Philippine Airlines vs Civil Aeronautics Board

Case Digest
(270 SCRA 538)
Facts: Grand Air applied for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity with the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB). The Chief Hearing Officer issued a
notice of hearing directing Grand Air to serve a copy
of the application and notice to all scheduled
Philippine Domestic operators. Grand Air filed its
compliance and requested for a Temporary Operating
Permit (TOP). PAL filed an opposition to the
application on the ground that the CAB had no
jurisdiction to hear the application until Grand Air first
obtains a franchise to operate from Congress. The
Chief Hearing Officer denied the opposition and the
CAB approved the issuance of the TOP for a period of
3 months. The opposition for the TOP was likewise
denied. The CAB justified its assumption of
jurisdiction over Grand Airs application on the basis
of Republic Act 776 which gives it the specific power
to issue any TOP or Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity.
Issue: Whether or not the CAB can issue a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity or TOP even
though the prospective operator does not have a
legislative franchise?
Held: Yes, as mentioned by the CAB, it is duly
authorized to do so under Republic Act 776 and a
legislative franchise is not necessary before it may do
so, since Congress has delegated the authority to
authorize the operation of domestic air transport
services to the CAB, an administrative agency. The
delegation of such authority is not without limits since
Congress had set specific standard and limitations on
how such authority should be exercised.
Public convenience and necessity exists when the
proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the
public and supply a need which the existing facilities
do not adequately afford.
Thus, the Board should be allowed to continue
hearing the application, since it has jurisdiction over it
provided that the applicant meets all the requirements
of the law.

MAPA VS C-A (275-286)

Mapa purchased from TWA Trans World Airlines 2
airline tickets in Bankok Thailand, for Los AngelesNew York Boston St. Louis Chicago, all of the
USA. The domicile of the carrier TWA was Kansas
City, Missouri USA, Where its principal place of
business was likewise located. The place of business
of TWA where the contract was made was in Bangkok
Thailand. The place of destination was Chicago-USA.
The MAPAS left Manila on board Pal for L-A, They left
checked in 7 pieces of luggages at TWA counter at
JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they
went to the wrong gate. Hey were however allowed to
take a later TWA plane to Boston which was delayed
because of the thunder storm. Upon arrival at boston
they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggages which
loss was immediately reported to TWA with a total
value of S 2,560 as constituting full satisfaction of
their claim which the MAPAS accepted as partial
payment for the actual loss of their baggages.

Thereafter MAPA filed a case against TWA in the

Philippines Similar to the case of Santos III , TWA
move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on
section 28(1) warsaw contending that the complaint
should have been brought either in Bankok where the
contract was entered into , or in boston which was the
place of destination or in Kansas City which was the
carriers domicile and principla place of business.
MAPAS claimed that the WARSAW convention was
not applicable because the contract was not an
Internationl Transportation as contemplated under the
provision of the WARSAW convention the RTC as
affirmed by the C-A dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Is the Warsaw Convention applicable?
Held: Warsaw convention was not applicable because
the contract does not involve an INTERANTIONAL
TRANPORTATION base on the two categories.
(1) that where the place of departure and the place of
destination are situated within the territories of two
High Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not
there be a break in the transportation or a
transshipment; and
(2) that where the place of departure and the place of
destination are within the territory of a single High
Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place
within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate,
or authority of another power, even though the power
is not a party of the Convention.
Whether the
contracts were of international
transportation is to be solely determined from the
TWA tickets issued to them in Bangkok, Thailand,
which showed that their itinerary was Los AngelesNew York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago. Accordingly,
since the place of departure (Los Angeles) and the
place of destination (Chicago) are both within the
territory of one High Contracting Party, with no agreed
stopping place in a territory subject to the sovereignty,
mandate, suzerainty or authority of another Power,
the contracts did not constitute 'international
transportation' as defined by the convention.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS,
HON. BERNARD L. SALAS and DEMOCRITO
MENDOZA, respondents
G.R No. 116044-45.
March 9, 2000
Facts:
Private respondent purchased from Singapore
Airlines in Manila conjunction tickets from ManilaSingapore-Athens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-ZurichGeneva-Copenhagen-New York. In Geneva, he
decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and go
straight to New York. In the absence of a direct flight
under his conjunction tickets from Geneva to New
York, he exchanged the unused portion of the
conjunction ticket for a one way ticket from Geneva to
New York from American Airlines, which issued its
own ticket to respondent in Geneva and claimed the
value of the unused portion of the conjunction ticket
from the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) clearing house in Geneva. In September,
1989, respondent filed an action for damages before
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu for the alleged
embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at
the Geneva Airport when American Airlines security
officers prevented him from boarding the plane.

