Case Digest: KLM Dutch Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31150

KLM Dutch Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 65 SCRA 237, G.R. No. L-31150, July 22, 1975

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The Philippine Travel Bureau to which Reyes was an accredited agent for international air carriers which are members of the International Air Transport Association, popularly known as the "IATA," of which both the KLM and the Aer Lingus are members.

The respondents approached Tirso Reyes, branch manager of the Philippine Travel Bureau for consultations about a world tour which they were intending to make with their daughter and a niece. Reyes submitted to them, after preliminary discussions, a tentative itinerary that prescribed a trip of thirty-five legs.

When the respondents left the Philippines, they were issued KLM tickets for their entire trip. However, their coupon for the Aer Lingus portion (Flight 861 for June 22, 1965) was marked "RQ" which meant "on request".

They went on with the trip. However, in Barcelona airport, the Spouses Mendoza were off-loaded the Aer Lingus and were denied of means going to Lourdes. Hence, they were forced to take a train to Lourdes and pay the fare from their own pockets. 

In March 1966, the respondents, referring to KLM as the principal of Aer Lingus, filed a complaint for damages with the CFI of Manila arising from breach of contract of carriage and for the humiliating treatment received by them at the hands of the Aer Lingus manager in Barcelona.

After due hearing, the trial court awarded damages to the respondents. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The KLM sought complete exoneration; the respondents prayed for an increase in the award of damages. Hence, the present recourse by the KLM.

ISSUE

Whether or not KLM should be liable for the damages

RULING

Yes, KLM is liable for the damages.

Under the Warsaw Convention, Art. 25. (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 willful 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 willful 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 as the airline that issued those tickets with the knowledge that the respondents would be flown on the various legs of their journey by different air carriers, the KLM was chargeable with the duty and responsibility of specifically informing the respondents of conditions prescribed in their tickets or, in the very least, to ascertain that the respondents read them before they accepted their passage tickets. A thorough search of the record fails to show KLM officials or employees exerted effort to discharge, in a proper manner, their responsibility to the respondents. Hence, the respondents cannot be bound by the provision in question by which KLM unilaterally assumed the role of a mere ticket-issuing agent for other airlines and limited its liability only to untoward occurrences on its own lines.