You are on page 1of 21

G.R. No.

171092 March 15, 2010

Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum
necessitate juris dicendi. Jurisdiction is a power
introduced or t!e public "ood, on account o t!e
necessit# o dispensin" justice.
Factual Antecedents
On %pril &', &((), petitioner Edna Dia"o *!uillier
+led a Complaint
or dama"es a"ainst respondent
,ritis! %irwa#s beore t!e Re"ional -rial Court
.R-C/ o 0a1ati Cit#. S!e alle"ed t!at on 2ebruar#
&', &((), s!e too1 respondent3s 4i"!t )5' rom
*ondon, 6nited 7in"dom to Rome, Ital#. Once on
board, s!e alle"edl# re8uested Julian 9allida#
.9allida#/, one o t!e respondent3s 4i"!t
attendants, to assist !er in placin" !er !and:
carried lu""a"e in t!e over!ead bin. 9owever,
9allida# alle"edl# reused to !elp and assist !er,
and even sarcasticall# remar1ed t!at ;I I were to
!elp all <(( passen"ers in t!is 4i"!t, I would !ave
a bro1en bac1=;
Petitioner urt!er alle"ed t!at w!en t!e plane was
about to land in Rome, Ital#, anot!er 4i"!t
attendant, Nic1olas 7erri"an .7erri"an/, sin"led
!er out rom amon" all t!e passen"ers in t!e
business class section to lecture on plane saet#.
%lle"edl#, 7erri"an made !er appear to t!e ot!er
passen"ers to be i"norant, uneducated, stupid,
and in need o lecturin" on t!e saet# rules and
re"ulations o t!e plane. %>ronted, petitioner
assured 7erri"an t!at s!e 1new t!e plane3s saet#
re"ulations bein" a re8uent traveler. -!ereupon,
7erri"an alle"edl# t!rust !is ace a mere ew
centimeters awa# rom t!at o t!e petitioner and
menacin"l# told !er t!at ;?e don3t li1e #our
6pon arrival in Rome, petitioner complained to
respondent3s "round mana"er and demanded an
apolo"#. 9owever, t!e latter declared t!at t!e
4i"!t stewards were ;onl# doin" t!eir job.;
-!us, petitioner +led t!e complaint or dama"es,
pra#in" t!at respondent be ordered to pa# P)
million as moral dama"es, P& million as nominal
dama"es, P$ million as e@emplar#
dama"es, P<((,(((.(( as attorne#3s
ees,P&((,(((.(( as liti"ation e@penses, and cost
o t!e suit.
On 0a# $A, &((), summons, to"et!er wit! a cop#
o t!e complaint, was served on t!e respondent
t!rou"! Bioleta Ec!evarria, Ceneral 0ana"er o
Euro:P!ilippine %irline Services, Inc.
On 0a# <(, &((), respondent, b# wa# o special
appearance t!rou"! counsel, +led a 0otion to
on "rounds o lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e
case and over t!e person o t!e respondent.
Respondent alle"ed t!at onl# t!e courts o
*ondon, 6nited 7in"dom or Rome, Ital#, !ave
jurisdiction over t!e complaint or dama"es
pursuant to t!e ?arsaw Convention,
%rticle &'.$/
o w!ic! providesD
%n action or dama"es must be brou"!t at t!e
option o t!e plainti>, eit!er beore t!e court o
domicile o t!e carrier or !is principal place o
business, or w!ere !e !as a place o business
t!rou"! w!ic! t!e contract !as been made, or
beore t!e court o t!e place o destination.
-!us, since a/ respondent is domiciled in *ondonE
b/ respondent3s principal place o business is in
*ondonE c/ petitioner bou"!t !er tic1et in Ital#
.t!rou"! Jeepne# -ravel S.%.S, in Rome/E
and d/
Rome, Ital# is petitioner3s place o destination,
t!en it ollows t!at t!e complaint s!ould onl# be
+led in t!e proper courts o *ondon, 6nited
7in"dom or Rome, Ital#.
*i1ewise, it was alle"ed t!at t!e case must be
dismissed or lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e person
o t!e respondent because t!e summons was
erroneousl# served on Euro:P!ilippine %irline
Services, Inc. w!ic! is not its resident a"ent in t!e
On June <, &((), t!e trial court issued an Order
re8uirin" !erein petitioner to +le !er
CommentFOpposition on t!e 0otion to Dismiss
wit!in $( da#s rom notice t!ereo, and or
respondent to +le a Repl# t!ereon.
Instead o
+lin" a CommentFOpposition, petitioner +led on
June &G, &((), an 6r"ent E@:Parte 0otion to %dmit
2ormal %mendment to t!e Complaint and Issuance
o %lias Summons.
Petitioner alle"ed t!at upon
veri+cation wit! t!e Securities and E@c!an"e
Commission, s!e ound out t!at t!e resident
a"ent o respondent in t!e P!ilippines is %lonHo I.
%nc!eta. Subse8uentl#, on September J, &((),
petitioner +led a 0otion to Resolve Pendin"
Incident and Opposition to 0otion to Dismiss.
Rulin" o t!e Re"ional -rial Court
On October $5, &((), t!e R-C o 0a1ati Cit#,
,ranc! $<&, issued an Order
respondent3s 0otion to Dismiss. It ruled t!atD
-!e Court s#mpat!iHes wit! t!e alle"ed ill:
treatment su>ered b# t!e plainti>. 9owever, our
Courts !ave to appl# t!e principles o international
law, and are bound b# treat# stipulations entered
into b# t!e P!ilippines w!ic! orm part o t!e law
o t!e land. One o t!is is t!e ?arsaw Convention.
,ein" a si"nator# t!ereto, t!e P!ilippines ad!eres
to its stipulations and is bound b# its provisions
includin" t!e place w!ere actions involvin"
dama"es to plainti> is to be instituted, as
provided or under %rticle &'.$/ t!ereo. -!e Court
+nds no justi+able reason to deviate rom t!e
indicated limitations as it will onl# run counter to
t!e provisions o t!e ?arsaw Convention. Said
ad!erence is in consonance wit! t!e comit# o
nations and deviation rom it can onl# be e>ected
t!rou"! proper denunciation as enunciated in t!e
Santos case .ibid/. Since t!e P!ilippines is not t!e
place o domicile o t!e deendant nor is it t!e
principal place o business, our courts are t!us
divested o jurisdiction over cases or dama"es.
Neit!er was plainti>3s tic1et issued in t!is countr#
nor was !er destination 0anila but Rome in Ital#. It
bears stressin" !owever, t!at reerral to t!e court
o proper jurisdiction does not constitute
constructive denial o plainti>3s ri"!t to !ave
access to our courts since t!e ?arsaw Convention
itsel provided or jurisdiction over cases arisin"
rom international transportation. Said treat#
stipulations must be complied wit! in "ood ait!
ollowin" t!e time !onored principle o pacta sunt
-!e resolution o t!e propriet# o service o
summons is rendered moot b# t!e Court3s want o
jurisdiction over t!e instant case.
?9ERE2ORE, premises considered, t!e present
0otion to Dismiss is !ereb# CR%N-ED and t!is
case is !ereb# ordered DIS0ISSED.
Petitioner +led a 0otion or Reconsideration but
t!e motion was denied in an Order
dated Januar#
5, &((A.
Petitioner now comes directl# beore us on a
Petition or Review on Certiorari on pure 8uestions
o law, raisin" t!e ollowin" issuesD
O6-SIDE -9E %0,I- O2 -9E ?%RS%?
S6,JEC- 0%--ER O2 -9E C%SE %ND OBER I-S
IN *%? S6,0I--ED I-SE*2 -O -9E J6RISDIC-ION
O2 -9E *O?ER CO6R-, ESPECI%**M SO, ?9EN
Petitioner3s %r"uments
Petitioner ar"ues t!at !er cause o action arose
not rom t!e contract o carria"e, but rom t!e
tortious conduct committed b# airline personnel o
respondent in violation o t!e provisions o t!e
Civil Code on 9uman Relations. Since !er cause o
action was not predicated on t!e contract o
carria"e, petitioner asserts t!at s!e !as t!e option
to pursue t!is case in t!is jurisdiction pursuant to
P!ilippine laws.
Respondent3s %r"uments
In contrast, respondent maintains t!at petitioner3s
claim or dama"es ell wit!in t!e ambit o %rticle
&'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention. %s suc!, t!e
same can onl# be +led beore t!e courts o
*ondon, 6nited 7in"dom or Rome, Ital#.
O!r R!"#$%
-!e petition is wit!out merit.
-!e ?arsaw Convention !as t!e orce and e>ect
o law in t!is countr#.
It is settled t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention !as t!e
orce and e>ect o law in t!is countr#. In Santos III
v. Northwest Orient Airlines,
we !eld t!atD
-!e Republic o t!e P!ilippines is a part# to t!e
Convention or t!e 6ni+cation o Certain Rules
Relatin" to International -ransportation b# %ir,
ot!erwise 1nown as t!e ?arsaw Convention. It
too1 e>ect on 2ebruar# $<, $J<<. -!e Convention
was concurred in b# t!e Senate, t!rou"! its
Resolution No. $J, on 0a# $A, $J)(. -!e P!ilippine
instrument o accession was si"ned b# President
Elpidio Iuirino on October $<, $J)(, and was
deposited wit! t!e Polis! "overnment on
November J, $J)(. -!e Convention became
applicable to t!e P!ilippines on 2ebruar# J, $J)$.
On September &<, $J)), President Ramon
0a"sa#sa# issued Proclamation No. &($, declarin"
our ormal ad!erence t!ereto, ;to t!e end t!at t!e
same and ever# article and clause t!ereo ma# be
observed and ul+lled in "ood ait! b# t!e
Republic o t!e P!ilippines and t!e citiHens
-!e Convention is t!us a treat# commitment
voluntaril# assumed b# t!e P!ilippine "overnment
and, as suc!, !as t!e orce and e>ect o law in
t!is countr#.
-!e ?arsaw Convention applies because t!e air
travel, w!ere t!e alle"ed tortious conduct
occurred, was between t!e 6nited 7in"dom and
Ital#, w!ic! are bot! si"natories to t!e ?arsaw
%rticle $ o t!e ?arsaw Convention providesD
$. -!is Convention applies to
all international carria"e o persons,
lu""a"e or "oods perormed b# aircrat or
reward. It applies e8uall# to "ratuitous
carria"e b# aircrat perormed b# an air
transport underta1in".
&. 2or t!e purposes o t!is Convention t!e
e@pression ;international carria"e; means
an# carria"e in w!ic!, accordin" to t!e
contract made b# t!e parties, t!e place o
departure and t!e place o destination,
w!et!er or not t!ere be a brea1 in t!e
carria"e or a trans!ipment, are situated
eit!er wit!in t!e territories o two 9i"!
Contractin" Parties, or wit!in t!e territor# o
a sin"le 9i"! Contractin" Part#, i t!ere is
an a"reed stoppin" place wit!in a territor#
subject to t!e soverei"nt#, suHeraint#,
mandate or aut!orit# o anot!er Power,
even t!ou"! t!at Power is not a part# to
t!is Convention. % carria"e wit!out suc! an
a"reed stoppin" place between territories
subject to t!e soverei"nt#, suHeraint#,
mandate or aut!orit# o t!e same 9i"!
Contractin" Part# is not deemed to be
international or t!e purposes o t!is
Convention. .Emp!asis supplied/
-!us, w!en t!e place o departure and t!e place
o destination in a contract o carria"e are
situated wit!in t!e territories o two 9i"!
Contractin" Parties, said carria"e is deemed an
;international carria"e;. -!e 9i"! Contractin"
Parties reerred to !erein were t!e si"natories to
t!e ?arsaw Convention and t!ose w!ic!
subse8uentl# ad!ered to it.
In t!e case at benc!, petitioner3s place o
departure was *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom w!ile !er
place o destination was Rome, Ital#.
,ot! t!e
6nited 7in"dom
and Ital#
si"ned and rati+ed
t!e ?arsaw Convention. %s suc!, t!e transport o
t!e petitioner is deemed to be an ;international
carria"e; wit!in t!e contemplation o t!e ?arsaw
Since t!e ?arsaw Convention applies in t!e
instant case, t!en t!e jurisdiction over t!e subject
matter o t!e action is "overned b# t!e provisions
o t!e ?arsaw Convention.