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of American

Airlines of a new ticket in exchange of the conjunction
ticket the respondent purchased in Manila bar him
from seeking recourse in Philippine courts.
Ruling:
The petitioner contends that under Article 28 of the
Warsaw Convention, action for damages may only be
brought upon the following courts:
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)

Domicile of the carrier

Carriers principal place of business
Place where carrier has a place of business
Place of destination

RULING: Notice of limited liability in airline tickets

On page 2 of the airline ticket, it states that the
Warsaw Convention governs in case of death or injury
to the passenger or of loss, damage or destruction to
a passenger's luggage. It says: "If the passenger's
journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a
country, the Warsaw Convention may be applicable
and the conversation governs and in most cases,
limits the liability of carriers for death or personal
injury and in respect of loss or damage to baggage."
Passenger is expected to be vigilant with respect to
his baggages.

Since neither of these elements is present in the

case, the petitioner contends that plaintiff cannot file
the case in the Philippines. He further posits that the
second contract cannot be deemed as an extension
of the first as the petitioner airline is not a participating
airline in any of the destinations under the first
contract.

In this case, Rapadas actually manifested a disregard

with the airline rules insofar as his baggages are
concerned. He failed to state the value of the said
check-in baggage and failed to remove whatever
check-in valuables he had in which should have been
placed in his allowable hand-carry baggage instead.

Respondent on the other hand contends that the

second contract she entered into at Geneva is part
and parcel of the first contract, thus the third option
under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention would
apply to him. He further pointed out that petitioner
cannot deny the contract of agency with Singapore
Airlines after it honored the conjunction tickets issued
by the latter.

Alitalia v. Intermediate Appellate Court (192 SCRA

9)

The court ruled that petitioners argument is void of

merit with reference to Article 1(3) of the Warsaw
Convention. According to the said article,
transportation to be performed by several carriers
shall be deemed as one and undivided. The number
of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of
the contract of carriage. Hence, the third option of the
plaintiff under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention is
clothed with jurisdiction.

PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS V. IAC

FACTS: Jose Rapaldas is on board a flight for Pan
Am Flight 841 from Guam to Manila. While standing in
line to board the flight at the Guam airport, Rapadas
was ordered by Pan Am's handcarry control agent to
check-in his Samsonite attache case. Rapadas
protested pointed to the fact that other co-passengers
were permitted to handcarry bulkier baggages. But for
fear that he would miss the flight, he agreed to check
it in. He gave his attache case to his brother who
happened to be around without declaring its contents
or the value of its contents.
Upon his arrival in Manila, he was given all his checkin baggages except the attache case. Because
Rapadas felt ill, he sent his son to request for search
of the missing luggage. Eventually, Rapadas received
a letter from Pan Am's counsel offering to settle the
claim for the sum of $160.00 representing Pan Am's
alleged limit of liability for loss or damage to a
passenger's personal property under the contract of
carriage between Rapadas and Pan Am.
ISSUE: Is Pan American Airways liable for the lost
check-in baggage?

Facts: Dr. Felipa Pablo, a professor from UP was

invited to attend a meeting by the United Nations in
Ispra, Italy. She was to read a paper regarding foreign
substances in food and the agriculture environment
which she had specialized knowledge of. She booked
a flight to Italy with Alitalia airlines, petitioner herein.
She had arrived in Milan the day before the meeting
however her luggage did not arrive with her. The
airline informed her that her luggage was delayed
because it was placed in one of the succeeding flights
to Italy. She never got her luggage.
When she got back to Manila she demanded that
Alitalia compensate her for the damages that she
suffered. Petitioner herein offered free airline tickets in
order to compensate for the alleged damages,
however she rejected this offer and instead filed a
case. Subsequently it was found out that the luggages
of Dr. Pablo were not placed in the succeeding flights.
She received her luggage 11 months after and after
she had already instituted a case against Alitalia.
The lower court rendered a decision in favor of Dr.
Pablo and ordered plaintiff to pay damages. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
and even increased the amount of damages to be
awarded to Dr. Pablo. Hence this petition for
certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not Alitalia is liable for damages
incurred by Dr. Pablo.
Held: The Court held that Alitalia is liable to pay Dr.
Pablo for nominal damages. The Warsaw Convention
provides that an air carrier is made liable for damages
when: (1) the death, wounding or other bodily injury of
a passenger if the accident causing it took place on
board the aircraft or in the course of its operations of
embarking or disembarking; (2) the destruction or loss
of, or damage to, any registered luggage or goods, if
the occurrence causing it took place during the
carriage by air"; and (3) delay in the transportation by
air of passengers, luggage or goods. However, the
claim for damages may be brought subject to
limitations provided in the said convention.

