Arianne Joyce E. Pascual TRANSPORTATION LAW EDNA DIAGO LHULLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS [GR No.

171547; 15 March 2010] Del Castillo, J.: Facts: Petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier filed a Complaint2 for damages against respondent British Airways alleging that she took respondents flight 548 from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy. Once on board, she allegedly requested Julian Halliday (Halliday), one of the respondents flight attendants, to assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin. However, Halliday allegedly refused to help and assist her. Petitioner further alleged that when the plane was about to land in Rome, Italy, another flight attendant, Nickolas Kerrigan (Kerrigan), singled her out from among all the passengers in the business class section to lecture on plane safety. Affronted, petitioner assured Kerrigan that she knew the planes safety regulations being a frequent traveler. Thereupon, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a mere few centimeters away from that of the petitioner and menacingly told her that "We dont like your attitude." Petitioner complained to respondents ground manager and demanded an apology. However, the latter declared that the flight stewards were "only doing their job." Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for damages, praying that respondent be ordered to pay P5 million as moral damages, P2 million as nominal damages, P1 million as exemplary damages, P300,000.00 as attorneys fees, P200,000.00 as litigation expenses, and cost of the suit. Issue: Whether Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over a tortuous conduct committed against a Filipino citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier travelling beyond the territorial limit of any foreign country? Held: No. Petitioner argues that her cause of action arose not from the contract of carriage, but from the tortious conduct committed by airline personnel of respondent in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code on Human Relations. Since her cause of action was not predicated on the contract of carriage, petitioner asserts that she has the option to pursue this case in this jurisdiction pursuant to Philippine law. In contrast, respondent maintains that petitioners claim for damages fell within the ambit of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. As such, the same can only be filed before the courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy. The Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country. It is settled that the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country. The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and, as such, has the force and effect of law in this

country.13 The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between the United Kingdom and Italy, which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention. Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may bring the action for damages before 1. the court where the carrier is domiciled; 2. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business; 3. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made; or 4. the court of the place of destination. In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom with London as its principal place of business. Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional rules, the petitioner may bring her case before the courts of London in the United Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and respondent, it appears that the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy. Consequently, under the third jurisdictional rule, the petitioner has the option to bring her case before the courts of Rome in Italy. Finally, both the petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome, Italy, which is properly designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage check. Accordingly, petitioner may bring her action before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus find that the RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by the petitioner.

Arianne Joyce E. Pascual TRANSPORTATION LAW BRITISH AIRWAYS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOP MAHTANI AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES [G.R. No. 121824; 29 January 1998] Romero, J.: Facts: On April 6, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relative in Bombay, India. In anticipation of his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr. Gemar to prepare his travel plan. Since british Airways had no ticket flights from Manila to Bombay, Maktani had to take a connecting flight to Bombay on board British Airways. Prior to his departure, Maktani checked in the PAL counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothing and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hong Kong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay. Unfortunately, when Maktani arrived in Bombay, he discovered that his luggage was missing and that upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been diverted to London. After plaintiff waiting for his luggage for one week, BA finally advised him to file a claim accomplishing the property. Issue: Whether or not defendant BA is liable for compulsory damages and attorneys fee, as well as the dismissal of its third party complaint against PAL. Held: The contract of transportation was exclusively between Maktani and BA. The latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hong Kong log of the formers journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. Conditions of contacts was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay. The Court of Appeals should have been cognizant of the well-settled rule that an agent is also responsible for any negligence in the performance of its function and is liable for damages which the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act. Since the instant petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Maktani can only sue BA and not PAL, since the latter was not a party in the contract.

Arianne Joyce E. Pascual TRANSPORTATION LAW PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. HON. ADRIANO SAVILLO and SIMPLICIO GRIO [GR No. 149547; July 4, 2008] Chico-Nazario, J.: FACTS: Private respondent was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Seniors Annual Golf Tournament held in Jakarta, Indonesia. He and several companions decided to purchase their respective passenger tickets from PAL with the following points of passage: MANILA-SINGAPORE-JAKARTASINGAPORE-MANILA. Private respondent and his companions were made to understand by PAL that its plane would take them from Manila to Singapore, while Singapore Airlines would take them from Singapore to Jakarta. The private respondent and his companions took the PAL flight to Singapore and arrived and upon their arrival, they proceeded to the Singapore Airlines office to check-in for their flight to Jakarta that same evening. However, Singapore Airlines rejected the tickets of private respondent and his group because they were not endorsed by PAL. Singapore Airlines averred that if they honor the tickets without PALs endorsement, there is a possibility that PAL would not pay Singapore Airlines for their passage. Due to this, private respondent and his companions were forced to purchase tickets from Garuda Airlines and board its last flight bound for Jakarta. When they arrived in Jakarta, the party who was supposed to fetch them from the airport had already left and they had to arrange for their transportation to the hotel at a very late hour. After the series of nervewracking experiences, private respondent became ill and was unable to participate in the tournament. ISSUE: Whether or not the case at bar is covered by the Warsaw Convention. HELD: No, the case at bar is not within the scope of the Warsaw Convention. Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by any aircraft for hire. It seeks to accommodate or balance the interests of passengers seeking recovery for personal injuries and the interests of air carriers seeking to limit potential liability. Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention provides for liability on the part of a carrier for damages occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods. However, the Supreme Court finds that the present case is substantially similar to cases in which the damages sought were considered to be outside the coverage of the Warsaw Convention, since it does not exclusively regulate the relationship between passenger and carrier on an international flight.

This is due to the fact that the purported negligence on the part of PAL did not occur during the performance of the contract of carriage but days before the scheduled flight.