that it is not a

-



15/16

those who may need their ser!ices. designated carrier in the original con:unctiontickets and that it issued its own ticket is notdecisi!e of its lia'ility. The new ticket wassimply a replacement for the unused portion ofthe con:unction ticket, 'oth tickets 'eing for thesame amount of 1SF E,=/7 and ha!ing the samepoints of departure and destination.

- "y constituting itself as an agent of theprincipal carrier the American Air


16/16

differentials resulting from the increase of thee5change rate of the 1S dollar to the hilippinepeso and the increased tra!el ta5.

- 4n the meantime, the anas scheduled theirdeparture a day 'efore the e5piry of the tickets.

- 8otwithstanding warnings that although thetickets could 'e used only until = May 0C=0, thetickets would no longer 'e !alid for the rest oftheir trip 'ecause they would ha!e alreadye5pired 'y thenI thus a SAS !alidating sticker

for the Dsaka;Tokyo flight was affi5ed 'y thetra!el agent showing reser!ations for LA$ %light07 for 0/ May 0C=0, without clearing the samewith Air %rance.

- %rom Dsaka, the anas had to 'uy a new set oftickets as the tickets were alleged to ha!ee5pired.

- Thus, the action for damages arising from'reach of contract of carriage.

ratification of the tra!el agent

Transpo Matrix 7

Documents

Transcript of Transpo Matrix 7