In this case, Dr. Pablo did not suffer any other injury
other than not being able to read her paper in Italy.
This was due to the fact that Alitalia misplaced her
luggage. There was no bad faith or malice on the part
of Alitalia in the said delay in the arrival of her
luggage. Dr. Pablo received all her things which were
returned to her in good condition although 11 months
late. Therefore she shall receive nominal damages for
the special injury caused.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DR.

JOSEFINO MIRANDA and LUISA MIRANDA G.R. No.
119641 May 17, 1996
FACTS: Private respondent spouses went to the United
States of America. For their trip back to the country,
they obtained confirmed bookings from PAL for a flight
from San Francisco to Manila via Honolulu on June 21,
1988; then from Manila to Cebu on June 24, 1988; and
finally from Cebu to Surigao also on June 24, 1988. On
June 21, 1988, private respondents boarded the flight in
San Francisco with five pieces of baggage. After a
stopover at Honolulu, and upon arrival in Manila on
June 23, 1988, they were told by the PAL personnel that
all their baggage were off-loaded at Honolulu due to
weight limitations. As a result, private respondents
missed their connecting flight from Manila to Cebu City,
since they had to wait for their baggage which arrived
the following day, June 24, 1988, after their connecting
flight had left. They also missed their other connecting
flight from Cebu City to Surigao City. On June 25, 1988,
they departed for Cebu City and therefrom for Surigao
City. On the way to Surigao City, their flight had to
return to Mactan Airport due 111 to some mechanical
problem. The passengers were then booked for the
afternoon flight to Surigao City. However, said flight was
also canceled. Since there were no more flights for
Surigao City that day, private respondents asked to be
billeted at the Cebu Plaza Hotel. But they were told by
PAL employees that they could not be accommodated
at said hotel because it was fully booked. However,
when Dr. Miranda called the hotel, he was informed
that he and his wife could be accommodated there. By
the time private respondents were ready to go to the
hotel, the shuttle bus had already left. PAL offered them
P150.00. Dr. Miranda asked for P150.00 more as they
could not be accommodated in just one taxi, also for
tipping money for hotel boys. PAL refused the said
request. Thus, Dr. Miranda decided that he would not
avail of the amenities offered by PAL. When private
respondents tried to retrieve their baggage, they were
told this time that the same were loaded on another
earlier flight to Surigao City. Private respondents were
finally able to leave to Surigao City only on June 26,
1988. Thereafter, they instituted an action for damages
which, after trial as well as on appeal, was decided in
their favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not PAL acted in bad faith warranting
the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as
attorneys fees to the private respondents.
HELD:

YES. A contract of air carriage generates a relation

attended with a public duty and any discourteous
conduct on the part of a carrier's employee toward a
passenger gives the latter an action for damages and,
more so, where there is bad faith. In the present case,
the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that there
was breach of contract committed in bad faith by
petitioner airline. The private respondents had a
confirmed booking on a PAL flight from San Francisco to
Manila. Therefore they were entitled to an assured
passage not only for themselves but for their baggage
as well. It was shown that the private respondents
baggage were properly loaded and stowed in the plane
when it left San Francisco for Honolulu. The off-loading
by PAL of their baggage to give way to other passengers
or cargo was an arbitrary and oppressive act which
clearly amounted to a breach of contract committed in
bad faith and with malice. The situation was aggravated
by the poor treatment of the Mirandas by the PAL
employees during the stopover at Mactan Airport in
Cebu; the denial of 112 petitioner's personnel to the
Miranda spouses' request to be billeted at the Cebu
Plaza Hotel by saying that it was fully booked, which
was disproven by the fact that Dr. Miranda was able to
arrange for accommodations thereat; and, the PAL
employees' negligent act of sending off the baggage of
private respondents to Surigao City, while they were
still in Cebu, without any explanation for this gross
oversight. Moral damages are recoverable in suits
predicated on breach of a contract of carriage where it
is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad
faith. What amounts to bad faith which would entitle a
carriers passenger to an award of moral damages is
inattention to and lack of care for the interests of its
passengers who are entitled to its utmost
consideration. What the law considers as bad faith
which may furnish the ground for an award of moral
damages would be bad faith in securing the contract
and in the execution thereof, as well as in the
enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of deceit.
Such unprofessional and proscribed conduct is
attributable to petitioner airline in the case at bar. In a
contractual or quasi-contractual relationship, exemplary
damages may be awarded only if the defendant had
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. Attorney's fees in the concept of
damages may be awarded where there is a finding of
bad faith. The evidence on record adequately sustains
that the awards assessed against petitioner on the said
items of damages are justified and reasonable. It is
PAL's duty to provide assistance to private respondents
and any other passenger similarly inconvenienced due
to delay in the completion of the transport and the
receipt of their baggage. Therefore, its unilateral and
voluntary act of providing cash assistance is deemed
part of its obligation as an air carrier. Likewise,
arrangements for and verification of requested hotel
accommodations for private respondents could and
should have been done by PAL employees themselves.

SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES, petitioner, vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MA. PAULA SAN

AGUSTIN, respondents. [G.R. No. 104685. March 14,

1996]
Facts: On August 21, 1987, plaintiff (MA. PAULA SAN
AGUSTIN) was a passenger on defendant airline
(SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES) from Casablanca
to Brussels, Belgium on her way back to Manila. Her
luggage with valuables was left on board Flight SN 284.
Upon arrival she submitted documents to support her
baggage claim but luggage remained to be missing. A
formal complaint was filed by the plaintiff with the
manager of the airline. Plaintiff was furnished copies of
telexes with an information that the Brussels Office of
defendant found the luggage and that they have broken
the locks for identification (Exhibit B). Plaintiff was
assured by the defendant that it has notified its Manila
Office that the luggage will be shipped to Manila on
October 27, 1987. But unfortunately plaintiff was
informed that the luggage was lost for the second time.
At the time of fiing of complaint the luggage is still
missing. Plaintiff demanded from the defendant the
money value of the luggage and its contents or its
exchange value, but defendant refused to settle the
claim, asserting that the loss of the luggage was due to
plaintiffs sole if not contributory negligence; nondeclaration of valuable items in her checked-in luggage
at the flight counter when she checked in. Trial court
favored the plaintiff and ordered the Sabena Belgian
World Airlines to pay private respondent Ma. Paula San
Agustin. Hence this appeal.
Issue: WON the private respondent is at fault on the
loss of the luggage by negligence.
Ruling: Fault or negligence consists in the omission of
that diligence which is demanded by the nature of an
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the person, of the time, and of the place. When the
source of an obligation is derived from a contract, the
mere breach or non-fulfillment of the prestation gives
rise to the presumption of fault on the part of the
obligor. This rule is not different in the case of common
carriers in the carriage of goods which, indeed, are
bound to observe not just the due diligence of a good
father of a family but that of extraordinary care in the
vigilance over the goods. It remained undisputed that
private respondents luggage was lost while it was in
the custody of petitioner. When it was found missing
the respondent, promptly processed all the necessary
document but to no avail. The loss of said baggage not
only once by twice, said the appellate court,
underscores the wanton negligence and lack of care
on the part of the carrier. Under domestic law and
jurisprudence (the Philippines being the country of
destination), the attendance of gross negligence (given
the equivalent of fraud or bad faith) holds the common
carrier liable for all damages which can be reasonably
attributed, although unforeseen, to the nonperformance of the obligation, including moral and
exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

BRITISH AIRWAYS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

GOP MAHTANI, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
respondents. [G.R. No. 121824, January 29, 1998]
FACTS: On April 16, 1989, Mahtani (respondent)
decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India. Mr.
Gumar, purchased a ticket from British Airlines when
Mahtani obtained his services. Since BA had no direct
flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a
flight to Hongkong via PAL, and upon arrival in
Hongkong he had to take a connecting flight to Bombay
on board BA. Mahtani checked in at the PAL counter in
Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his
clothings and personal effects. When he arrived in
Bombay he discovered that his luggage was missing. A
week after, BA finally advised him to file a claim by
accomplishing the Property Irregularity Report. Back
in the Philippines, Mahtani filed his complaint for
damages and attorneys fees against BA and Mr. Gumar
before the trial court. BA filed its answer with counter
claim to the complaint raising, as special and affirmative
defenses, that Mahtani did not have a cause of action
against it. BA filed a third-party complaint against PAL
alleging that the reason for the non-transfer of the
luggage was due to the latters late arrival in Hongkong,
thus leaving hardly any time for the proper transfer of
Mahtanis luggage to the BA aircraft bound for Bombay.
PAL filed its answer to the third-party complaint,
wherein it disclaimed any liability, arguing that there
was, in fact, adequate time to transfer the luggage to
BA facilities in Hongkong. Furthermore, the transfer of
the luggage to Hongkong authorities should be
considered as transfer to BA. Trial Court favored
Mahtani and ordered BA to pay for the valuables and
for damages. Third party complaint against PAL was
dismissed. BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
however, affirmed the trial courts findings. Hence, this
appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE: WON the amount of compensatory damages was
without basis.
RULING: It is apparent that the contract of carriage was
between Mahtani and BA. And courts have assessed the
airlines culpability in the form of damages for breach of
contract involving misplaced luggage based on a
number of decided cases. Admittedly, in a contract of
air carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher
value is needed to recover a greater amount. American
jurisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable
for the loss of baggage in an amount in excess of the
limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the
proper authorities, such tariff being binding on the
passenger regardless of the passengers lack of
knowledge thereof or assent thereto. This doctrine is
recognized in this jurisdiction.
SC have held that benefits of limited liability are subject
to waiver such as when the air carrier failed to raise
timely objections during the trial when questions and
answers regarding the actual claims and damages
sustained by the passenger were asked. BA had waived
the defense of limited liability when it allowed Mahtani
to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to

