Ben Johnson Bulac Case Commentary

Conflicts of Laws

American Airlines vs. CA

In the case of American Airlines vs. CA, private respondent Democrito Mendoza
purchased from Singapore Airlines conjunction tickets that made use of several airlines
to travel around Europe and whose final destination was New York City. During the last
leg of the trip, the private respondent decided to forgo his second to the last stopover in
Copenhagen and proceed directly from Geneva to New York City. He used his unused
ticket to book a flight with American Airlines in Geneva due to the fact that the airlines
that were part of his conjunction ticket did not have a direct flight to New York. A
commotion ensued when Mr. Mendoza was barred by security of petitioner airlines from
initially boarding the airplane, which allegedly caused the private respondent
embarrassment and mental anguish. Mr. Mendoza then filed a case with the RTC of
Cebu, seeking damages based on the alleged damage to his reputation and the mental
anguish being detained and belatedly boarding the plane caused him. The main issue in
this case was whether or not the RTC of Cebu could take cognizance over the case in
view of Article 28 paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention.

In this case, the court ruled in favor of Democrito Mendoza, citing that 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. 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 carriers 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. The court in this case was correct with its observation that the first,
second and fourth could not be availed of by Mr. Mendoza, which only left the third
option. That although the new airline was not privy to the original contract the second
purchase of a ticket to New York, was still subject to the original binding power of the
first contract of carriage.

It is at this juncture where the Supreme Court used the stipulations found in Art.
15 of the IATA agreement that binds its members as agents of each other for the
purpose of issuing conjunction tickets which in turn was superimposed with the
provisions of Art. 1(3) of the Warsaw Convention, which 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. These two provisions highlight the fact that although the ticket of
American Airlines was issued in Geneva, it was still bound to the original contract of
carriage which was made in the Philippines.

If we are to study the case in detail, the crux of the Courts decision in this case
was dependent on the Agency relationship between the IATA members and the fact that
although a contract of carriage maybe composed of various airlines, they are all
considered to be bound by a singular contract of carriage. The provisions that govern
agency under Article 1870 of our civil code, states that the acceptance of an agent may
be express or implied from his acts, which carry out the agency. This easily defeats the
argument of American Airlines that there is no agency relationship between it and
Singapore Airlines. By accepting the unused ticket as payment for the direct flight to
New York, it bound itself as an agent and became subject to the original contract of
carriage. As an agent, it may be held liable for damages for non-performance of his duty
or acts of negligence on its part. Under Art 25 (1) of the Warsaw Convention, The carrier
shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or
limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct or by such default on
his part as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is
considered equivalent to willful misconduct. In the transportation of passengers the
liability of the carrier for each passenger shall be limited to the sum of 125,000 francs.
Where, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, damages
may be awarded in the form of periodical payments, the equivalent capital value of the
said payments shall not exceed 125,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the
carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. It is clear that being an
agent of the original common carrier; it cannot expunge its own liability for actions and
omissions done by its employees. In this type of agency, the agent can be held directly
liable for violations of the contract of carriage during the portion of the conjunction ticket
it was tasked to perform.

Our local transportation law defines a contract of carriage as a real contract that
requires that the facilities of the carrier be used by the passenger and ends when he
alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of
destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises1. A common carrier is bound to
exercise extra-ordinary diligence in ensuring that no harm comes to its passengers
during the duration of such contract of carriage. The provisions of the Warsaw
Convention further strengthens this duty, specifically under Art.17 which states that The
carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a
passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which
caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any
of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The statement of facts were clear that
the incident occurred while the private defendant was in the process of boarding the
airplane owned by American Airlines and that the airline cannot excuse itself of liability
by hiding behind the fact that it did not occur while it was in transit. The law is clear
wherein it extended the carriers liability to even events that occur while the passenger is
boarding the vessel.

The Supreme Court was correct in appreciating not only the facts that were on
record but made use of multiple legal doctrines to establish jurisdiction over the case.
Although the facts may have shown that there were two transactions made, one in the
Philippines and the other in Geneva, it would have been a misapplication of the law to
not harmonize these facts with our current transportation laws under the Warsaw
Convention and the aviation industry’s guidelines itself. Transportation law has always
been imbued with public interest and should therefore be construed to protect the rights
and welfare of passengers. Although the case was remanded for further proceedings,
this case should still serve as way to help prevent companies from trying to escape
liability by stating that the forum does not have jurisdiction when by express provision of
law it clearly does.

1 La Mallorca vs. CA, G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966