6nder %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention, t!e
plainti> ma# brin" t!e action or dama"es beore
$. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier is domiciledE
&. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier !as its
principal place o businessE
<. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier !as an
establis!ment b# w!ic! t!e contract !as
been madeE or
5. t!e court o t!e place o destination.
In t!is case, it is not disputed t!at respondent is a
,ritis! corporation domiciled in *ondon, 6nited
7in"dom wit! *ondon as its principal place o
business. 9ence, under t!e +rst and second
jurisdictional rules, t!e petitioner ma# brin" !er
case beore t!e courts o *ondon in t!e 6nited
7in"dom. In t!e passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e
c!ec1 presented b# bot! t!e petitioner and
respondent, it appears t!at t!e tic1et was issued
in Rome, Ital#. Conse8uentl#, under t!e t!ird
jurisdictional rule, t!e petitioner !as t!e option to
brin" !er case beore t!e courts o Rome in Ital#.
2inall#, bot! t!e petitioner and respondent aver
t!at t!e place o destination is Rome, Ital#, w!ic!
is properl# desi"nated "iven t!e routin" presented
in t!e said passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e c!ec1.
%ccordin"l#, petitioner ma# brin" !er action
beore t!e courts o Rome, Ital#. ?e t!us +nd t!at
t!e R-C o 0a1ati correctl# ruled t!at it does not
!ave jurisdiction over t!e case +led b# t!e
Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines
applies in
t!is case.
Petitioner contends t!at Santos III v. Nort!west
Orient %irlines
cited b# t!e trial court is
inapplicable to t!e present controvers# since t!e
acts t!ereo are not similar wit! t!e instant case.
?e are not persuaded.
In Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines,
Santos III, a resident o t!e P!ilippines, purc!ased
a tic1et rom Nort!west Orient %irlines in San
2rancisco, or transport between San 2rancisco
and 0anila via -o1#o and bac1 to San 2rancisco.
9e was wait:listed in t!e -o1#o to 0anila se"ment
o !is tic1et, despite !is prior reservation.
Contendin" t!at Nort!west Orient %irlines acted in
bad ait! and discriminated a"ainst !im w!en it
canceled !is con+rmed reservation and "ave !is
seat to someone w!o !ad no better ri"!t to it,
%u"usto Santos III sued t!e carrier or dama"es
beore t!e R-C. Nort!west Orient %irlines moved
to dismiss t!e complaint on "round o lac1 o
jurisdiction citin" %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw
Convention. -!e trial court "ranted t!e motion
w!ic! rulin" was aOrmed b# t!e Court o %ppeals.
?!en t!e case was brou"!t beore us, we denied
t!e petition !oldin" t!at under %rticle &'.$/ o t!e
?arsaw Convention, %u"usto Santos III must
prosecute !is claim in t!e 6nited States, t!at
place bein" t!e .$/ domicile o t!e Nort!west
Orient %irlinesE .&/ principal oOce o t!e carrierE
.</ place w!ere contract !ad been made .San
2rancisco/E and .5/ place o destination .San
?e urt!er !eld t!at %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw
Convention is jurisdictional in c!aracter. -!usD
% number o reasons tends to support t!e
c!aracteriHation o %rticle &'.$/ as a jurisdiction
and not a venue provision. 2irst, t!e wordin" o
%rticle <&, w!ic! indicates t!e places w!ere t!e
action or dama"es ;must; be brou"!t,
underscores t!e mandator# nature o %rticle
&'.$/. Second, t!is c!aracteriHation is consistent
wit! one o t!e objectives o t!e Convention,
w!ic! is to ;re"ulate in a uniorm manner t!e
conditions o international transportation b# air.;
-!ird, t!e Convention does not contain an#
provision prescribin" rules o jurisdiction ot!er
t!an %rticle &'.$/, w!ic! means t!at t!e p!rase
;rules as to jurisdiction; used in %rticle <& must
reer onl# to %rticle &'.$/. In act, t!e last
sentence o %rticle <& speci+call# deals wit! t!e
e@clusive enumeration in %rticle &'.$/ as
;jurisdictions,; w!ic!, as suc!, cannot be let to
t!e will o t!e parties re"ardless o t!e time w!en
t!e dama"e occurred.
@ @ @ @
In ot!er words, w!ere t!e matter is "overned b#
t!e ?arsaw Convention, jurisdiction ta1es on a
dual concept. Jurisdiction in t!e international
sense must be establis!ed in accordance wit!
%rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention, ollowin"
w!ic! t!e jurisdiction o a particular court must be
establis!ed pursuant to t!e applicable domestic
law. Onl# ater t!e 8uestion o w!ic! court !as
jurisdiction is determined will t!e issue o venue
be ta1en up. -!is second 8uestion s!all be
"overned b# t!e law o t!e court to w!ic! t!e
case is submitted.
Contrar# to t!e contention o petitioner, Santos III
v. Nort!west Orient %irlines
is analo"ous to t!e
instant case because .$/ t!e domicile o
respondent is *ondon, 6nited 7in"domE
.&/ t!e
principal oOce o respondent airline is li1ewise in
*ondon, 6nited 7in"domE
.</ t!e tic1et was
purc!ased in Rome, Ital#E
and .5/ t!e place o
destination is Rome, Ital#.
In addition, petitioner
based !er complaint on %rticle &$GA
o t!e Civil
Code on quasi-delict and %rticles $J
and &$
t!e Civil Code on 9uman Relations. In Santos III v.
Nort!west Orient %irlines,
%u"usto Santos III
similarl# posited t!at %rticle &' .$/ o t!e ?arsaw
Convention did not appl# i t!e action is based on
tort. 9ence, contrar# to t!e contention o t!e
petitioner, t!e actual settin" o Santos III v.
Nort!west Orient %irlines
and t!e instant case
are parallel on t!e material points.
-ortious conduct as "round or t!e petitioner3s
complaint is wit!in t!e purview o t!e ?arsaw
Petitioner contends t!at in Santos III v. Nort!west
Orient %irlines,
t!e cause o action was based on
a breac! o contract w!ile !er cause o action
arose rom t!e tortious conduct o t!e airline
personnel and violation o t!e Civil Code
provisions on 9uman Relations.
In addition, s!e
claims t!at our pronouncement in Santos III v.
Nort!west Orient %irlines
t!at ;t!e alle"ation o
willul misconduct resultin" in a tort is insuOcient
to e@clude t!e case rom t!e compre!ension o
t!e ?arsaw Convention,; is more o an obiter
dictum rat!er t!an t!e ratio decidendi.
maintains t!at t!e act t!at said acts occurred
aboard a plane is merel# incidental, i not
?e disa"ree wit! t!e position ta1en b# t!e
petitioner. ,lac1 de+nes obiter dictum as ;an
opinion entirel# unnecessar# or t!e decision o
t!e case; and t!us ;are not bindin" as
In Santos III v. Nort!west Orient
%u"usto Santos III cate"oricall# put in
issue t!e applicabilit# o %rticle &'.$/ o t!e
?arsaw Convention i t!e action is based on tort.
In t!e said case, we !eld t!at t!e alle"ation o
willul misconduct resultin" in a tort is insuOcient
to e@clude t!e case rom t!e realm o t!e ?arsaw
Convention. In act, our rulin" t!at a cause o
action based on tort did not brin" t!e case outside
t!e sp!ere o t!e ?arsaw Convention was our
ratio decidendi in disposin" o t!e speci+c issue
presented b# %u"usto Santos III. Clearl#, t!e
contention o t!e !erein petitioner t!at t!e said
rulin" is an obiter dictum is wit!out basis.
Relevant to t!is particular issue is t!e case o
Care# v. 6nited %irlines,
w!ere t!e passen"er
+led an action a"ainst t!e airline arisin" rom an
incident involvin" t!e ormer and t!e airline3s
4i"!t attendant durin" an international 4i"!t
resultin" to a !eated e@c!an"e w!ic! included
insults and proanit#. -!e 6nited States Court o
%ppeals .Jt! Circuit/ !eld t!at t!e ;passen"erPs
action a"ainst t!e airline carrier arisin" rom
alle"ed conrontational incident between
passen"er and 4i"!t attendant on international
4i"!t was "overned e@clusivel# b# t!e ?arsaw
Convention, even t!ou"! t!e incident alle"edl#
involved intentional misconduct b# t!e 4i"!t
In ,loom v. %las1a %irlines,
t!e passen"er
brou"!t nine causes o action a"ainst t!e airline in
t!e state court, arisin" rom a conrontation wit!
t!e 4i"!t attendant durin" an international 4i"!t
to 0e@ico. -!e 6nited States Court o %ppeals .Jt!
Circuit/ !eld t!at t!e ;?arsaw Convention "overns
actions arisin" rom international air travel and
provides t!e e@clusive remed# or conduct w!ic!
alls wit!in its provisions.; It urt!er !eld t!at t!e
said Convention ;created no e@ception or an
injur# su>ered as a result o intentional
w!ic! in t!at case involved a claim or
intentional in4iction o emotional distress.
It is t!us settled t!at alle"ations o tortious
conduct committed a"ainst an airline passen"er
durin" t!e course o t!e international carria"e do
not brin" t!e case outside t!e ambit o t!e
?arsaw Convention.
Respondent, in see1in" remedies rom t!e trial
court t!rou"! special appearance o counsel, is
not deemed to !ave voluntaril# submitted itsel to
t!e jurisdiction o t!e trial court.
Petitioner ar"ues t!at respondent !as e>ectivel#
submitted itsel to t!e jurisdiction o t!e trial court
w!en t!e latter stated in its CommentFOpposition
to t!e 0otion or Reconsideration t!at ;Deendant
Qis at a lossR @ @ @ !ow t!e plainti> arrived at !er
erroneous impression t!at it isFwas Euro:
P!ilippines %irlines Services, Inc. t!at !as been
ma1in" a special appearance since @ @ @ ,ritis!
%irwa#s @ @ @ !as been clearl# speci#in" in all t!e
pleadin"s t!at it !as +led wit! t!is 9onorable
Court t!at it is t!e one ma1in" a special
In reutin" t!e contention o petitioner,
respondent cited *a Naval Dru" Corporation v.
Court o %ppeals
w!ere we !eld t!at even i a
part# ;c!allen"es t!e jurisdiction o t!e court over
!is person, as b# reason o absence or deective
service o summons, and !e also invo1es ot!er
"rounds or t!e dismissal o t!e action under Rule
$A, !e is not deemed to be in estoppel or to !ave
waived !is objection to t!e jurisdiction over !is
-!is issue !as been s8uarel# passed upon in t!e
recent case o Carcia v. Sandi"anba#an,
we reiterated our rulin" in *a Naval Dru"
Corporation v. Court o %ppeals
and elucidated
Special %ppearance to Iuestion a Court3s
Jurisdiction Is Not
Boluntar# %ppearance
-!e second sentence o Sec. &(, Rule $5 o t!e
Revised Rules o Civil Procedure clearl# providesD
Sec. &(. Boluntar# appearance. N -!e deendant3s
voluntar# appearance in t!e action s!all be
e8uivalent to service o summons. -!e inclusion in
a motion to dismiss o ot!er "rounds aside rom
lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e person o t!e
deendant s!all not be deemed a voluntar#
-!us, a deendant w!o +les a motion to dismiss,
assailin" t!e jurisdiction o t!e court over !is
person, to"et!er wit! ot!er "rounds raised
t!erein, is not deemed to !ave appeared
voluntaril# beore t!e court. ?!at t!e rule on
voluntar# appearance N t!e +rst sentence o t!e
above:8uoted rule N means is t!at t!e voluntar#
appearance o t!e deendant in court is wit!out
8uali+cation, in w!ic! case !e is deemed to !ave
waived !is deense o lac1 o jurisdiction over !is
person due to improper service o summons.
-!e pleadin"s +led b# petitioner in t!e subject
oreiture cases, !owever, do not s!ow t!at s!e
voluntaril# appeared wit!out 8uali+cation.
