SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, respondents G.R. No. !

"#$% Mar&' # , (($ )Topi&* T'ird Part+ Co,p-aint. FACTS: Sancho Rayos was an overseas contract worker who had a renewed contract with the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) for the period covering April 1 ! 1"#$! to April 1%! 1"#1& 'art of Aramco(s policy to its employees ret)rning to *hahran! Sa)di Arabia from +anila are allowed to claim reimb)rsement for amo)nts paid for e,cess baggage of )p to %$ kilograms! as long as it is properly s)pported by receipt& Apri- (/! - Rayos took a Sin0apore Air-ines )SIA. flight to report for his new assignment! with a %$-kilogram e,cess baggage for which he paid '.!1./&%$& Aramco reimb)rsed said& amo)nt )pon presentation of the e,cess baggage ticket& De&e,1er (/! - Rayos learned that he was one of several employees being investigated by Aramco for fra)d)lent claim and asked his wife 0eatri1 in +anila to seek a written confirmation from S2A that he indeed paid for an e,cess baggage of %$ kilograms& 2n S2A3s records- mager 4ohnny 5oo notified 0eatri1 who was assisted by a lawyer and threatened them of filing a laws)it! that S2A is )nable to iss)e certification re6)ested by the spo)ses citing that only 7 kilograms were entered as e,cess and not %$ kilograms Apri- (/ 2 Aramco gave Rayos his travel doc)ments witho)t a ret)rn visa& 8is employment contract was not renewed&
A303st (/ - spo)ses Rayos! s)ed S2A for damages stating his non renewal was ca)sed by S2A& S2A claimed that it was not liable to the Rayoses beca)se the tampering was committed by its handling agent! 'hilippine Airlines ('A9) and filed a :hird party complaint against 'A9& 'A9 - co)ntered that its personnel did not collect any charges for e,cess baggage; that it had no participation in the tampering of any e,cess baggage ticket; and that if any tampering was made! it was done by Singapore Airline3s personnel& R:C < rendered 4)dgement in favor of plaintiff Rayoses and held Singapore airlines liable for damages On 7rd party complaint! 'A9 was also liable to the Rayoses A-- parties appea-ed to t'e CA SIA4s appea- 5 dis,issed 6or non pa+,ent o6 do&7et 6ees Ra+os 5 8it'dre8 appea- 8'en SIA satis6ied 93d0,ent o6 RTC and paid P/!:, ;#$.!! On t'e appea- o6 PAL - claimed that the spo)ses Rayos had no valid claim against S2A beca)se it was the inefficiency of Rayos which led to the non-renewal of his contract with Aramco! and not the alleged tampering of his e,cess bagged ticket& 'etitioner S2A arg)ed that the only iss)e in the said appeal is whether or not it was entitled to reimb)rsement from 'A9! (citing the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempongko). S2A set )p the defense that the e,cess baggage ticket was indeed

plaintiff(s claim& :here are! however! special circ)mstances present in this case which pre&-3de third-party defendant 'A9 from benefiting from the said principle& 8owever! while the third-party defendant; wo)ld benefit from a victory by the third-party plaintiff against the plaintiff! this is tr)e only when the third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant have non-contradictory defenses& 8ere! the defendant and third-party defendant had no common defense against the plaintiffs( (Rayos) complaint! and they were even blaming each other for the fiasco& One of the defenses available to S2A was that the plaintiffs had no ca)se of action! that is! it had no valid claim against S2A& S2A investigated the matter and discovered that tampering was! indeed! committed! not by its personnel b)t by 'A9(s& :his became its defense as well as its main ca)se of action in the third-party complaint it filed against 'A9& 'A9 co)ld have )sed the defense that the plaintiffs had no valid claim against it or against S2A& :his co)ld be done indirectly by adopting s)ch a defense in its answer to the third-party complaint if only S2A had raised the same in its answer to the main complaint! or directly by so stating in )ne6)ivocal terms in its answer to S2A(s complaint that S2A and 'A9 were both blameless 'A9 opted to deny any liability which it imp)ted to S2A(s personnel& 2t was only on appeal = in a complete t)rn aro)nd of theory = that 'A9 raised the iss)e of no valid claim by the plaintiff against S2A& :his simply cannot be allowed& A third party complaint involves an action separate and distinct from! altho)gh related to the main complaint& A third party defendant who feels aggrieved by some allegations in the main complaint sho)ld! sho)ld aside from answering the third party complaint! also answer the main complaint& 2n the case at bar! appe--ate &o3rt 8as in error when it opined that S2A(s answer in)red to the benefit of 'A9 for the simple reason that the complaint and the third-party complaint are act)ally two separate cases involving the same set of facts which is allowed by the co)rt to be resolved in a single proceeding only to avoid a m)ltiplicity of actions& S)ch a proceeding obviates the need of trying two cases! receiving the same or similar evidence for both! and enforcing separate >)dgments therefore& ?hile s)ch a complaint speaks of a single s)it! a third-party complaint involves an action separate and distinct from! altho)gh related to the main complaint& A third-party defendant who feels aggrieved by some allegations in the main complaint sho)ld! aside from answering the third-party complaint! also answer the main complaint&

tampered with b)t it was committed by 'A9(s personnel& Appellate co)rt granted 'A9(s appeal and absolved it from any liability to S2A& ISSUE* <HETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO REIM=URSEMENT RULING* >ES. :here is no 6)estion that a third-party defendant is allowed to set )p in his answer the defenses which the third-party plaintiff (original defendant) has or may have to the