Alitalia vs. IAC Lufthansa vs.

IAC
Topic: Application of the Law
Facts: Henry Alcantara shipped 13 pieces of luggages through Lufthansa from Teheran to
Manila, to which he did not disclose the contents or the value of the luggages when he delivered
to Lufthansa. Of the 13 luggages, Teresita Alcantara was able to claim 12 pieces of luggages.
Spouses Alcantara informed Lufthansa of the loss of one of the luggages and the contents
thereof. Lufthansa traced the missing luggage but to no avail, thus informed spouses Alcantara to
file a claim of invoice. Spouses Alcantara wrote a letter demanding for the production of the
luggage within 10 days after receipt of the letter. When Lufthansa did not comply, spouses
Alcantara filed a complaint for BREACH OF CONTRACT with damages against Lufthansa, to
which it filed its answer alleging that the Warsaw Convention limits the liability of the carrier, if
any, with respect to the cargo. It further alleged that it never acted fraudulently or in bad faith to
entitle the spouses to its claim for moral damages.
The RTC ruled in favor of spouses Alcantara. Lufthansa appealed to CA, which affirmed the trail
courts decision with modification, by deleting the award of attorneys fees. Its MR having been
denied, Lufthansa filed the petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether spouses Alcantara are entitled to an award of damages beyond the liability set
forth in the Warsaw Convention.
Held: Yes.
The SC found no congent reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate
court. Hence, even if the RP is a party to the Warsaw Convention, Lufthansa waived the
applicability of the Warsaw Convention to the case when it offered spouses Alcantara a higher
amount than that which is provided in the said law and failed to raise timely objections during
the trial when questions and answers were brought out regarding the actual claims and damages
sustained by the spouses Alcantara which were even subjected to a lengthy cross examination by
Lufthansas counsel.

FGU Insurance vs. GP Sarmiento

Topic: Example of what is not a common carrier
Facts: GPS undertook to deliver 30 units of Condura refrigerators aboard one of its Isuzu trucks driven by
Eroles from the plant site of Concepcion Industries. The said shipment was insured by FGU Insurance.
While the truck was traversing along McArthur Highway it collided with an unidentified truck causing it
to fall into a deep canal and resulting damages to the cargoes. FGU paid Concepcion Industries the value
of the covered cargoes and in turn sought reimbursement from GPS. GPS failed to heed the claim, this
FGU Insurance filed a complaint for damages and breach of contract of carriage against GPS and its
driver, Eroles. In its answer, GPS asserted that GPS was an exclusive hauler nly of Concepcion Industries

since 1988 and was not engaged in business as a common carrier. FGU presented its evidence, on the
other hand, GPS filed with leave of court a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence on the
ground that FGU failed to prove that it was a common carrier.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. When the subsequent MR was denied, FGU interposed an
appeal to CA. CA rejected the appeal and ruled in favor of GPS. Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether GPS may be considered as a common carrier as defined under the law and existing
jurisprudence.
Held: No. The Court finds the conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to be amply justified.
GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering its
services to no other individual or entity, cannot be considered a common carrier. Common carriers are
persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for hire or compensation, offering their services to the public,
whether to the public in general or to a limited clientele in particular, but never on an exclusive basis. The
true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, providing space for those who opt to
avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee. Given accepted standards, GPS scarcely falls
within the term "common carrier."