Petitioner +led t!e ollowin" pleadin"s in
2oreiture ID .a/ motion to dismissE .b/ motion or
reconsideration andFor to admit answerE .c/
second motion or reconsiderationE .d/ motion to
consolidate oreiture case wit! plunder caseE and
.e/ motion to dismiss andFor to 8uas! 2oreiture I.
%nd in 2oreiture IID .a/ motion to dismiss andFor to
8uas! 2oreiture IIE and .b/ motion or partial
-!e ore"oin" pleadin"s, particularl# t!e motions
to dismiss, were +led b# petitioner solel# or
special appearance wit! t!e purpose o
c!allen"in" t!e jurisdiction o t!e S, over !er
person and t!at o !er t!ree c!ildren. Petitioner
asserts t!erein t!at S, did not ac8uire jurisdiction
over !er person and o !er t!ree c!ildren or lac1
o valid service o summons t!rou"! improvident
substituted service o summons in bot! 2oreiture
I and 2oreiture II. -!is stance t!e petitioner never
abandoned w!en s!e +led !er motions or
reconsideration, even wit! a pra#er to admit t!eir
attac!ed %nswer E@ %bundante %d Cautelam
dated Januar# &&, &(() settin" ort! aOrmative
deenses wit! a claim or dama"es. %nd t!e ot!er
subse8uent pleadin"s, li1ewise, did not abandon
!er stance and deense o lac1 o jurisdiction due
to improper substituted services o summons in
t!e oreiture cases. Evidentl#, rom t!e ore"oin"
Sec. &(, Rule $5 o t!e $JJG Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure, petitioner and !er sons did not
voluntaril# appear beore t!e S, constitutive o or
e8uivalent to service o summons.
0oreover, t!e leadin" *a Naval Dru" Corp. v.
Court o %ppeals applies to t!e instant case. Said
case elucidates t!e current view in our jurisdiction
t!at a special appearance beore t!e courtNN
c!allen"in" its jurisdiction over t!e person
t!rou"! a motion to dismiss even i t!e movant
invo1es ot!er "roundsNNis not tantamount to
estoppel or a waiver b# t!e movant o !is
objection to jurisdiction over !is personE and suc!
is not constitutive o a voluntar# submission to t!e
jurisdiction o t!e court.1avvphi1
-!us, it cannot be said t!at petitioner and !er
t!ree c!ildren voluntaril# appeared beore t!e S,
to cure t!e deective substituted services o
summons. -!e# are, t!ereore, not estopped rom
8uestionin" t!e jurisdiction o t!e S, over t!eir
persons nor are t!e# deemed to !ave waived suc!
deense o lac1 o jurisdiction. Conse8uentl#, t!ere
bein" no valid substituted services o summons
made, t!e S, did not ac8uire jurisdiction over t!e
persons o petitioner and !er c!ildren. %nd
perorce, t!e proceedin"s in t!e subject oreiture
cases, insoar as petitioner and !er t!ree c!ildren
are concerned, are null and void or lac1 o
jurisdiction. .Emp!asis supplied/
In t!is case, t!e special appearance o t!e counsel
o respondent in +lin" t!e 0otion to Dismiss and
ot!er pleadin"s beore t!e trial court cannot be
deemed to be voluntar# submission to t!e
jurisdiction o t!e said trial court. ?e !ence
disa"ree wit! t!e contention o t!e petitioner and
rule t!at t!ere was no voluntar# appearance
beore t!e trial court t!at could constitute
estoppel or a waiver o respondent3s objection to
jurisdiction over its person.
?9ERE2ORE, t!e petition is DENIED. -!e October
$5, &(() Order o t!e Re"ional -rial Court o
0a1ati Cit#, ,ranc! $<&, dismissin" t!e complaint
or lac1 o jurisdiction, is %22IR0ED.
G.R. No. 1&95&7 '!"( &, 200)
*HILI**INE AIRLINES, IN., petitioner,
HON. ADRIANO SA+ILLO, *r,-#.#$% '!.%, o/
RT Bra$ch 00 , I"o#"o #1(, a$. SIM*LIIO
-!is is a Petition or Review on Certiorari under
Rule 5) o t!e Rules o Court, assailin" t!e
dated $G %u"ust &(($, rendered b# t!e
Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R. SP No. 5'AA5,
aOrmin" in toto t!e Order
dated J June $JJ', o
,ranc! <( o t!e Re"ional -rial Court .R-C/ o Iloilo
Cit#, dismissin" t!e 0otion to Dismiss +led b#
petitioner P!ilippine %irlines Inc. .P%*/ in t!e case
entitled, Simplicio Grio v. hilippine Airlines! Inc.
and Sin"apore Airlines, doc1eted as Civil Case No.
P%* is a corporation dul# or"aniHed under
P!ilippine law, en"a"ed in t!e business o
providin" air carria"e or passen"ers, ba""a"e
and car"o.
Public respondent 9on. %driano Savillo is t!e
presidin" jud"e o ,ranc! <( o t!e Iloilo R-C,
w!ere Civil Case No. &<GG< was +ledE w!ile
private respondent Simplicio CriSo is t!e plainti>
in t!e aorementioned case.
-!e acts are undisputed.
Private respondent was invited to participate in
t!e $JJ< %SE%N Seniors %nnual Col -ournament
!eld in Ja1arta, Indonesia. 9e and several
companions decided to purc!ase t!eir respective
passen"er tic1ets rom P%* wit! t!e ollowin"
points o passa"eD 0%NI*%:SINC%PORE:J%7%R-%:
SINC%PORE:0%NI*%. Private respondent and !is
companions were made to understand b# P%* t!at
its plane would ta1e t!em rom 0anila to
Sin"apore, w!ile Sin"apore %irlines would ta1e
t!em rom Sin"apore to Ja1arta.
On < October $JJ<, private respondent and !is
companions too1 t!e P%* 4i"!t to Sin"apore and
arrived at about AD(( o3cloc1 in t!e evenin". 6pon
t!eir arrival, t!e# proceeded to t!e Sin"apore
%irlines oOce to c!ec1:in or t!eir 4i"!t to Ja1arta
sc!eduled at 'D(( o3cloc1 in t!e same evenin".
Sin"apore %irlines rejected t!e tic1ets o private
respondent and !is "roup because t!e# were not
endorsed b# P%*. It was e@plained to private
respondent and !is "roup t!at i Sin"apore
%irlines !onored t!e tic1ets wit!out P%*3s
endorsement, P%* would not pa# Sin"apore
%irlines or t!eir passa"e. Private respondent tried
to contact P%*3s oOce at t!e airport, onl# to +nd
out t!at it was closed.
Stranded at t!e airport in Sin"apore and let wit!
no recourse, private respondent was in panic and
at a loss w!ere to "oE and was subjected to
!umiliation, embarrassment, mental an"uis!,
serious an@iet#, ear and distress. Eventuall#,
private respondent and !is companions were
orced to purc!ase tic1ets rom Caruda %irlines
and board its last 4i"!t bound or Ja1arta. ?!en
t!e# arrived in Ja1arta at about $&D(( o3cloc1
midni"!t, t!e part# w!o was supposed to etc!
t!em rom t!e airport !ad alread# let and t!e#
!ad to arran"e or t!eir transportation to t!e !otel
at a ver# late !our. %ter t!e series o nerve:
wrac1in" e@periences, private respondent became
ill and was unable to participate in t!e
6pon !is return to t!e P!ilippines, private
respondent brou"!t t!e matter to t!e attention o
P%*. 9e sent a demand letter to P%* on &(
December $JJ< and anot!er to Sin"apore %irlines
on &$ 0arc! $JJ5. 9owever, bot! airlines
disowned liabilit# and blamed eac! ot!er or t!e
+asco. On $) %u"ust $JJG, private respondent
+led a Complaint or Dama"es beore t!e R-C
doc1eted as Civil Case No. &<GG<, see1in"
compensation or moral dama"es in t!e amount
o P$,(((,(((.(( and attorne#3s ees.
Instead o +lin" an answer to private respondent3s
Complaint, P%* +led a 0otion to Dismiss
dated $'
September $JJ' on t!e "round t!at t!e said
complaint was barred on t!e "round o
prescription under Section $./ o Rule $A o t!e
Rules o Court.
P%* ar"ued t!at t!e ?arsaw
particularl# %rticle &J
"overned t!is case, as it provides t!at
an# claim or dama"es in connection wit! t!e
international transportation o persons is subject
to t!e prescription period o two #ears. Since t!e
Complaint was +led on $) %u"ust $JJG, more t!an
t!ree #ears ater P%* received t!e demand letter
on &) Januar# $JJ5, it was alread# barred b#
On J June $JJ', t!e R-C issued an Order
t!e 0otion to Dismiss. It maintained t!at t!e
provisions o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent
laws o t!e P!ilippines, not t!e ?arsaw
Convention, were applicable to t!e present case.
-!e Court o %ppeals, in its assailed Decision
dated $G %u"ust &(($, li1ewise dismissed t!e
Petition or Certiorari +led b# P%* and aOrmed t!e
J June $JJ' Order o t!e R-C. It pronounced t!at
t!e application o t!e ?arsaw Convention must
not be construed to preclude t!e application o
t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws. ,#
appl#in" %rticle $$55 o t!e Civil Code,
allowed or a ten:#ear prescription period, t!e
appellate court declared t!at t!e Complaint +led
b# private respondent s!ould not be dismissed.
9ence, t!e present Petition, in w!ic! petitioner
raises t!e ollowin" issuesD
2RO0 % ,RE%C9 O2 CON-R%C- 2OR
9O*DINC -9%- -9E CO0P*%IN- 2I*ED ,M
-!e petition is wit!out merit.
In determinin" w!et!er P%*3s 0otion to Dismiss
s!ould !ave been "ranted b# t!e trial court, it
must be ascertained i all t!e claims made b# t!e
private respondent in !is Complaint are covered
b# t!e ?arsaw Convention, w!ic! e>ectivel# bars
all claims made outside t!e two:#ear prescription
period provided under %rticle &J t!ereo. I t!e
?arsaw Convention covers all o private
respondent3s claims, t!en Civil Case No. &<GG<
!as alread# prescribed and s!ould t!ereore be
dismissed. On t!e ot!er !and, i some, i not all, o
respondent3s claims are outside t!e covera"e o
t!e ?arsaw Convention, t!e R-C ma# still proceed
to !ear t!e case.
-!e ?arsaw Convention applies to ;all
international transportation o persons, ba""a"e
or "oods perormed b# an# aircrat or !ire.; It
see1s to accommodate or balance t!e interests o
passen"ers see1in" recover# or personal injuries
and t!e interests o air carriers see1in" to limit
potential liabilit#. It emplo#s a sc!eme o strict
liabilit# avorin" passen"ers and imposin"
dama"e caps to bene+t air carriers.
-!e cardinal
purpose o t!e ?arsaw Convention is to provide
uniormit# o rules "overnin" claims arisin" rom
international air travelE t!us, it precludes a
passen"er rom maintainin" an action or personal
injur# dama"es under local law w!en !is or !er
claim does not satis# t!e conditions o liabilit#
under t!e Convention.
%rticle $J o t!e ?arsaw Convention provides or
liabilit# on t!e part o a carrier or ;dama"es
occasioned b# dela# in t!e transportation b# air o
passen"ers, ba""a"e or "oods.; %rticle &5
e@cludes ot!er remedies b# urt!er providin" t!at
;.$/ in t!e cases covered b# articles $' and $J,
an# action or dama"es, !owever ounded, can
onl# be brou"!t subject to t!e conditions and
limits set out in t!is convention.; -!ereore, a
claim covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention can no
lon"er be recovered under local law, i t!e statute
o limitations o two #ears !as alread# lapsed.
Nevert!eless, t!is Court notes t!at jurisprudence
in t!e P!ilippines and t!e 6nited States also
reco"niHes t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention does not
;e@clusivel# re"ulate; t!e relations!ip between
passen"er and carrier on an international 4i"!t.
-!is Court +nds t!at t!e present case is
substantiall# similar to cases in w!ic! t!e
dama"es sou"!t were considered to be outside
t!e covera"e o t!e ?arsaw Convention.
