China Airlines vs Chiok GR 152122, July 30, 2003 FACTS: Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines (CAL),

airline passenger ticket for air transportation covering Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong- Manila. Said ticket was exclusively endorseable to PAL. Before leaving for said trips, those were pre-scheduled and confirmed by Chiok. When he arrived in Taipei, he went to CAL office and confirmed his HK-MLA trip on board PR 311. CAL office attached a yellow sticker appropriately indicating that his flight status was OK. When Chiok reached HK, he went to PAL office to reconfirm his flight back to MLA. PAL confirmed his return trip on board PR 311 and attached its own sticker. When Chiok proceeded on Nov 24, 1981 to HKIA, he saw a poster stating that PR 311 was cancelled because of a typhoon in Manila. He was then informed that all ticket holder of PR 311 were automatically booked for its next flight (PR 307) leaving the next day. He informed PAL personnel that he needed to reach Manila on Nov 25 because of a business option which had to be executed on said date. Chiok was not permitted to board PR 307 because his name did not appear in PALs computer list of passengers. Thereafter, he proceeded to PALs HK office and confronted the reservation officer who previously confirmed his flight back to MLA. The reservation officer told him that his name was on the list as evidence by the PAL confirmation sticker attached to his plane ticket. He then decided to use another CAL ticket, which was then booked and scheduled to depart that evening. ISSUE: WON CAL should be held liable. HELD: YES. Despite all points pointing to the negligence of PALs employees, CAL should be held liable. By the very nature of their contract, CAL is clearly liable under the contract of carriage with Chiok and remains to be so regardless of those instances when actual carriage is to be performed by another carrier. The contract of air transportation was between CAL and Chiok with the former endorsing to PAL the HK-MLA segment of the journey. Such contract of carriage has always been treated as a single operation. This is supported by the Warsaw Convention to which Philippines is a party and by the existing practices of the IATA (International Air Transportation Association). 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. Article 15 of IATA-Recommended Practice similarly provides: Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers under one ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction ticket issued therewith, is regarded as a single operation. CAL cannot evade liability to Chiok even though it may have been only a ticket user for the HK-MLA segment.