American Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 327 SCRA 482
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Democrito Mendoza purchased a conjunction ticket from
Singapore Airlines for a multi-leg trip. In Geneva, Mendoza decided to skip
Copenhagen and fly directly to New York. He exchanged the unused portion of his
ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York with American Airlines.
Mendoza filed a lawsuit against American Airlines in the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu for damages before the regional trial
court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at
the Geneva Airport.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction of Philippine courts to entertain the said proceedings under Art.
28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention. The trial court denied the motion. CA affirmed
the ruling of the trial court.
The petitioner asserts that the Philippines is neither the
domicile nor the principal place of business of the defendant airline; nor is
it the place of destination. As regards the third option of the plaintiff, the
petitioner contends that since the Philippines is not the place where the
contract of carriage was made between the parties herein, Philippine courts do
not have jurisdiction over this action for damages.
ISSUE
Whether or not RTC of Cebu has jurisdiction over the case
against American Airlines given Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention.
RULING
Yes, RTC of Cebu has jurisdiction over the case in view
of Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention.
Under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw convention an action for
damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff either before the court
of the 1) domicile of the carrier; 2) the carrier’s principal place of
business; 3) the place where the carrier has a place of business through which
the contract was made; 4) the place of destination.
In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner issued
the ticket in Geneva which was neither the domicile nor the principal place of
business of the petitioner nor the respondent’s place of destination. However,
SC held that the contract of carriage between the private respondent and Singapore
Airlines although performed by different carriers under a series of airline
tickets constitutes a single operation. The third option under Art 28 (1)
of the Warsaw Convention e.g., to sue in the place of business of the carrier
wherein the contract was made, is therefore, Manila, and Philippine courts are
clothed with jurisdiction over this case. While this case was filed in Cebu and
not in Manila the issue of venue is no longer an issue as the petitioner is
deemed to have waived it when it presented evidence before the trial court.
No comments:
Post a Comment