In #nited Airlines v. #$,
t!is Court distin"uis!ed
between t!e .$/ dama"e to t!e passen"er3s
ba""a"e and .&/ !umiliation !e su>ered at t!e
!ands o t!e airline3s emplo#ees. -!e +rst cause
o action was covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention
w!ic! prescribes in two #ears, w!ile t!e second
was covered b# t!e provisions o t!e Civil Code on
torts, w!ic! prescribes in our #ears.
Similar distinctions were made in %merican
jurisprudence. In %ahane$ v. Air &rance,
passen"er was denied access to an airline 4i"!t
between New Mor1 and 0e@ico, despite t!e act
t!at s!e !eld a con+rmed reservation. -!e court
t!erein ruled t!at i t!e plainti> were to claim
dama"es based solel# on t!e dela# s!e
e@perienced N or instance, t!e costs o rentin" a
van, w!ic! s!e !ad to arran"e on !er own as a
conse8uence o t!e dela# N t!e complaint would
be barred b# t!e two:#ear statute o limitations.
9owever, w!ere t!e plainti> alle"ed t!at t!e
airlines subjected !er to unjust discrimination or
undue or unreasonable preerence or
disadvanta"e, an act punis!able under t!e 6nited
States laws, t!en t!e plainti> ma# claim purel#
nominal compensator# dama"es or !umiliation
and !urt eelin"s, w!ic! are not provided or b#
t!e ?arsaw Convention. In anot!er case, 'ol"el
v. %e(icana Airlines,
t!e court pronounced t!at
actions or dama"es or t!e ;bumpin" o>; itsel,
rat!er t!an t!e incidental dama"es due to t!e
dela#, all outside t!e ?arsaw Convention and do
not prescribe in two #ears.
In t!e Petition at bar, private respondent3s
Complaint alle"ed t!at bot! P%* and Sin"apore
%irlines were "uilt# o "ross ne"li"ence, w!ic!
resulted in !is bein" subjected to ;!umiliation,
embarrassment, mental an"uis!, serious an@iet#,
ear and distress.;
-!e emotional !arm su>ered
b# t!e private respondent as a result o !avin"
been unreasonabl# and unjustl# prevented rom
boardin" t!e plane s!ould be distin"uis!ed rom
t!e actual dama"es w!ic! resulted rom t!e same
incident. 6nder t!e Civil Code provisions on
suc! emotional !arm "ives rise to
compensation w!ere "ross ne"li"ence or malice is
-!e instant case is comparable to t!e case
o )athi"ra v. *ritish Airwa$s.
In )athi"ra, it was !eld t!at t!e airlines3 ne"li"ent
act o recon+rmin" t!e passen"er3s reservation
da#s beore departure and ailin" to inorm t!e
latter t!at t!e 4i"!t !ad alread# been
discontinued is not amon" t!e acts covered b# t!e
?arsaw Convention, since t!e alle"ed ne"li"ence
did not occur durin" t!e perormance o t!e
contract o carria"e but, rat!er, da#s beore t!e
sc!eduled 4i"!t.
In t!e case at !and, Sin"apore %irlines barred
private respondent rom boardin" t!e Sin"apore
%irlines 4i"!t because P%* alle"edl# ailed to
endorse t!e tic1ets o private respondent and !is
companions, despite P%*3s assurances to
respondent t!at Sin"apore %irlines !ad alread#
con+rmed t!eir passa"e. ?!ile t!is act still needs
to be !eard and establis!ed b# ade8uate proo
beore t!e R-C, an action based on t!ese
alle"ations will not all under t!e ?arsaw
Convention, since t!e purported ne"li"ence on
t!e part o P%* did not occur durin" t!e
perormance o t!e contract o carria"e but da#s
beore t!e sc!eduled 4i"!t. -!us, t!e present
action cannot be dismissed based on t!e statute
o limitations provided under %rticle &J o t!e
?arsaw Convention.
9ad t!e present case merel# consisted o claims
incidental to t!e airlines3 dela# in transportin"
t!eir passen"ers, t!e private respondent3s
Complaint would !ave been time:barred under
%rticle &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention. 9owever,
t!e present case involves a special species o
injur# resultin" rom t!e ailure o P%* andFor
Sin"apore %irlines to transport private respondent
rom Sin"apore to Ja1arta N t!e proound distress,
ear, an@iet# and !umiliation t!at private
respondent e@perienced w!en, despite P%*3s
earlier assurance t!at Sin"apore %irlines
con+rmed !is passa"e, !e was prevented rom
boardin" t!e plane and !e aced t!e dauntin"
possibilit# t!at !e would be stranded in Sin"apore
%irport because t!e P%* oOce was alread# closed.
-!ese claims are covered b# t!e Civil Code
provisions on tort, and not wit!in t!e purview o
t!e ?arsaw Convention. 9ence, t!e applicable
prescription period is t!at provided under %rticle
$$5A o t!e Civil CodeD
%rt. $$5A. -!e ollowin" actions must be
instituted wit!in our #earsD
.$/ 6pon an injur# to t!e ri"!ts o t!e
.&/ 6pon a 8uasi:delict.
Private respondent3s Complaint was +led wit! t!e
R-C on $) %u"ust $JJG, w!ic! was less t!an our
#ears since P%* received !is e@trajudicial demand
on &) Januar# $JJ5. -!us, private respondent3s
claims !ave not #et prescribed and P%*3s 0otion
to Dismiss must be denied.
0oreover, s!ould t!ere be an# doubt as to t!e
prescription o private respondent3s Complaint,
t!e more prudent action is or t!e R-C to continue
!earin" t!e same and den# t!e 0otion to Dismiss.
?!ere it cannot be determined wit! certaint#
w!et!er t!e action !as alread# prescribed or not,
t!e deense o prescription cannot be sustained
on a mere motion to dismiss based on w!at
appears to be on t!e ace o t!e complaint.
w!ere t!e "round on w!ic! prescription is based
does not appear to be indubitable, t!e court ma#
do well to deer action on t!e motion to dismiss
until ater trial on t!e merits.
IN +IEW O6 THE 6OREGOING, t!e instant
Petition is DENIED. -!e assailed Decision o t!e
Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R. SP No. 5'AA5,
promul"ated on $G %u"ust &(($ is A66IRMED.
Costs a"ainst t!e petitioner.
7G.R. No. 15009&. A!%!-1 1), 200&8
OM*ANY, IN.,respondents.
,asic is t!e re8uirement t!at beore suin" to
recover loss o or dama"e to transported "oods,
t!e plainti> must "ive t!e carrier notice o t!e loss
or dama"e, wit!in t!e period prescribed b# t!e
?arsaw Convention andFor t!e airwa# bill.
Th, a-,
,eore us is a Petition or Review
under Rule
5) o t!e Rules o Court, c!allen"in" t!e June 5,
&(($ Decision
and t!e September &$, &(($
o t!e Court o %ppeals .C%/ in C%:CR
CB No. )'&('. -!e assailed Decision disposed as
U?9ERE2ORE, premises considered, t!e present
appeal is !ereb# DIS0ISSED or lac1 o merit. -!e
appealed Decision o ,ranc! $5J o t!e Re"ional
-rial Court o 0a1ati Cit# in Civil Case No. +,-
1-1+!entitled .American /ome Assurance Co. and
/I)A% Insurance Co.! Inc. v. &0102A) 0320SS
CO2O2A4ION and5or CA2GO/A#S! INC. 67ormerl$
#-'A20/O#S0! INC.8!9 is
UCosts a"ainst t!e Qpetitioner and Car"o!aus,
-!e assailed Resolution denied petitioner3s
0otion or Reconsideration.
Th, 6ac1-
-!e antecedent acts are summariHed b# t!e
appellate court as ollowsD
UOn Januar# &A, $JJ5, S0I-97*INE ,eec!am
.S0I-97*INE or brevit#/ o Nebras1a, 6S%
delivered to ,urlin"ton %ir E@press .,6R*INC-ON/,
an a"ent o QPetitionerR 2ederal E@press
Corporation, a s!ipment o $(J cartons o
veterinar# biolo"icals or deliver# to consi"nee
S0I-97*INE and 2renc! Overseas Compan# in
0a1ati Cit#, 0etro 0anila. -!e s!ipment was
covered b# ,urlin"ton %irwa# ,ill No. $$&A<'&)
wit! t!e words, WRE2RICER%-E ?9EN NO- IN
-R%NSI-3 and WPERIS9%,*E3 stamp mar1ed on its
ace. -!at same da#, ,urlin"ton insured t!e
car"oes in t!e amount o X<J,<<J.(( wit!
%merican 9ome %ssurance Compan# .%9%C/. -!e
ollowin" da#, ,urlin"ton turned over t!e custod#
o said car"oes to 2ederal E@press w!ic!
transported t!e same to 0anila. -!e +rst
s!ipment, consistin" o J& cartons arrived in
0anila on Januar# &J, $JJ5 in 2li"!t No. ((G$:
&'NR- and was immediatel# stored at QCar"o!aus
Inc.3sR ware!ouse. ?!ile t!e second, consistin" o
$G cartons, came in two .&/ da#s later, or on
Januar# <$, $JJ5, in 2li"!t No. ((G$:<(NR- w!ic!
was li1ewise immediatel# stored at Car"o!aus3
ware!ouse. Prior to t!e arrival o t!e car"oes,
2ederal E@press inormed CE-C Car"o
International Corporation, t!e customs bro1er
!ired b# t!e consi"nee to acilitate t!e release o
its car"oes rom t!e ,ureau o Customs, o t!e
impendin" arrival o its client3s car"oes.
UOn 2ebruar# $(, $JJ5, D%RIO C. DIONED%
.WDIONED%3/, twelve .$&/ da#s ater t!e car"oes
arrived in 0anila, a non:licensed custom3s bro1er
w!o was assi"ned b# CE-C to acilitate t!e
release o t!e subject car"oes, ound out, w!ile !e
was about to cause t!e release o t!e said
car"oes, t!at t!e same QwereR stored onl# in a
room wit! two .&/ air conditioners runnin", to cool
t!e place instead o a reri"erator. ?!en !e as1ed
an emplo#ee o Car"o!aus w!# t!e car"oes were
stored in t!e Wcool room3 onl#, t!e latter told !im
t!at t!e cartons w!ere t!e vaccines were
contained speci+call# indicated t!erein t!at it
s!ould not be subjected to !ot or cold
temperature. -!ereater, DIONED%, upon
instructions rom CE-C, did not proceed wit! t!e
wit!drawal o t!e vaccines and instead, samples
o t!e same were ta1en and brou"!t to t!e ,ureau
o %nimal Industr# o t!e Department o
%"riculture in t!e P!ilippines b# S0I-97*INE or
e@amination w!erein it was discovered t!at t!e
WE*IS% readin" o vaccinates sera are below t!e
positive reerence serum.3
U%s a conse8uence o t!e ore"oin" result o t!e
veterinar# biolo"ics test, S0I-97*INE abandoned
t!e s!ipment and, declarin" Wtotal loss3 or t!e
unusable s!ipment, +led a claim wit! %9%C
t!rou"! its representative in t!e P!ilippines, t!e
P!ilam Insurance Co., Inc. .WP9I*%03/ w!ic!
recompensed S0I-97*INE or t!e w!ole insured
amount o -9IR-M NINE -9O6S%ND -9REE
96NDRED -9IR-M NINE DO**%RS .X<J,<<J.((/.
-!ereater, QrespondentsR +led an action or
dama"es a"ainst t!e QpetitionerR imputin"
ne"li"ence on eit!er or bot! o t!em in t!e
!andlin" o t!e car"o.
U-rial ensued and ultimatel# concluded on 0arc!
$', $JJG wit! t!e QpetitionerR bein" !eld solidaril#
liable or t!e loss as ollowsD
W?9ERE2ORE, jud"ment is !ereb# rendered in
avor o QrespondentsR and Qpetitioner and its Co:
Deendant Car"o!ausR are directed to pa#
QrespondentsR, jointl# and severall#, t!e ollowin"D
$. %ctual dama"es in t!e amount o t!e peso
e8uivalent o 6SX<J,<<J.(( wit! interest rom t!e
time o t!e +lin" o t!e complaint to t!e time t!e
same is ull# paid.
&. %ttorne#3s ees in t!e amount o P)(,(((.((
<. Costs o suit.
