Case Digest: Lufthansa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83612

 

Lufthansa vs. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 290, G.R. No. 83612, November 24, 1994

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Tirso V. Antiporda, Sr., an associate director of the Central Bank of the Philippines and a consultant for various international organizations, was issued a confirmed Lufthansa ticket for a five-leg trip to Malawi, Africa, involving different airlines. However, during a layover in Bombay, Antiporda was informed that his seat on the Air Kenya flight to Nairobi had been given to another passenger, causing him to miss his appointment in Blantyre, Malawi.

Antiporda demanded damages from Lufthansa, but the airline denied liability. Antiporda then filed a complaint against Lufthansa for breach of contract before the Regional Trial Court, which ruled in his favor. The Court held that Lufthansa had the obligation to transport Antiporda for the entire five-leg trip, and the refusal to transport him to his final destination constituted a breach of contract.

The trial court also found that Lufthansa's conduct was aggravated by the discourteous and arbitrary behavior of its officials in Bombay. Antiporda was awarded moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Lufthansa appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Lufthansa is liable for damages for the "bumping-off" incident that occurred during Antiporda's layover in Bombay.

RULING

Yes, Lufthansa is liable for damages.

Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention provides: (1) In the case of transportation to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in the third paragraph of Article I, each carrier who accepts passengers, baggage, or goods shall be subject to the rules set out in the convention, and shall be deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of transportation insofar as the contract deals with that part of the transportation which is performed under his supervision. (2) In the case of transportation of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action only against the carrier who performed the transportation during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey.

In this case, SC rejected Lufthansa's argument that its responsibility ceased at Bombay Airport and that it was merely a ticket-issuing agent for the other carriers. The Court emphasized that the confirmed Lufthansa ticket covered the entire journey, and Lufthansa, as the principal in the contract of carriage, guaranteed Antiporda a sure seat with Air Kenya. The Warsaw Convention's provisions invoked by Lufthansa did not apply to the circumstances of the case, as the refusal to transport Antiporda was not a result of an accident or delay but rather the airline's decision to accommodate another passenger. Moreover, the Court upheld the award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, based on Lufthansa's bad faith and the discourteous behavior of its officials in Bombay. The Court considered Antiporda's high government position and the impact of the incident on his professional commitments in Malawi.