CHINA AIRLINES LTD V DANIEL CHIOK

FACTS:
Daniel Chiok purchased CAL ticket covering Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila for air transpo.
Chiok took his trip from MNL to Taipei. Chiok proceeded to Hongkong International Airport for
his return trip to Manila. However, upon reaching the PAL counter, Chiok saw a poster stating that
his flight was cancelled because of a typhoon in Manila. He was then informed that all the
confirmed ticket holders of PAL flight were automatically booked for its next flight, which was to
leave the next day. He informed PAL personnel that, being the founding director of the Philippine
Polysterene Paper Corporation, he had to reach Manila on November 25, 1981 because of a
business option which he had to execute on said date.
On November 25, 1981, Chiok went to the airport. Cathay Pacific stewardess Lok Chan had taken
and received Chioks plane ticket and his luggage. Lok called the attention of Carmen Chan, PALs
terminal supervisor, and informed the latter that Chioks name was not in the computer list of
passengers. Therefore, he could not be permitted to board. Chiok requested Carmen to put into
writing the alleged reason why he was not allowed to take his flight. The latter sought to recover
his luggage but found only 2 which were placed at the end of the passengers line. Realizing that
his new Samsonite luggage was missing, which contained cosmetics worth HK$14,128.80, he
complained to Carmen.
Chiok proceeded to PALs Hongkong office and confronted PALs reservation officer, Carie Chao,
who previously confirmed his flight back to MNL. She told Chiok that his name was on the list
and pointed to the latter his computer number listed on the PAL confirmation sticker attached to
his plane ticket.
Chiok then decided to use another CAL ticket and asked Chao if this ticket could be used to book
him for the said flight. The latter, once again, booked and confirmed the formers trip, this time on
board PAL Flight No. PR 311 scheduled to depart that evening. Later, Chiok went to the PAL
check-in counter and it was Carmen who attended to him. As this juncture, Chiok had already
placed his travel documents, including his clutch bag, on top of the PAL check-in counter. Carmen
directed PAL personnel to transfer counters. In the ensuing commotion, Chiok lost his clutch bag
containing valuable items and sum of money.
When he reached MNL, he filed a complaint against CAL for damages. He alleged that despite
several confirmations of his flight, defendant PAL refused to accommodate him, for which reason
he lost the business option. He also alleged that PALs personnel, specifically Carmen, ridiculed
and humiliated him in the presence of so many people. Further, he alleged that defendants are
solidarily liable for the damages he suffered, since one is the agent of the other.
RTC of Manila held CAL and PAL jointly and severally liable. Carriers appealed to CA. CA
affirmed it. CA debunked petitioners claim that it had merely acted as an issuing agent for the
ticket covering the trip of respondents. CA cited the ruling in KLM Royal Dutch v CA, hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
WON CAL is liable for breach of transportation contract.
HELD:
Yes. CAL is liable. In the instant case, the CA ruled that under the contract of transportation,
petitioner -- as the ticket-issuing carrier (like KLM) -- was liable regardless of the fact that PAL
was to perform or had performed the actual carriage
Defendant-appellant CAL is clearly liable under the contract of carriage with [respondent] and
remains to be so, regardless of those instances when actual carriage was to be performed by
another carrier. The issuance of a confirmed CAL ticket in favor of respondent covering his entire
trip abroad concretely attests to this. This also serves as proof that defendant-appellant CAL, in

effect guaranteed that the carrier, such as defendant-appellant PAL would honor his ticket, assure
him of a space therein and transport him on a particular segment of his trip. Notwithstanding the
errant quotation, we have found after careful deliberation that the assailed Decision is supported in
substance by KLM v. CA. The misquotation by the CA cannot serve as basis for the reversal of its
ruling.
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.
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
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
In American Airlines v. Court of Appeals, we have noted that under a general pool partnership
agreement, the ticket-issuing airline is the principal in a contract of carriage, while the endorseeairline is the agent.
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 KongManila sector.

3. CATHAY V CA (219 SCRA 520)

FACTS: Tomas L. Alcantara was a first class passenger of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways on its
flight from MNL to HK, HK top JK. The purpose of his trip in Indonesia was to attend a
conference regarding his business. He checked in his luggage which contained not only his
clothing and articles for personal use but also papers and documents he needed for the conference.
Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that his luggage was missing. When he inquiref
from CATHAY's representative in Jakarta, he was told that his luggage was left behind in
Hongkong. Alcantara was offered $20.00 as "inconvenience money" to buy his immediate
personal needs until the luggage could be delivered to him.
His luggage finally reached Jakarta more than twenty four (24) hours after his arrival. However, it
was not delivered to him at his hotel but was required by petitioner to be picked up by an official
of the Philippine Embassy.
Respondent filed his complaint against petitioner with the CFI of Lanao del Norte for damages.
RTC held Cathay liable. On appeal, Cathay assailed the conclusion of the TC that it was
accountable for breach of contract and questioned the non-application by the court of the Warsaw
Convention as well as the excessive damages awarded on the basis that respondent was rudely
treated by its during the time that his luggage could not be found. CA affirmed it. Hence, this
petition. CA raised the pertinent issue,
ISSUE:
CA erred in failing to apply the Warsaw Convention on the liability of a carrier to its passengers.
HELD:
No. Petitioner airline contends that the extent of its liability for breach of contract should be
limited absolutely to that set forth in the Warsaw Convention. We do not agree. As We have
repeatedly held, although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country,
being a treaty commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said convention does not
operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of
contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability.
The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and under
certain limitations. However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code
and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if
wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or established, which is clearly
the case before Us.
When petitioner airline misplaced respondent's luggage and failed to deliver it to its passenger at
the appointed place and time, some special species of injury must have been caused to him. For
sure, the latter underwent profound distress and anxiety, and the fear of losing the opportunity to
fulfil the purpose of his trip. In fact, for want of appropriate clothing for the occasion brought
about by the delay of the arrival of his luggage, to his embarrassment and consternation
respondent Alcantara had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged conference with the Director
General of Trade of
the host country.
In one case, this Court observed that a traveller would naturally suffer mental anguish, anxiety and
shock when he finds that his luggage did not travel with him and he finds himself in a foreign land
without any article of clothing other than what he has on.Thus, respondent is entitled to moral and
exemplary damages. We, however find the award by the CA of P80,000.00 for moral damages
excessive.

4. ALITALIA V IAC
FACTS:
Dr. Felipa Pablo (professor) was invited to take part of a meeting in Italy with regard to his
profession, thus, she booked from petitioner airline, ALITALIA. When she arrived in Milay on the
day before the meeting, she was told by the personal of ALITALIA that her luggage was delayed
in one of the succeeding flights from Rome to Milan. Her luggage consisted of 2 suitcases: her
clothing and other personal items; the other, her scientific papers, slides and other research
material. But, the other flights arriving from Rome did not have her baggage on board.
Desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate her bags herself. There, she inquired about her
suitcases in the domestic and international airports, and filled out the forms prescribed by
ALITALIA for people in her predicament. However, her baggage could not be found. Completely
distraught and discouraged, she returned to Manila without attending the meeting in Ispra, Italy.
Once back in Manila she demanded that ALITALIA make reparation for the damages suffered.
ALITALIA offered her "free airline tickets to compensate her for any alleged damages. . . ." She
rejected the offer, and commenced the action. Her items were also located and recovered but only
after few months. CFI rendered judgment in favor of her. CA affirmed and modified the judgment
in favor of her. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Warsaw Convention is applicable to limit ALITALIAs liability to Dr. Pedro?
HELD:
No ALITALIA invoked the applicability of Warsaw Convention to limits
its liability.
It is provided in the Convention that the "action for damages, however, founded, can only be
brought subject to conditions and limits set out" therein. In the case at bar, no bad faith or
otherwise improper conduct maybe ascribed to the employees of petitioner airline; and Dr. Pablo's
luggage was eventually returned to her, belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage. The
fact is, nevertheless, that some special species of injury was caused to Dr. Pablo because petitioner
ALITALIA misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her at the time appointed a breach
of its contract of carriage, to be sure with the result that she was unable to read the paper and
make the scientific presentation (consisting of slides, autoradiograms or films, tables and
tabulations) that she had painstakingly labored over, at the prestigious international conference, to
attend which she had traveled hundreds of miles, to her chagrin and embarrassment and the
disappointment and annoyance of the organizers. She felt, not unreasonably, that the invitation for
her to participate at the conference, extended by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy
in Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, was a singular honor not only to herself, but to the
University of the Philippines and the country as well, an opportunity to make some sort of
impression among her colleagues in that field of scientific activity. The opportunity to claim this
honor or distinction was irretrievably lost to her because of
Alitalia's breach of its contract. Apart from this, there can be no doubt that Dr. Pablo underwent
profound distress and anxiety, which gradually turned to panic and finally despair, from the time
she learned that her suitcases were missing up to the time when, having gone to Rome, she finally
realized that she would no longer be able to take part in the conference. As she herself put it, she
"was really shocked and distraught and confused." Certainly, the compensation for the injury
suffered by Dr. Pablo cannot under the circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the
Warsaw Convention for delay in the transport of baggage. She is not, of course, entitled to be
compensated for loss or damage to her luggage. As already mentioned, her baggage was ultimately
delivered to her in Manila, tardily but safely.