U%""rieved, QpetitionerR appealed to Qt!e C%R.V
R!"#$% o/ 1h, o!r1 o/ A::,a"-
-!e -est Report issued b# t!e 6nited States
Department o %"riculture .%nimal and Plant
9ealt! Inspection Service/ was ound b# t!e C% to
be inadmissible in evidence. Despite t!is rulin",
t!e appellate court !eld t!at t!e s!ippin" Receipts
were a prima acie proo t!at t!e "oods !ad
indeed been delivered to t!e carrier in "ood
condition. ?e 8uote rom t!e rulin" as ollowsD
U?!ere t!e plainti> introduces evidence w!ic!
s!ows prima 7acie t!at t!e "oods were delivered
to t!e carrier in "ood condition Qi.e., t!e s!ippin"
receiptsR, and t!at t!e carrier delivered t!e "oods
in a dama"ed condition, a presumption is raised
t!at t!e dama"e occurred t!rou"! t!e ault or
ne"li"ence o t!e carrier! and t!is casts upon t!e
carrier t!e burden o s!owin" t!at t!e "oods were
not in "ood condition w!en delivered to t!e
carrier, or t!at t!e dama"e was occasioned b#
some cause e@ceptin" t!e carrier rom absolute
liabilit#. -!is t!e QpetitionerR ailed to disc!ar"e. @
@ @.V
2ound devoid o merit was petitioner3s claim
t!at respondents !ad no personalit# to sue. -!is
ar"ument was supposedl# not raised in t!e
%nswer or durin" trial.
9ence, t!is Petition.
Th, I--!,-
In its 0emorandum, petitioner raises t!e
ollowin" issues or our considerationD
%re t!e decision and resolution o t!e 9onorable
Court o %ppeals proper subject or review b# t!e
9onorable Court under Rule 5) o t!e $JJG Rules
o Civil ProcedureY
Is t!e conclusion o t!e 9onorable Court o
%ppeals N petitioner3s claim t!at respondents !ave
no personalit# to sue because t!e pa#ment was
made b# t!e respondents to Smit!1line w!en t!e
insured under t!e polic# is ,urlin"ton %ir E@press
is devoid o merit N correct or notY
Is t!e conclusion o t!e 9onorable Court o
%ppeals t!at t!e "oods were received in "ood
condition, correct or notY
%re E@!ibits W23 and WC3 !earsa# evidence, and
t!ereore, not admissibleY
Is t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals correct in
i"norin" and disre"ardin" respondents3 own
admission t!at petitioner is not liableY and
Is t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals correct in
i"norin" t!e ?arsaw ConventionYV
Simpl# stated, t!e issues are as ollowsD .$/ Is
t!e Petition proper or review b# t!e Supreme
CourtY .&/ Is 2ederal E@press liable or dama"e to
or loss o t!e insured "oodsY
Th#- o!r1;- R!"#$%
-!e Petition !as merit.
*r,"#<#$ar( I--!,5
Propriety of Review
-!e correctness o le"al conclusions drawn b#
t!e Court o %ppeals rom undisputed acts is a
8uestion o law co"niHable b# t!e Supreme Court.
In t!e present case, t!e acts are undisputed.
%s will be s!own s!ortl#, petitioner is 8uestionin"
t!e conclusions drawn rom suc! acts. 9ence,
t!is case is a proper subject or review b# t!is
Ma#$ I--!,5
Liability for Damages
Petitioner contends t!at respondents !ave no
personalit# to sue :: t!us, no cause o action
a"ainst it :: because t!e pa#ment made to
Smit!1line was erroneous.
Pertinent to t!is issue is t!e Certi+cate o
.UCerti+cateV/ t!at bot! opposin"
parties cite in support o t!eir respective
positions. -!e# di>er onl# in t!eir interpretation
o w!at t!eir ri"!ts are under its terms. -!e
determination o t!ose ri"!ts involves a 8uestion
o law, not a 8uestion o act. U%s distin"uis!ed
rom a 8uestion o law w!ic! e@ists Ww!en t!e
doubt or di>erence arises as to w!at t!e law is on
a certain state o acts3 :: Wt!ere is a 8uestion o
act w!en t!e doubt or di>erence arises as to t!e
trut! or t!e alse!ood o alle"ed acts3E or w!en
t!e W8uer# necessaril# invites calibration o t!e
w!ole evidence considerin" mainl# t!e credibilit#
o witnesses, e@istence and relevanc# o speci+c
surroundin" circumstance, t!eir relation to eac!
ot!er and to t!e w!ole and t!e probabilities o t!e
Proper Payee
-!e Certi+cate speci+es t!at loss o or
dama"e to t!e insured car"o is Upa#able to order
@ @ @ upon surrender o t!is Certi+cate.V Suc!
wordin" conve#s t!e ri"!t o collectin" on an#
suc! dama"e or loss, as ull# as i t!e propert#
were covered b# a special polic# in t!e name o
t!e !older itsel. %t t!e bac1 o t!e Certi+cate
appears t!e si"nature o t!e representative o
,urlin"ton. -!is document !as t!us been dul#
indorsed in blan1 and is deemed a bearer
Since t!e Certi+cate was in t!e possession o
Smit!1line, t!e latter !ad t!e ri"!t o collectin" or
o bein" indemni+ed or loss o or dama"e to t!e
insured s!ipment, as ull# as i t!e propert# were
covered b# a special polic# in t!e name o t!e
!older. 9ence, bein" t!e !older o t!e Certi+cate
and !avin" an insurable interest in t!e "oods,
Smit!1line was t!e proper pa#ee o t!e insurance
6pon receipt o t!e insurance proceeds, t!e
consi"nee .Smit!1line/ e@ecuted a subro"ation
in avor o respondents. -!e latter were
t!us aut!oriHed Uto +le claims and be"in suit
a"ainst an# suc! carrier, vessel, person,
corporation or "overnment.V 6ndeniabl#, t!e
consi"nee !ad a le"al ri"!t to receive t!e "oods in
t!e same condition it was delivered or transport
to petitioner. I t!at ri"!t was violated, t!e
consi"nee would !ave a cause o action a"ainst
t!e person responsible t!ereor.
6pon pa#ment to t!e consi"nee o an
indemnit# or t!e loss o or dama"e to t!e insured
"oods, t!e insurer3s entitlement to
subro"ation pro tanto :: bein" o t!e !i"!est
e8uit# :: e8uips it wit! a cause o action in case o
a contractual breac! or ne"li"ence.
t!e insurer3s subro"ator# ri"!t to sue or recover#
under t!e bill o ladin" in case o loss o or
dama"e to t!e car"o is jurisprudentiall#
In t!e e@ercise o its subro"ator# ri"!t, an
insurer ma# proceed a"ainst an errin" carrier. -o
all intents and purposes, it stands in t!e place and
in substitution o t!e consi"nee. A 7ortiori! bot!
t!e insurer and t!e consi"nee are bound b# t!e
contractual stipulations under t!e bill o ladin".
Prescription of !laim
2rom t!e initial proceedin"s in t!e trial court
up to t!e present, petitioner !as tirelessl# pointed
out t!at respondents3 claim and ri"!t o action are
alread# barred. -!e latter, and even t!e
consi"nee, never +led wit! t!e carrier an# written
notice or complaint re"ardin" its claim or dama"e
o or loss to t!e subject car"o wit!in t!e period
re8uired b# t!e ?arsaw Convention andFor in t!e
airwa# bill. Indeed, t!is act !as never been
denied b# respondents and is plainl# evident rom
t!e records.
%irwa# ,ill No. $$&A<'&), issued b# ,urlin"ton
as a"ent o petitioner, statesD
UA. No action s!all be maintained in t!e case o
dama"e to or partial loss o t!e s!ipment unless a
written notice, suOcientl# describin" t!e "oods
concerned, t!e appro@imate date o t!e dama"e
or loss, and t!e details o t!e claim, is presented
b# s!ipper or consi"nee to an oOce o ,urlin"ton
wit!in .$5/ da#s rom t!e date t!e "oods are
placed at t!e disposal o t!e person entitled to
deliver#, or in t!e case o total loss .includin"
non:deliver#/ unless presented wit!in .$&(/ da#s
rom t!e date o issue o t!e Q%irwa# ,illR.V
Relevantl#, petitioner3s airwa# bill statesD
U$&.F$&.$ -!e person entitled to deliver# must
ma1e a complaint to t!e carrier in writin" in t!e
$&.$.$ o visible dama"e to t!e "oods,
immediatel# ater discover# o t!e
dama"e and at t!e latest wit!in ourteen
.$5/ da#s rom receipt o t!e "oodsE
$&.$.& o ot!er dama"e to t!e "oods,
wit!in ourteen .$5/ da#s rom t!e date o
receipt o t!e "oodsE
$&.$.< dela#, wit!in twent#:one .&$/ da#s
o t!e date t!e "oods are placed at !is
disposalE and
$&.$.5 o non:deliver# o t!e "oods, wit!in
one !undred and twent# .$&(/ da#s rom
t!e date o t!e issue o t!e air wa#bill.
$&.& 2or t!e purpose o $&.$ complaint in writin"
ma# be made to t!e carrier w!ose air wa#bill was
used, or to t!e +rst carrier or to t!e last carrier or
to t!e carrier w!o perormed t!e transportation
durin" w!ic! t!e loss, dama"e or dela# too1
%rticle &A o t!e ?arsaw Convention, on t!e
ot!er !and, providesD
U%R-. &A. .$/ Receipt b# t!e person entitled to t!e
deliver# o ba""a"e or "oods wit!out complaint
s!all be prima acie evidence t!at t!e same !ave
been delivered in "ood condition and in
accordance wit! t!e document o transportation.
.&/ In case o dama"e, t!e person entitled to
deliver# must complain to t!e carrier ort!wit!
ater t!e discover# o t!e dama"e, and, at t!e
latest, wit!in < da#s rom t!e date o receipt in
t!e case o ba""a"e and G da#s rom t!e date o
receipt in t!e case o "oods. In case o dela# t!e
complaint must be made at t!e latest wit!in $5
da#s rom t!e date on w!ic! t!e ba""a"e or
"oods !ave been placed at !is disposal.
.</ Ever# complaint must be made in writin"
upon t!e document o transportation or b#
separate notice in writin" dispatc!ed wit!in t!e
times aoresaid.
.5/ 2ailin" complaint wit!in t!e times aoresaid,
no action s!all lie a"ainst t!e carrier, save in t!e
case o raud on !is part.V
!ondition Precedent
In t!is jurisdiction, t!e +lin" o a claim wit!
t!e carrier wit!in t!e time limitation t!ereor
actuall# constitutes a condition precedent to t!e
accrual o a ri"!t o action a"ainst a carrier or
loss o or dama"e to t!e "oods.
-!e s!ipper or
consi"nee must alle"e and prove t!e ul+llment o
t!e condition. I it ails to do so, no ri"!t o action
a"ainst t!e carrier can accrue in avor o t!e
ormer. -!e aorementioned re8uirement is a
reasonable condition precedentE it does not
constitute a limitation o action.
-!e re8uirement o "ivin" notice o loss o or
injur# to t!e "oods is not an empt# ormalism.
-!e undamental reasons or suc! a stipulation
are .$/ to inorm t!e carrier t!at t!e car"o !as
been dama"ed, and t!at it is bein" c!ar"ed wit!
liabilit# t!ereorE and .&/ to "ive it an opportunit#
to e@amine t!e nature and e@tent o t!e injur#.
U-!is protects t!e carrier b# a>ordin" it an
opportunit# to ma1e an investi"ation o a claim
w!ile t!e matter is res! and easil# investi"ated
so as to sae"uard itsel rom alse and raudulent
?!en an airwa# bill :: or an# contract o
carria"e or t!at matter :: !as a stipulation t!at
re8uires a notice o claim or loss o or dama"e to
"oods s!ipped and t!e stipulation is not complied
wit!, its enorcement can be prevented and t!e
liabilit# cannot be imposed on t!e carrier. -o
stress, notice is a condition precedent, and t!e
carrier is not liable i notice is not "iven in
accordance wit! t!e stipulation.
2ailure to compl#
wit! suc! a stipulation bars recover# or t!e loss or
dama"e su>ered.
,ein" a condition precedent, t!e notice must
precede a suit or enorcement.
