GR NO.

121824 JANUARY 29, 1998

BRITISH AIRWAYS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Gop Mahtani (Mahtani) decided to visit his relatives in Bombay India.
He obtained the services of Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans.
Mr. Gumar purchased a ticket from BA with the following itinerary: Manila-Hong
Kong-Bombay-Hong Kong-Manila.
Since there is no direct flight from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight
to HK via PAL.
Prior to Mahtani's departure, he checked un at the PAL counter in Manila
together with his two luggage
When he arrived in Bomaby, he discovered that his luggage was missing.
Upon his inquiry from the BA representatives, his luggage might have been
diverted to London.
Back in the Philippines, he filed a complaint against BA and Mr. Gumar
BA filed a counter claim that Mahtani did not have cause of action against it.
(PAL was the one responsible for the transfer)
PAL also filed its answer disclaiming that they don't have any liability. (The
transfer of the luggage to HK authorities should be considered as transfer to BA)
Lower Court:
The decision is in favor of Mahtani.
CA:
BA appealed to CA
CA affirmed to Lower Court's decision
ISSUE:
WoN BA is liable for the delay/loss of a passengers baggage
SC
Modification only on damages and reinstating the 3rd party complaint by BA
against PAL.
There are 2 nature of airline's contract of carriage, to wit: 1) a contract to deliver
a cargo or merchandise to its destination, and 2) a contract to transport
passengers to their destination.
In the case at bar, it is apparent that the contract of carriage was between
Mahtani and BA. Moreover, ot os indubitable that his luggage never arrived in
Bombay on time. Thus, as in a number of cases, the court assessed the airline's
culpability in the form of damages and its casual connection to defendant's acts.
The liability of BA is limited only, at most, to the amount stated in the ticket.
Under the provisions of Art 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention (in a contract of air
carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is needed to recover a
greater amount.)
The court sustained the trial's court ruling in dismissing BA's 3rd party complaint
against PAL.
The contract of air transportation in the case pursuant to the ticket issued by BA
to Mahtani was exclusively between the latter and the former. When Mahtani
boarded the PAL plane from MNL-HK, PAL was merely acting as a subcontractor
or agent of BA.
The rule that carriage by plane although performed by successive carriers is
regarded as a single operation and that the carrier issuing the passenger's ticket
is considered the principal party and the other carrier merely subcontractors or
agent.
Since the petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Mahtani can only
sue BA alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract.
However, this is not to say that PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of its
negligent acts.

GR NO 66102-04 AUGUST 30, 1990
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
On December 24, 1966, about 11am, the private respondents (Catalina Pascua,
et.al.. total of 7 passengers) boarded a jeepney driven by Tranquilino Manalo and
owned by sps Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon at Dau, Mabalacat,
Pampanga.
Said jeepney is bound to Carmen, Rosales, Panagasinan. Their contract with
Manalo was for them to pay P 24.00 for the trip.
While on their way (upon reaching the barrio of Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac,
the right gear wheel of the jeepney was detached, so it was running in an
unbalanced position.
Manalo stepped on the break, as a result, the jeepney which was then running on
the eastern lane made a U-turn and encroached the western lane.
In such a manner that said jeepney is facing north instead that it should be south.
At that time, Phil Rabbit Bus was approaching, but to no avail, the Bus hit the
right rear portion of the jeepney, resulting three (3) passengers died and others
sustained physical injuries.
Lower Court:
Heirs of the passengers died filed a criminal complaint against Manalo.
Manalo was held liable for Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries with
Reckless Imprudence resulting to Damage to property.
Manalo did not file an appeal, thus he served his sentence.
On the other hand, the Heirs also filed a suit for damages against sps. Mangune
and Carreon, Phil Rabbit, and Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp.
The court held that Carreon, Mangune and Manalo thru their negligence,
breached their contract of carriage with their passengers and be held liable, as
well as Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp. They were ordered by the court to pay
the damages incurred, but not Phil Rabbit and its driver (delos Reyes)
CA
On appeal, decision for the Phil Rabbit NOT TO be held liable for damages has
been reversed.
ISSUE:
WoN Phil Rabbit is liable for damages to the death of the three (3) passengers.
SC
The Court held that Phil Rabbit is not liable.
The CA had a contrary opinion on applying the following principles, to wit: 1) the
doctrine of last clear chance, 2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear
of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by
other evidence, and 3) the substantial factor test that delos Reyes was negligent.
The doctrine of last clear chance, would call for application in a suit between the
owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles, it does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations.For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the
jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence.
The court found that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of
Manalo and sps. Managune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise precautions
that are needed.