It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was between

petitioner and respondent, with the former endorsing to PAL the Hong Kong-to-
Manila segment of the journey. Such contract of carriage has always been
treated in this jurisdiction as a single operation. This jurisprudential rule is
supported by the Warsaw Convention, to which the Philippines is a party, and
[22]

by the existing practices of the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Article 1, Section 3 of the Warsaw Convention states:

Transportation to be performed by several successive air carriers shall be deemed, for

the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided transportation, if it has been
regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it has been agreed upon under
the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it shall not lose its
international character merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be
performed entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate,
or authority of the same High Contracting Party. [23]

Likewise, as the principal in the contract of carriage, the petitioner in British

Airways v. Court of Appeals was held liable, even when the breach of contract
[26]

had occurred, not on its own flight, but on that of another airline. The Decision
followed our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals, in which
[27]

we had held that the obligation of the ticket-issuing airline remained and did not
cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to carry the
passengers to one of their destinations.
In the instant case, following the jurisprudence cited above, PAL acted as
the carrying agent of CAL. In the same way that we ruled against British Airways
and Lufthansa in the aforementioned cases, we also rule that CAL cannot
evade liability to respondent, even though it may have been only a ticket issuer
for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.