In t!e present
case, t!ere is neit!er an alle"ation nor a s!owin"
o respondents3 compliance wit! t!is re8uirement
wit!in t!e prescribed period. ?!ile respondents
ma# !ave !ad a cause o action t!en, t!e# cannot
now enorce it or t!eir ailure to compl# wit! t!e
aoresaid condition precedent.
In view o t!e ore"oin", we +nd no more
necessit# to pass upon t!e ot!er issues raised b#
?e note t!at respondents are not wit!out
recourse. Car"o!aus, Inc. :: petitioner3s co:
deendant in respondents3 Complaint below :: !as
been adjud"ed b# t!e trial court as liable or,inter
alia, Uactual dama"es in t!e amount o t!e peso
e8uivalent o 6S X<J,<<J.V
-!is jud"ment was
aOrmed b# t!e Court o %ppeals and is alread#
+nal and e@ecutor#.
WHERE6ORE, t!e Petition is G2AN401! and
t!e assailed Decision 20:02S01 insoar as it
pertains to Petitioner 2ederal E@press
Corporation. No pronouncement as to costs.
7G.R. No. 1277=). No>,<?,r 19, 19998
UNITED AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. WILLIE '.
UY, respondent.
6NI-ED %IR*INES assails in t!is petition or
review on certiorari under Rule 5) t!e &J %u"ust
$JJ) Decision o t!e Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R.
CB No. <JGA$ w!ic! reversed t!e G %u"ust $JJ&
order issued b# t!e trial court in Civil Case No. I:
"rantin" petitionerPs motion to dismiss
based on prescription o cause o action. -!e
issues sou"!t to be resolved are w!et!er t!e
notice o appeal to t!e appellate court was timel#
+led, and w!et!er %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw
s!ould appl# to t!e case at bar.
On $< October $J'J respondent ?illie J. 6#, a
revenue passen"er on 6nited %irlines 2li"!t No.
'$J or t!e San 2rancisco : 0anila route, c!ec1ed
in to"et!er wit! !is lu""a"e one piece o w!ic!
was ound to be overwei"!t at t!e airline
counter. -o !is utter !umiliation, an emplo#ee o
petitioner rebu1ed !im sa#in" t!at !e s!ould !ave
1nown t!e ma@imum wei"!t allowance to be G(
1"s. per ba" and t!at !e s!ould !ave pac1ed !is
t!in"s accordin"l#. -!en, in a loud voice in ront
o t!e millin" crowd, s!e told respondent to
repac1 !is t!in"s and transer some o t!em rom
t!e overwei"!t lu""a"e to t!e li"!ter ones. Not
wis!in" to create urt!er scene, respondent
acceded onl# to +nd !is lu""a"e still
overwei"!t. -!e airline t!en billed !im
overwei"!t c!ar"es w!ic! !e o>ered to pa# wit! a
miscellaneous c!ar"e order .0CO/ or an airline
pre:paid credit. 9owever, t!e airline3s emplo#ee,
and later its airport supervisor, adamantl# reused
to !onor t!e 0CO pointin" out t!at t!ere were
con4ictin" +"ures listed on it. Despite t!e
e@planation rom respondent t!at t!e last +"ure
written on t!e 0CO represented !is balance,
petitioner3s emplo#ees did not accommodate
!im. 2aced wit! t!e prospect o leavin" wit!out
!is lu""a"e, respondent paid t!e overwei"!t
c!ar"es wit! !is %merican E@press credit card.
Respondent3s troubles did not end
t!ere. 6pon arrival in 0anila, !e discovered t!at
one o !is ba"s !ad been slas!ed and its contents
stolen. 9e particulariHed !is losses to be around
6S X),<$(.((. In a letter dated $A October $J'J
respondent bewailed t!e insult, embarrassment
and !umiliatin" treatment !e su>ered in t!e
!ands o 6nited %irlines emplo#ees, noti+ed
petitioner o !is loss and re8uested
reimbursement t!ereo. Petitioner 6nited %irlines,
t!rou"! Central ,a""a"e Specialist Joan 7roll, did
not reute an# o respondent3s alle"ations and
mailed a c!ec1 representin" t!e pa#ment o !is
loss based on t!e ma@imum liabilit# o 6S XJ.G(
per pound. Respondent, t!in1in" t!e amount to
be "rossl# inade8uate to compensate !im or !is
losses, as well as or t!e indi"nities !e was
subjected to, sent two .&/ more letters to
petitioner airline, one dated 5 Januar# $JJ(
t!rou"! a certain %tt#. Pesi"an, and anot!er dated
&' October $JJ$ t!rou"! %tt#. Ramon 6. %mpil
demandin" an out:o:court settlement
oP$,(((,(((.((. Petitioner 6nited %irlines did not
accede to !is demands.
Conse8uentl#, on J June $JJ& respondent +led
a complaint or dama"es a"ainst 6nited %irlines
alle"in" t!at !e was a person o "ood station,
sittin" in t!e board o directors o several top )((
corporations and !oldin" senior e@ecutive
positions or suc! similar +rmsE
t!at petitioner
airline accorded !im ill and s!abb# treatment to
!is e@treme embarrassment and !umiliationE and,
as suc! !e s!ould be paid moral dama"es o at
least P$,(((,(((.((, e@emplar# dama"es o at
least P)((,(((.((, plus attorne#Ps ees o at
least P)(,(((.((. Similarl#, !e alle"ed t!at t!e
dama"e to !is lu""a"e and its stolen contents
amounted to around X),<$(.((, and re8uested
reimbursement t!ereor.
6nited %irlines moved to dismiss t!e
complaint on t!e "round t!at respondent3s cause
o action !ad prescribed, invo1in" %rt. &J o t!e
?arsaw Convention w!ic! provides :
%rt. &J .$/ -!e ri"!t to dama"es s!all be
e@tin"uis!ed i an action is not brou"!t wit!in two
.&/ #ears, rec1oned rom t!e date o arrival at t!e
destination, or rom t!e date on w!ic! t!e aircrat
ou"!t to !ave arrived, or rom t!e date on w!ic!
t!e transportation stopped.
.&/ -!e met!od o calculatin" t!e period o
limitation s!all be determined b# t!e law o t!e
court to w!ic! t!e case is submitted.
Respondent countered t!at par. .$/ o %rt. &J
o t!e ?arsaw Convention must be reconciled wit!
par. .&/ t!ereo w!ic! states t!at ;t!e met!od o
calculatin" t!e period o limitation s!all be
determined b# t!e law o t!e court to w!ic! t!e
case is submitted.; Interpretin" t!us, respondent
noted t!at accordin" to P!ilippine laws t!e
prescription o actions is interrupted ;w!en t!e#
are +led beore t!e court, w!en t!ere is a written
e@trajudicial demand b# t!e creditors, and w!en
t!ere is an# written ac1nowled"ment o t!e debt
b# t!e debtor.;
Since !e made several demands
upon 6nited %irlinesD ;rst, t!rou"! !is personal
letter dated $A October $J'JE second, t!rou"! a
letter dated 5 Januar# $JJ( rom %tt#. Pesi"anE
and, ;nall$, t!rou"! a letter dated &' October
$JJ$ written or !im b# %tt#. %mpil, t!e two .&/:
#ear period o limitation !ad not #et been
On & %u"ust $JJ& t!e trial court ordered t!e
dismissal o t!e action !oldin" t!at t!e lan"ua"e
o %rt. &J is clear t!at t!e action must be brou"!t
wit!in two .&/ #ears rom t!e date o arrival at t!e
destination. It !eld t!at alt!ou"! t!e second
para"rap! o %rt. &J spea1s o deerence to t!e
law o t!e local court in ;calculatin" t!e period o
limitation,; t!e same does not reer to t!e local
orum3s rules in interruptin" t!e prescriptive
period but onl# to t!e rules o determinin" t!e
time in w!ic! t!e action ma# be deemed
commenced, and wit!in our jurisdiction t!e action
s!all be deemed ;brou"!t; or commenced b# t!e
+lin" o a complaint. 9ence, t!e trial court
concluded t!at %rt. &J e@cludes t!e application o
our interruption rules.
Respondent received a cop# o t!e dismissal
order on $G %u"ust $JJ&. On <$ %u"ust $JJ&, or
ourteen .$5/ da#s later, !e moved or t!e
reconsideration o t!e trial court3s order. -!e trial
court denied t!e motion and respondent received
cop# o t!e denial order on &' September
$JJ&. -wo .&/ da#s later, on $ October $JJ&
respondent +led !is notice o appeal.
6nited %irlines once a"ain moved or t!e
dismissal o t!e case t!is time pointin" out t!at
respondent3s +teen .$)/:da# period to appeal !ad
alread# elapsed. Petitioner ar"ued t!at !avin"
used ourteen .$5/ da#s o t!e re"lementar#
period or appeal, respondent 6# !ad onl# one .$/
da# remainin" to perect !is appeal, and since !e
+led !is notice o appeal two .&/ da#s later, !e
ailed to meet t!e deadline.
In its 8uestioned Decision dated &J %u"ust
t!e appellate court "ave due course to t!e
appeal !oldin" t!at respondent3s dela# o two .&/
da#s in +lin" !is notice o appeal did not !inder it
rom reviewin" t!e appealed order o dismissal
since jurisprudence dictates t!at an appeal ma#
be entertained despite procedural lapses
anc!ored on e8uit# and justice.
On t!e applicabilit# o t!e ?arsaw Convention,
t!e appellate court ruled t!at t!e ?arsaw
Convention did not preclude t!e operation o t!e
Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws. Respondent3s
ailure to +le !is complaint wit!in t!e two .&/:#ear
limitation provided in t!e ?arsaw Convention did
not bar !is action since !e could still !old
petitioner liable or breac! o ot!er provisions o
t!e Civil Code w!ic! prescribe a di>erent period or
procedure or institutin" an action. 2urt!er, under
P!ilippine laws, prescription o actions is
interrupted w!ere, amon" ot!ers, t!ere is a
written e@trajudicial demand b# t!e creditors, and
since respondent 6# sent several demand letters
to petitioner 6nited %irlines, t!e runnin" o t!e
two .&/:#ear prescriptive period was in e>ect
suspended. 9ence, t!e appellate court ruled t!at
respondent3s cause o action !ad not #et
prescribed and ordered t!e records remanded to
t!e IueHon Cit# trial court or urt!er proceedin"s.
Petitioner now contends t!at t!e appellate
court erred in assumin" jurisdiction over
respondentPs appeal since it is clear t!at t!e
notice o appeal was +led out o time. It ar"ues
t!at t!e courts rela@ t!e strin"ent rule on
perection o appeals onl# w!en t!ere are
e@traordinar# circumstances, e."., w!en t!e
Republic stands to lose !undreds o !ectares o
land alread# titled and used or educational
purposesE w!en t!e counsel o record was alread#
deadE and w!erein appellant was t!e owner o t!e
trademar1 or more t!an t!irt# .<(/ #ears, and t!e
circumstances o t!e present case do not compare
to t!e above e@ceptional cases.
Section $ o Rule 5) o t!e 1++< 2ules o7 Civil
rocedure provides t!at ;a part# ma# appeal b#
certiorari, rom a jud"ment o t!e Court o
%ppeals, b# +lin" wit! t!e Supreme Court a
petition or certiorari, wit!in +teen .$)/ da#s rom
notice o jud"ment or o t!e denial o !is motion
or reconsideration +led in due time @ @ @ @; -!is
Rule !owever s!ould not be interpreted as ;to
sacri+ce t!e substantial ri"!t o t!e appellant in
t!e sop!isticated altar o tec!nicalities wit!
impairment o t!e sacred principles o justice.;
s!ould be borne in mind t!at t!e real purpose
be!ind t!e limitation o t!e period o appeal is to
orestall or avoid an unreasonable dela# in t!e
administration o justice. -!us, we !ave ruled
t!at dela# in t!e +lin" o a notice o appeal does
not justi# t!e dismissal o t!e appeal w!ere t!e
circumstances o t!e case s!ow t!at t!ere is no
intent to dela# t!e administration o justice on t!e
part o appellantPs counsel,
or w!en t!ere are no
substantial ri"!ts a>ected,
or w!en appellantPs
counsel committed a mista1e in t!e computation
o t!e period o appeal, an error not attributable
to ne"li"ence or bad ait!.