the misplacement of his luggage, without any objection

when it has the right to do so. Objection must be made
at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is
opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of
objections. BA has precisely failed in this regard.
SC, however, did not agree with the dismissal of the
third-complaint. Undeniably, for the loss of his luggage,
Mahtani is entitled to damages from BA, in view of their
contract of carriage.
Yet, BA adamantly disclaimed its liability and instead
imputed it to PAL which the latter naturally denies. In
other words, BA and PAL are blaming each other for the
incident.
It is worth observing that the contract of air
transportation was exclusively between Mahtani and BA
Since the instant petition was based on breach of
contract of carriage, Mahtani can only sue BA alone,
and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the
contract. However, this is not to say that PAL is relieved
from any liability due to any of its negligent acts. In
China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals The decision of
the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED, reinstating the thirdparty complaint filed by British Airways dated
November 9, 1990 against Philippine Airlines. , while
not exactly in point, the case, however, illustrates the
principle which governs this particular situation. In that
case, we recognized that a carrier (PAL), acting as an
agent of another carrier, is also liable for its own
negligent acts or omission in the performance of its
duties. It is but logical, fair and equitable to allow BA to
sue PAL for indemnification, if it is proven that the
latters negligence was the proximate cause of
Mahtanis unfortunate experience, instead of totally
absolving PAL from any liability.

Augusto Santos III vs Northwest Orient Airlines

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. NOA argued
that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over
the matter pursuant to Article 28(1) of
the Warsaw Convention, which provides that
complaints against international carriers can only
be instituted in:
1. the court of the domicile of the carrier (NOAs
domicile is in the USA);
2. the court of its principal place of business
(which is San Francisco, USA);

3. the court where it has a place of business

through which the contract had been made (ticket
was purchased in San Francisco so thats where
the contract was made);
4. the court of the place of destination (Santos
bought a round trip ticket which final destination
is San Francisco).
The lower court ruled in favor of NOA. Santos III
averred that Philippine courts have jurisdiction
over the case and he questioned the
constitutionality of Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw
Convention.
ISSUE: Whether or not 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.

China Airlines vs. Chiok Case Digest

China Airlines vs. Chiok
G.R. No. 152122. July 30, 2003
Facts: Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines a
passenger ticket for air transportation covering
Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-Manila. The said ticket was
exclusively endorsable to PAL.
Before Chiok his trip, the trips covered by the ticket
were pre-scheduled and confirmed by the former.
When petitioner arrived in Taipei, he went to CAL to
confirm his Hong Kong- Manila trip on board PAL.
The CAL office attached a yellow sticker indicating the
status was OK.
When Chiok reached Hong Kong, he then went to
PAL office to confirm his flight back to Manila. The
PAL also confirmed the status of his ticket and
attached a ticket indicating a status OK. Chiok
proceeded to Hong Kong airport for his trip to Manila.
However, upon reaching the PAL counter, he was told
that the flight to Manila was cancelled due to typhoon.
He was informed that all confirmed flight ticket holders
of PAL were automatically booked for the next flight
the
following
day.

The next day, Chiok was not able to board the plane
because his name did not appear on the computer as
passenger for the said flight to Manila.
Issue: Whether or not CAL is liable for damages?
Held: The contract of air transportation between the
petitioner and respondent, with the former endorsing
PAL the segment of Chioks journey. Such contract of
carriage has been treated in this jurisprudence as a
single operation pursuant to Warsaw Convention, to
which the Philippines is a party.
In the instant case, PAL as the carrying agent of CAL,
the latter cannot evade liability to respondent, Chiok,
even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for
Hong Kong- Manila sector.