Santos III v Northwest Orient Airlines (GR No.

101538, 1992)
Digest by: Jen Balmeo

FACTS: Augusto Benedicto Santos III is a minor represented by his dad. In October 1986, he bought a round trip ticket
from Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) in San Francisco. His flight would be from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and
back to San Francisco. His scheduled flight was in December. A day before his departure he checked with NOA and NOA
said he made no reservation and that he bought no ticket. The next year, due to the incident, he sued NOA for damages.
He sued NOA in Manila. But the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The lower court ruled in favor of NOA. CA: Affirmed. MR: Denied. Hence this petition

Petitioners main contention: Santos III averred that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case and challenged the
constitutionality of the Warsaw Convention on the ground that it violates his right to due process and the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. He argues that there is no substantial distinction between a person who purchases a ticket in
Manila and a person who purchases his ticket in San Francisco. The classification of the places in which actions for
damages may be brought is arbitrary and irrational and thus violates the due process and equal protection clause.
Respondents defense: The case should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Citing the above-quoted article,
it contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before the
court:
1. of the domicile of the carrier;
2. of its principal place of business;
3. where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made;
4. of the place of destination.
The private respondent contended that the Philippines was not its domicile nor was this its principal place of business.
Neither was the petitioner's ticket issued in this country nor was his destination Manila but San Francisco in the United
States.

ISSUE: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter to conduct judicial review
HELD: NO
The Supreme Court ruled that they cannot rule over the matter for the SC is bound by the provisions of the Warsaw
Convention which was ratified by the Senate. Until & unless there would be amendment to the Warsaw Convention, the
only remedy for Santos III is to sue in any of the place indicated in the Convention such as in San Francisco, USA.
The SC cannot rule upon the constitutionality of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. In the first place, it is a treaty
which was a joint act by the legislative and the executive. The presumption is that it was first carefully studied and
determined to be constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in this country. In this case, Santos was
not able to offer any compelling argument to overcome the presumption.