Case Digest: Cathay Pacific v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 520, G.R. No. 60501

 

Cathay Pacific v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 520, G.R. No. 60501, 5 March 1993

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

On 19 October 1975, respondent Tomas L. Alcantara was a first-class passenger of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. on its Flight No. CX-900 from Manila to Hongkong and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta on Flight No. CX-711. The purpose of his trip was to attend the following day, 20 October 1975, a conference with the Director General of Trade of Indonesia, Alcantara being the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of Iligan Cement Corporation, Chairman of the Export Committee of the Philippine Cement Corporation, and representative of the Cement Industry Authority and the Philippine Cement Corporation. 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 inquired about his luggage from CATHAY's representative in Jakarta, private respondent was told that his luggage was left behind in Hongkong. For this, respondent 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.

On 1 March 1976, respondent filed his complaint against petitioner with the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Lanao del Norte. RTC rendered a decision in favor of Alcantara. On appeal, CA affirms the decision of CFI with modifications. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Warsaw Convention on the liability of a carrier to its passengers is applicable in this case.

RULING

No, it is not.

The Warsaw Convention itself provides in Art. 25 that:

“(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilfull misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to wilfull misconduct;

(2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused under the same circumstances by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment."

In this case, SC held that 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 willful 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.