In t!e instant case, respondent +led !is notice
o appeal two .&/ da#s later t!an t!e prescribed
period. %lt!ou"! !is counsel ailed to "ive t!e
reason or t!e dela#, we are inclined to "ive due
course to !is appeal due to t!e uni8ue and
peculiar acts o t!e case and t!e serious 8uestion
o law it poses. In t!e now almost trite but still
"ood principle, tec!nicalit#, w!en it deserts its
proper oOce as an aid to justice and becomes its
"reat !indrance and c!ie enem#, deserves scant
Petitioner li1ewise contends t!at t!e appellate
court erred in rulin" t!at respondentPs cause o
action !as not prescribed since dele"ates to t!e
?arsaw Convention clearl# intended t!e two .&/:
#ear limitation incorporated in %rt. &J as an
absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to
t!e various tollin" provisions o t!e laws o t!e
orum. Petitioner ar"ues t!at in construin" t!e
second para"rap! o %rt. &J private respondent
cannot read into it P!ilippine rules on interruption
o prescriptive periods and state t!at !is
e@trajudicial demand !as interrupted t!e period o
%merican jurisprudence !as
declared t!at ;%rt. &J .&/ was not intended to
permit orums to consider local limitation tollin"
provisions but onl# to let local law determine
w!et!er an action !ad been commenced wit!in
t!e two:#ear period, since t!e met!od o
commencin" a suit varies rom countr# to
?it!in our jurisdiction we !ave !eld t!at t!e
?arsaw Convention can be applied, or i"nored,
dependin" on t!e peculiar acts presented b#
eac! case.
-!us, we !ave ruled t!at t!e
ConventionPs provisions do not re"ulate or e@clude
liabilit# or ot!er breac!es o contract b# t!e
carrier or misconduct o its oOcers and
emplo#ees, or or some particular or e@ceptional
t#pe o dama"e.
Neit!er ma# t!e Convention be
invo1ed to justi# t!e disre"ard o some
e@traordinar# sort o dama"e resultin" to a
passen"er and preclude recover# t!ereor be#ond
t!e limits set b# said Convention.
*i1ewise, we
!ave !eld t!at t!e Convention does not preclude
t!e operation o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent
It does not re"ulate, muc! less e@empt,
t!e carrier rom liabilit# or dama"es or violatin"
t!e ri"!ts o its passen"ers under t!e contract o
carria"e, especiall# i willul misconduct on t!e
part o t!e carrierPs emplo#ees is ound or
RespondentPs complaint reveals t!at !e is
suin" on two .&/ causes o actionD .a/ t!e s!abb#
and !umiliatin" treatment !e received rom
petitionerPs emplo#ees at t!e San 2rancisco
%irport w!ic! caused !im e@treme embarrassment
and social !umiliationE and, .b/ t!e slas!in" o !is
lu""a"e and t!e loss o !is personal e>ects
amountin" to 6S X),<$(.((.
?!ile !is second cause o action : an action
or dama"es arisin" rom t!et or dama"e to
propert# or "oods : is well wit!in t!e bounds o
t!e ?arsaw Convention, !is +rst cause o action
:an action or dama"es arisin" rom t!e
misconduct o t!e airline emplo#ees and t!e
violation o respondentPs ri"!ts as passen"er :
clearl# is not.
Conse8uentl#, insoar as t!e +rst cause o
action is concerned, respondentPs ailure to +le !is
complaint wit!in t!e two .&/:#ear limitation o t!e
?arsaw Convention does not bar !is action since
petitioner airline ma# still be !eld liable or breac!
o ot!er provisions o t!e Civil Code w!ic!
prescribe a di>erent period or procedure or
institutin" t!e action, speci+call#, %rt. $$5A
t!ereo w!ic! prescribes our .5/ #ears or +lin" an
action based on torts.
%s or respondentPs second cause o action,
indeed t!e travau( preparatories o t!e ?arsaw
Convention reveal t!at t!e dele"ates t!ereto
intended t!e two .&/:#ear limitation incorporated
in %rt. &J as an absolute bar to suit and not to be
made subject to t!e various tollin" provisions o
t!e laws o t!e orum. -!is t!ereore orecloses
t!e application o our own rules on interruption o
prescriptive periods. %rticle &J, par. .&/, was
intended onl# to let local laws determine w!et!er
an action !ad been commenced wit!in t!e two
.&/:#ear period, and wit!in our jurisdiction an
action s!all be deemed commenced upon t!e
+lin" o a complaint. Since it is indisputable t!at
respondent +led t!e present action be#ond t!e
two .&/:#ear time rame !is second cause o
action must be barred. Nonet!eless, it cannot be
doubted t!at respondent e@erted e>orts to
immediatel# conve# !is loss to petitioner, even
emplo#ed t!e services o two .&/ law#ers to ollow
up !is claims, and t!at t!e +lin" o t!e action
itsel was dela#ed because o petitionerPs evasion.
In t!is re"ard, hilippine Airlines! Inc. v. Court
o7 Appeals
is instructive. In t!is case o A),
private respondent +led an action or dama"es
a"ainst petitioner airline or t!e brea1a"e o t!e
ront "lass o t!e microwave oven w!ic! s!e
s!ipped under P%* %ir ?a#bill No. (:GJ:$($<((':
<. Petitioner averred t!at, t!e action !avin" been
+led seven .G/ mont!s ater !er arrival at !er port
o destination, s!e ailed to compl# wit! par. $&,
subpar. .a/ .$/, o t!e %ir ?a#bill w!ic! e@pressl#
provided t!at t!e person entitled to deliver# must
ma1e a complaint to t!e carrier in writin" in case
o visible dama"e to t!e "oods, immediatel# ater
discover# o t!e dama"e and at t!e latest wit!in
$5 da#s rom receipt o t!e "oods. Despite non:
compliance t!erewit! t!e Court !eld t!at b#
private respondentPs immediate submission o a
ormal claim to petitioner, w!ic! !owever was not
immediatel# entertained as it was reerred rom
one emplo#ee to anot!er, s!e was deemed to
!ave substantiall# complied wit! t!e
re8uirement. -!e Court noted t!at wit! private
respondentPs own Healous e>orts in pursuin" !er
claim it was clearl# not !er ault t!at t!e letter o
demand or dama"es could onl# be +led, ater
mont!s o e@asperatin" ollow:up o t!e claim, on
$< %u"ust $JJ(, and t!at i t!ere was an# ailure
at all to +le t!e ormal claim wit!in t!e
prescriptive period contemplated in t!e %ir
?a#bill, t!is was lar"el# because o t!e carrierPs
own doin", t!e conse8uences o w!ic! could not
in all airness be attributed to private respondent.
In t!e same vein must we rule upon t!e
circumstances brou"!t beore us. Beril#,
respondent +led !is complaint more t!an two .&/
#ears later, be#ond t!e period o limitation
prescribed b# t!e ?arsaw Convention or +lin" a
claim or dama"es. 9owever, it is obvious t!at
respondent was orestalled rom immediatel#
+lin" an action because petitioner airline "ave !im
t!e runaround, answerin" !is letters but not
"ivin" in to !is demands. -rue, respondent s!ould
!ave alread# +led an action at t!e +rst instance
w!en !is claims were denied b# petitioner but t!e
same could onl# be due to !is desire to ma1e an
out:o:court settlement or w!ic! !e cannot be
aulted. 9ence, despite t!e e@press mandate o
%rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention t!at an action
or dama"es s!ould be +led wit!in two .&/ #ears
rom t!e arrival at t!e place o destination, suc!
rule s!all not be applied in t!e instant case
because o t!e dela#in" tactics emplo#ed b#
petitioner airline itsel. -!us, private respondentPs
second cause o action cannot be considered as
time:barred under %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw
WHERE6ORE, t!e assailed Decision o t!e
Court o %ppeals reversin" and settin" aside t!e
appealed order o t!e trial court "rantin" t!e
motion to dismiss t!e complaint, as well as its
Resolution den#in" reconsideration, is
%22IR0ED. *et t!e records o t!e case be
remanded to t!e court o ori"in or urt!er
proceedin"s ta1in" its bearin"s rom t!is
7G.R. No. L3&&90=. S,:1,<?,r 25, 1992.8
*HILI**INE AIRLINES, IN., Petitioner, >. THE
S#%!#o$ R,($a, Mo$1,c#""o a$. O$%-#a@o
/or Petitioner.
*"ar#.," . 'o-, /or Private Respondent.
On December $(, $JG5, t!e 9onorable 2rancisco
de la Rosa, at t!at time Presidin" Jud"e o ,ranc!
G o t!e t!en Court o 2irst Instance o RiHal o t!e
Sevent! Judicial District stationed in Pasa# Cit#,
adjud"ed t!e accountabilit# o !erein petitioner as
deendant in a suit or a sum o mone# in t!is
;?9ERE2ORE, jud"ment is !ereb# rendered in
avor o Plainti>Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
.a/ Orderin" Deendant to pa# Plainti> t!e amount
in P!ilippine Pesos e8uivalent to 6.S.X5,(((.(( at
t!e rate o e@c!an"e obtainin" in 0arc!, $JG&,
wit! le"al interest rom t!e +lin" o t!is suit until
ull# paidE
.b/ Orderin" Deendant to pa# t!e costsE and
.c/ Dismissin" Deendants3 Compulsor#
Counterclaim.; .p. G(, Record on %ppeal/.
-!e ore"oin" conclusion was ormulated b# t!e
court o ori"in on t!e basis o t!e ollowin"
actsDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
On %pril 5, $JG&, private respondent boarded
!erein petitioner3s 2li"!t PR <($ rom 9on"1on" to
0anila and c!ec1ed in our .5/ pieces o ba""a"e.
?!en t!e plane landed in 0anila, private
respondent was not able to locate t!e two pieces
o ba""a"e containin" cinemato"rap!ic +lms
despite dili"ent searc! t!ereor. Private
respondent made t!e claim or suc! loss to
petitioner w!ic! admitted t!e loss and o>ered to
compensate private respondent .%nne@ ;<;,
%nswerE pa"e $G, Record on %ppealE pa"e A5,
Instead o acceptin" t!e o>er, private respondent
opted to +le t!e case below to principall# recover
t!e value o t!e lost items w!ic! !e estimated to
be wort! P&(,(((.(( .para"rap! G, ComplaintE
pa"e <, Record on %ppeal/. 9erein petitioner
responded b# assertin" t!atDc!anrobles
;.5/ Plainti> !as no cause o action a"ainst
.)/ On 5 %pril $JG&, plainti> was a passen"er,
econom# class on deendant3s 2li"!t No. PR <($F5
%pril $JG&, rom 9on"1on" to 0anila, under
Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$5$'. %s suc!
passen"er, plainti> c!ec1ed:in our .5/ pieces o
ba""a"e, wit! a total wei"!t o onl# twent# .&(/
1ilos, inclusive o t!eir contents suc! t!at it would
be p!#sicall# impossible or t!e two alle"ed lost
pieces, to !ave in t!emselves an a""re"ate
wei"!t o twent#:+ve .&)/ 1ilos.
.A/ %s suc! passen"er t!e contractual relations!ip
between plainti> and deendant is w!oll#
"overned b# t!e terms, conditions and
stipulations w!ic! are clearl# printed on plainti>3s
Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$5$'. %mon" t!e
stipulations embodied in said tic1et is a provision
"rantin" plainti> a ree ba""a"e allowance o
twent# .&(/ 1ilos. % cop# o t!is provision, as
embodied in plainti>3s tic1et is attac!ed !ereto as
%nne@ ;$; and made part !ereo.
.G/ In accordance wit! and in pursuant o t!is ree
ba""a"e allowance %nne@ ;$;/ plainti> c!ec1ed:in
!is our .5/ pieces o ba""a"e on 2li"!t No.
PR<($F5 %pril $JG&, or w!ic! !e was issued
correspondin" ba""a"e c!ec1s amon" t!em
ba""a"e c!ec1s Nos. PR &5:'J:A$ and PR &5:'J:
GA, coverin" plainti>3s two alle"ed lost pieces o
.'/ 6nder Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$:5$',
w!ic! is t!e contract o carria"e between plainti>
and deendant, it is an e@press condition o t!e
contract t!at t!e same s!all be Wsubject to t!e
rules and limitations relatin" to liabilit#
establis!ed b# t!e ?arsaw Convention.3 % @ero@
cop# o pa"e & o plainti>3s Passen"er -ic1et No.
