FACTS: Private Respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila conjunction tickets for Manila-Singapore-Athens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-New York. In Geneva, private respondent decided to go straight to New York and in the absence of a direct flight in his conjunction ticket for a one-way from Geneva-New York from the petitioner airline. Petitioner issued its own ticket to the private respondent in Geneva and claimed the value of the unused portion of the conjunction ticket from the IATA 2 clearing house in Geneva. In 1989, petitioner filed an action for damages before the RTC of Cebu for the alleged mental anguish and embarrassment he suffered from at the Geneva airport when petitioner’s security officers prevented him from boarding the plane, detained him for about an hour and allowed him to board the place only after all the other passengers have boarded.
ISSUE: Does RTC of Cebu have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action for damages filed by private respondent against petitioner in view of Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention?
HELD: Yes. The Warsaw Convention to which the Philippines is a party and which has the force and effect of the law in this country applies to all international transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by an airline gratuitously or for hire. Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides: An action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier of his principal place of business or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of destination.
The contract of carriage between the private respondent and Singapore Airlines although performed by different carriers under a series of airline tickets, including that issued by petitioner, constitutes a single operation. Members of the IATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to boost ticket sales worldwide at the same time provides passengers easy access to airlines which are otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the world. Thus, 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, it tacitly recognized its commitment under the IATA pool arrangement to act as agent of the principal contracting airlines, Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip the petitioner agreed to undertake. As thus, the petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the place of the carrier originally designated in the original conjunction ticket.
The third option of the plaintiff under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention e.g., to sue in the place of business of the carrier where the contract was made , is Manila, and Philippine courts are clothed with jurisdiction to try this case. While the case is 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment