KLM VS CA

FACTS:
• In 1965, Spouses Mendoza approached Tirso Reyes, manager of a branch of the Philippine Travel Bureau, a travel agency,
for a world tour they intended to make with their daughter and a niece. According to the itinerary given by Reyes, three
segments of the trip, the longest, was via KLM. The spouses decided that one of the routes they will take was a Barcelona-
Lourdes route with knowledge that only one airline, Aer Lingus, served it.

• Reyes made the necessary reservations with the approval of the spouses. In response to this, KLM secured the seat
reservations from the carriers which would ferry the Spouses and their daughter and a niece throughout their trip, with the
exception of Aer Lingus. When the Mendozas left the Philippines, they were issued KLM tickets for the entire trip. However,
their coupon for Aer Lingus was marked “on request”.

• When they were in Germany, they went to the KLM office and obtained a confirmation from Aer Lingus. At the airport in
Barcelona, the Mendozas and their companions checked in for their flight to Lourdes. However, although their daughter and
niece were allowed to take the flight, the spouses Mendozas were off loaded on orders of the Aer Lingus manager, who
brusquely shoved them aside with the aid of a policeman and shouted at them (Conos! Ignorantes Filipinos!). Mrs. Mendoza
later called the manager of Aer Lingus and asked that they be given the means to get to Lourdes, but their request was
denied. Acting on the advice of a stranger, the spouses Mendoza took a train ride to Lourdes instead.

• Thus, they filed a complaint for damages against KLM for breach of contract of carriage. The trial court decided in favor of
the Mendozas. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision.

KLM’s arguments:
1. They should be exculpated on the basis of the “Warsaw ConventioN” of which the Philippine Government is a party by
adherence. According to Art. 30 of said convention, the aggrieved party can only take action against the carrier if an
accident or delay occurred. Since no such accident or delay occurred, they should be free from liability.
2. Under the “conditions of the contract” placed on the inside front cover of the ticket, “[a] carrier issuing a ticket or
checking baggage for carriage over the lines of others does so only as agent.”
3. All that KLM did was to request seat reservations. Therefore, KLM merely acted as a ticket-issuing agent.

Spouses Mendoza’s arguments:

1. Art. 30 of the “Warsaw Convention” cannot be applied to this case for it involves not action or delay but willful
misconduct on the part of KLM’s agent, the Aer Lingus. Art. 25 of the “Warsaw Convention” is instructive on the matter.
2. The condition referred to by KLM on the “conditions of the contract” is written in so small a print that a magnifying
glass is needed to view it.
3. The first paragraph of the same conditions indubitably states that the contract was one of continuous air transportation.
4. The contract of air transportation was exclusively between the Spouses Mendoza and KLM, the latter merely endorsing
its performance to other carriers like Aer Lingus.

ISSUES: WON KLM is liable for breach of contract of carriage

RULING: YES, KLM is liable for breach of contract of carriage.

RATIO:
1. The provision of the “Warsaw Convention” being relied upn by KLM is inapplicable. It presupposes that accident or
delay occurred, neither of which happened at Barcelona Airport. Instead, it was Aer Lingus that refused to take the
Mendozas to their destination.
2. KLM’s reliance on the “conditions of the contract” is untenable. Not only was the fine print so small, no steps were
taken by KLM to inform the Mendozas of such conditions. Therefore, the Mendozas cannot be bound by the provision
in question wherein KLM’s unilaterally declared that it was a mere ticket-issuing agent.
3. The same conditions also say that the carriage to be provided by several carriers is to be regarded as a single operation,
which is the direct opposite of KLM’s theory that the Mendoxas entered into several independent contracts with the
carriers that took them to their destinations.
4. The breach of KLM’s guarantee was further aggravated by the highly arbitrary and discourteous act of the Aer Lingus
official.

DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dated August 14, 1969 is affirmed, at KLM's cost.

MARY GRACE GUEVARRA-ESCABEL UBLC

MARY GRACE GUEVARRA-ESCABEL UBLC