Case Digest: Luna v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 107

 

Luna v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 107

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In May 1989, petitioners Rufino Luna, Rodolfo Alonso, and Porfirio Rodriguez encountered issues with Northwest Airlines during their trip to the Rotary International Convention in Seoul. Due to engine trouble, they were transferred to a Korean Airlines plane, resulting in the loss of their luggage, which allegedly ended up in Seattle. After a four-day delay, they recovered their belongings but missed most of the convention. Despite sending claims to Northwest Airlines, the airline disowned liability, prompting the petitioners to file a complaint for breach of contract.

Their complaints were initially dismissed for not stating prior claims within the prescribed period. The petitioners appealed, but the Court of Appeals, applying the Warsaw Convention, dismissed Luna and Alonso's petition, citing that certiorari was not a substitute for a lost appeal. Rodriguez's petition was referred to the Court of Appeals. The petitioners argued three grounds, including the Convention's non-exclusive nature and the inapplicability of its reglementary period in cases of willful misconduct.

Northwest Airlines claimed the dismissal orders were final due to the petitioners' failure to appeal within the reglementary period. They argued that no demand letter was received within the 21-day period stipulated in the Conditions of Contract. Referring to foreign jurisprudence, they contended that the Warsaw Convention's limitation of liability in cases of willful misconduct only applied to the monetary ceiling on damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not Northwest Airlines is liable for damages for breach of contract.

RULING

 Yes.

The Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring an airline liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The Convention merely declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present.  For sure, it does not regulate the liability, much less exempt, the carrier for violating the rights of others which must simply be respected in accordance with their contracts of carriage. The application of the Convention must not therefore be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.

In this case, petitioners' alleged failure to file a claim with the common carrier as mandated by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention should not be a ground for the summary dismissal of their complaints since private respondent may still be held liable for breach of other relevant laws which may provide a different period or procedure for filing a claim. Considering that petitioners indeed filed a claim which private respondent admitted having received on 21 June, 1989, their demand may have very well been filed within the period prescribed by those applicable laws. Consequently, respondent trial courts, as well as respondent appellate court, were in error when they limited themselves to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and disregarding completely the provisions of the Civil Code.