5. KOREAN AIRLINES V CA
FACTS:
Korean Airlines issued to Azucena Tomas a plane ticket to Los Angeles, CLF, U.S.A., on flight
departing from the Manila International Airport. She paid the fare, and she and her husband
arrived at KAL check-in counter and presented her ticket to Augusto Torres who refused to check
her in, saying that the Immigration Office was already closed.
Januario, her husband, rushed to the said office, which was still open, and was told by the
immigration officer on duty that his wife could still be cleared for departure. Januario rushed back
to Torres to convey this information and asked that his wife be checked in. Torres said this was no
longer possible because her seat had already been given to another passenger. His reason was that
Azucena had arrived late and had not checked in within forty minutes before departure time.TC
and CA held the carrier liable for damages to Tomas.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the carrier is liable for damages.
HELD:
No merit. No evidence in the record of any rule requiring passengers to check in at least forty
minutes before departure time, as invoked by Torres. KAL admits that it has not been able to cite
any statutory or administrative requirement to this effect. In fact, the alleged rule is not even a
condition of the plane ticket purchased by Azucena.
KAL invokes the memorandum-circular of February 24, 1975, issued by the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation which says that "all passengers authorized to leave for abroad shall
be required to check in with the Immigration Departure Control Officer at least thirty minutes
before the scheduled departure." The record shows that Azucena was ready to comply.
If, as Torres said, he gave Azucena's seat to a chance passenger thirty-eight minutes before
departure time instead of waiting for Azucena, then he was intentionally violating the said circular.
Significantly, it was proved he was not telling the truth when he said the Immigration Office was
already closed although it was in fact still open at the time the private respondents arrived.
The immigration officer on duty expressed his willingness to clear Azucena Tomas for departure,
thus indicating that she was well within the provisions of the memorandum-circular. Torres'
refusal to check her in was clearly unjustified. The real reason why she could not be checked in
was not her supposed tardiness but the circumstance that Torres had prematurely given her seat to
a chance passenger. That person certainly had less right to prior accommodation than the private
respondent herself.
The claim that the real party in interest is the Gold N. Apparel Manufacturing. It is clear that the
petitioner acted in bad faith in violating the private respondent's rights under their contract of
carriage and is therefore liable for the injuries she has sustained as a result.

6. TRANSWORLD AIRLINES V CA

FACTS:
Rogelio Vinluan (lawyer) entered into a contract for air carriage with Japan Airlines from MNL to
various cities around the world back to MNL. He was issued first class tickets for entire trip.While
in Paris, he went to the office of Transworld Airlines (TWA) at the De Gaulle Airport and secured
confirmed reservation for first
class accommodation on board flight to San Francisco.
A validated stub was attached to the NY-LA on his ticket evidencing his confirmed reservation for
said flight with the mark "OK. He, then, reconfirmed his ticket. But, when he reached the check-in
counter at the TWA at JFK airport, he was informed that there was no first class seat available for
him on the flight. He asked for an explanation but TWA employees on duty declined to give any
reason.
When he began to protest, one of the TWA employees, a certain Mr. Braam, rudely threatened him
with the words "Don't argue with me, I have a very bad temper." Vinluan was compelled to take
the economy seat offered to him and he was issued a refund application." While waiting for the
departure of Flight No. 41. Vinluan noticed that other passengers who were white Caucasians and
who had checked-in later than him were given preference in some first class seats which became
available due to "no show" passengers.
Vinluan filed an action for damages against the TWA in the CFI of Rizal alleging breach of
contract and bad faith. Court ruled in his favor. CA affirmed, but modified. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, TWA is liable for damages incurred by the respondent/passenger?
HELD:
Yes. TWA argued that, due to the cancellation of the flight, passengers who first class reservations
on Flight No. 41 had had to be accommodated on Flight No. 6041 on a first-come, first-served
basis. An announcement was allegedly made to all passengers in the entire terminal of the airport
advising them to get boarding cards for Flight No. 6041 to San Francisco and that the first ones
getting them would get first preference as to seats in the aircraft. It denied declining to give any
explanation for the downgrading of private respondent as well as the discourteous attitude of Mr.
Braam.
Private respondent asserts that he did not hear such announcement at the terminal and that he was
among the early passengers to present his ticket for check-in only to be informed that there was no
first class seat available for him and that he had to be downgraded. We don't agree with Petitioner.
Respondent had a first class ticket for Flight No. 41 of petitioner from New York to San Francisco
on April 20, 1979. It was twice confirmed and yet respondent unceremoniously told him that there
was no first class seat available for him and that he had to be downgraded to the economy class.
As he protested, he was arrogantly threatened by one Mr. Braam. Worst still, while he was waiting
for the flight, he saw that several Caucasians who arrived much later were accommodated in first
class seats when the other passengers did not show up. The discrimination is obvious and the
humiliation to which private respondent was subjected is undeniable.
Private respondent had shown that the alleged switch of planes from a Lockheed 1011 to a smaller
Boeing 707 was because there were only 138 confirmed economy class passengers who could
very well be accommodated in the smaller plane and not because of maintenance problems.
Petitioner sacrificed the comfort of its first class passengers including private respondent Vinluan
for the sake of economy. More so in this case where instead of courteously informing private
respondent of his being downgraded under the circumstances, he was angrily rebuffed by an
employee of
petitioner.