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 the contract of transportation between the
petitioner and the private respondent would be considered as a single operation
and part of the contract of transportation entered into by the latter with
Singapore Airlines in Manila.
RULING
Yes, the contract of transportation between
the parties is a single operation and part of the contract by Mendoza with
Singapore Airlines.
Article 1(3) of the Warsaw Convention clearly states that a
contract of air transportation is taken as a single operation whether it is
founded on a single contract or a series of contracts. In addition, members of
the IATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as
agents of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers.
In this case, when the petitioner accepted the unused portion
of the conjunction tickets, entered it in the IATA clearing house, and
undertook to transport the private respondent over the route covered by the
unused portion of the conjunction tickets, i.e., Geneva to New York, the
petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment under the IATA pool arrangement to
act as agent of the principal contracting airline, Singapore Airlines, as to
the segment of the trip the petitioner agreed to undertake. As such, the
petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the place of the carrier
originally designated in the original conjunction ticket. Therefore, there
was no separate or second contract between American Airlines and Mendoza but a
contract considered a single operation and part of the contract of
transportation entered into by Mendoza with Singapore Airlines in Manila.
No comments:
Post a Comment