&JG5:&<$5$' w!ic! contains t!e aoresaid
condition is !ereto attac!ed as %nne@ ;&; and
made part !ereo.
.J/ 6nder applicable rules and re"ulations o t!e
?arsaw Convention on International Carria"e b#
%ir .as amended b# t!e 9a"ue Protocol o $J))/,
w!ic! is t!e convention reerred to in %nne@ ;&;
!ereo, deendant3s liabilit# or plainti>3s two .&/
alle"ed lost pieces o ba""a"e is limited to a
ma@imum o 6SXA.)( per 1ilo"ram.
.$(/ -!e total wei"!t o plainti>3s our .5/ pieces
o c!ec1ed:in ba""a"e, inclusive o t!eir contents,
was onl# twent# .&(/ 1ilo"rams, suc! t!at eac!
ba""a"e would !ave an avera"e wei"!t o +ve .)/
1ilo"rams, and t!e two alle"ed lost pieces, an
avera"e total wei"!t o onl# ten .$(/ 1ilo"rams.
%ccordin"l#, deendant3s ma@imum liabilit# to
plainti> is 6SX$A).((, or its e8uivalent in
P!ilippine currenc#.; .pp. A:', Record on %ppeal/
%ter issues were joined, t!en plainti>, now private
respondent C!ua 0in testi+ed and presented our
documents .p. )G, Record on %ppeal/ w!ile
petitioner did not call an# witness and merel#
adopted t!ree e@!ibits o !erein private
respondent .p. )', Record on
%ppeal/.c! D virtual law librar#
Petitioner attempted to c!allen"e private
respondent3s personalit# to +le t!e suit on t!e
"round t!at t!e +lm rolls belon"ed to t!e
9on"1on" +rm o ;*oon" 7ee Pen Co., 2ilm
E@c!an"e Dept.;, apart rom t!e vacillatin"
testimon# spewed b# C!ua 0in on t!e witness
stand w!ic! supposedl# su""ests t!at !e !as no
ri"!t to see1 restitution or t!e lost +lms, includin"
t!e dama"es resultin" t!ererom. On t!e merits o
private respondent3s plea or relie, petitioner tried
to call t!e attention o t!e trial jud"e to t!e !erein
below 8uoted provisions o t!e ?arsaw
Convention w!ic! limit t!e liabilit# o petitioner as
an air carrier to &)( rancs per 1ilo"ram,
;%R-IC*E < .$/. 2or t!e transportation o
passen"ers t!e carrier must deliver a passen"er
tic1et w!ic! s!all contain t!e ollowin"
particularsDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
.a/ . . .
.b/ . . .
.c/ . . .
.d/ . . .
.e/ % statement t!at t!e transportation is subject
to t!e rules relatin" to liabilit# establis!ed b# t!is
convention.;cralaw virtua$aw librar#
;%R-IC*E && .&/. In t!e transportation o c!ec1ed
ba""a"e and o "oods, t!e liabilit# o t!e carrier
s!all be limited to a sum o &)( rancs per
1ilo"ram, unless t!e consi"nor !as made, at t!e
time w!en t!e pac1a"e was !anded over to t!e
carrier, a special declaration o t!e value at
deliver# and !as paid a supplementar# sum i t!e
case so re8uires. In t!at case t!e carrier will be
liable to pa# a sum not e@ceedin" t!e declared
sum, unless !e proves t!at t!e sum is "reater
t!an t!e actual value to t!e consi"nor at
deliver#.;cralaw virtua$aw librar#
In resolvin" t!e issue o private respondent3s le"al
standin" to sue, t!e trial court e@pressed t!e view
t!at !e can be considered as i !e were t!e owner
on account o !is responsibilit# or an# eventualit#
t!at ma# occur to t!e +lm rolls. Beril#, private
respondent was considered to be a consi"nee o
t!e lost "oods since !e accompanied t!e +lms
aboard petitioner3s plane w!o is presumed to
!ave accepted t!e contract o carria"e between
t!e consi"nor and petitioner w!en !e later
demanded t!e deliver# to !im o t!e movie +lms
.p. A<, Record on %ppeal/.
%nent t!e aspect o liabilit#, t!e trial court opined
t!at since petitioner did not introduce a sin"le
piece o document and merel# adopted private
respondent3s e@!ibits, it ma# not invo1e t!e
limitation o its liabilit# wit! respect to Wc!ec1ed
ba""a"e3 under t!e provisions o t!e ?arsaw
Convention. -!e apat!# o petitioner seems to
!ave e@tended its impact on t!e outcome o t!e
case w!en t!e trial court ruled t!at t!e +lms were
wort! X5,(((.(( based on private respondent3s
E@!ibit ;%; w!ic!, as aoresaid, was nonc!alantl#
adopted b# petitioner as its E@!ibit ;$; .p. AJ,
Record on %ppeal/.c!anroblesvirtualawlibrar#
RealiHin" t!e vacuum insoar as t!e evidence is
concerned, petitioner tried to +ll t!e !iatus b#
startin" wit! t!e proposition in its motion or
reconsideration t!at t!e tic1et under w!ic! private
respondent was a passen"er on petitioner3s plane
was a passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e c!ec1 at t!e
same time. -!is tactic was resorted to in order to
establis! t!e conclusion t!at petitioner could not
!ave produced t!e same since t!e tic1et is usuall#
retained b# t!e passen"er. Petitioner continued to
asseverate t!at %rticle 5 para"rap! 5 o t!e
?arsaw Convention w!ic!
;.5/ -!e absence, irre"ularit#, or loss o t!e
ba""a"e c!ec1s s!all not a>ect t!e e@istence or
t!e validit# o t!e contract o transportation w!ic!
s!all nonet!eless be subject to t!e rules o t!is
convention. Nevert!eless, i t!e carrier accepts
ba""a"e wit!out a ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been
delivered, or i t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 does not
contain t!e particulars set out at .d/, ./, and .!/
above, t!e carrier s!all not be entitled to avail
!imsel o t!ose provisions o t!e convention
w!ic! e@clude or limit !is liabilit#.; .p. AA, Record
on %ppealE p. &<, 0otion or Reconsideration, p.
A), Rollo/
upon w!ic! provision t!e trial court alle"edl#
relied in rejectin" petitioner3s contention, is in act
applicable jud"in" rom w!at is e@plicitl# stated
under t!e +rst sentence o t!e proviso. -!ese
ideas, !owever, did not persuade t!e trial jud"e to
reconsider !is +ndin"s o accountabilit# on t!e
part o petitioner .p. $$$, Record on %ppeal/.
-!e appeal interposed t!ererom to t!e Court o
%ppeals was li1ewise rebu>ed on September $G,
$JGA b# t!e 2it! Division .2ernandeH .ponente/,
Serrano, ,atacan, ==.,/ w!ic! sustained t!e
observations and dispositions reac!ed b# t!e trial
court on t!e same "rounds, e@cept t!at t!e sum
o X5,(((.(( was directed to be paid b# petitioner
in P!ilippine Currenc#, at t!e e@c!an"e rate
obtainin" on t!e date t!e amount is actuall# paid
to !erein private respondent .pp. 5<:55, Rollo/.
Petitioner3s subse8uent recourse to secure re:
evaluation o t!e jud"ment did not merit t!e nod
o approval o t!e respondent Court o %ppeals .p.
)A, Rollo/.
-!ereupon, petitioner elevated to 6s t!e matter o
its liabilit# under t!e contract o carria"e via t!e
instant petition or review on certiorari, as1in" t!is
CourtDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
?9E-9ER OR NO- PE-I-IONER C%N %B%I* O2 -9E
*I0I-%-IONS ON *I%,I*I-M 6NDER -9E ?%RS%?
CO0PENS%-ION IN -9IS C%SE.;cralaw virtua$aw
,eore discussin" t!e intrinsic wort! o
petitioner3s discourse, ?e s!all address t!e issue
o private respondent3s personalit# to see1
redress or t!e loss o t!e +lms. ?e believe, and
so !old, t!at C!ua 0in is no stran"er to t!e cause
o action instituted at t!e court o ori"in in spite o
t!e messa"e conve#ed b# !im w!en !e sat on t!e
witness stand w!ic! seems to lead to t!e opposite
conclusion, t!usDc!anrobles lawlibrar# D rednad
;%--M. *%6RE-%Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
I. 0r. C!ua 0in, ma# I invite #our attention to
E@!ibit %, particularl# t!e entr# w!ic! readsD W-o
De 0il -!eatrical Corporation.3 -!is is t!e
corporation w!ic! bou"!t supposedl# t!e motion
picture +lms listed in t!is invoiceY
?I-NESSDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
%. It was not bou"!t b# t!e compan#, sir. It was
onl# entrusted b# *oon" 1ee Pen to be distributed
!ere in t!e P!ilippines.
%--M. *%6RE-%Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
I. So t!at t!e +lms listed !ere .E@!ibit W%3 or
plainti>/ is owned b# *oon" 7ee Pen Compan# o
?I-NESSDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar#
%. Mes sir, and it was onl# entrusted to De 0il
-!eatrical Corporation.
I. -!is De 0il -!eatrical Corporation, is t!is an
e@istin" corporationY
%. Mes, sir.
I. Now, t!ese +lms listed !erein w!ic! numbers )
in all are still owned b# t!e supplier, *oon" 7ee
Pen Compan# o 9on"1on". Do I understand t!en
t!at t!ose +lms w!ic! were supposedl# lost were
not paid or b# De 0il -!eatrical CorporationY
%. It was not paid, sir. It was aut!oriHed to be t!e
distributor but we ta1e responsibilit# o all losses,
o ever#t!in".
I. Now, w!en #our made reerence to Wwe3, #ou
reer actuall# to t!e De 0il -!eatrical CorporationY
%. Mes, sir.
I. Do I understand, t!ereore, t!at #ou, De 0il
-!eatrical Corporation, !as alread# paid or t!e
+lms in cartoons No. <, 5 and ), as speci+ed in t!e
%. It3s not #et paid, sir. .pp. G<:G), Record on
since w!at is important, per !is narration, is t!at
!e assume t!e loss w!ile t!ese +lms are in !is
custod# and t!at !e is accountable eit!er to
*oon" 7ee Pen Compan# or to t!e De 0il
-!eatrical Corporation s!ould !e ail to produce
t!e +lms upon demand. On t!e !#pot!etical
scenario, !ad t!e jud"ment o t!e trial court been
adverse in t!e sense t!at t!e complaint was
ordered dismissed, t!e pecuniar# burden or t!e
loss will certainl# all on private respondent3s
s!oulders, w!ic! obli"ation, it is needless to
stress, will constitute a material and substantial
injur# to !im. ?it!al, anot!er pivotal actor to
consider is t!e letter rom petitioner on %u"ust &',
$JG& addressed to !erein private respondent t!at
;?e are an receipt o #our claim or loss o
ba""a"e in connection wit! #our travel to 0anila
rom 9on"1on" on our 2li"!t. ?e sincerel# re"ret
t!at t!is loss occurred and t!at despite a careul
searc! we !ave been unsuccessul in recoverin"
#our propert#. ?e eel we s!ould settle #our claim
wit!out urt!er dela#.
?e wis! we could compensate #ou or t!e total
amount o #our loss. 9owever, e@istin" rules and
re"ulations establis!ed pursuant to t!e ?arsaw
Convention on International Carria"e b# %ir .as
amended b# t!e 9a"ue Protocol/ limit our liabilit#
or losses o t!is nature to t!e sum o 6SX$A.)(
or ever# 1ilo"ram o c!ec1ed:in ba""a"e. -!e
wei"!t o #our 5 pieces o ba""a"e inclusive o its
contents as stated in t!e Propert# Irre"ularit#
Report .PIR/ and #our tic1et s!ows a total wei"!t
o &( 1ilos. ,ased t!ereon, t!e avera"e wei"!t o
& pieces o #our lost ba""a"e would come out to
$( 1ilos. -!ereore, our ma@imum liabilit# or t!e
& pieces s!ould be or a total amount o
6SX$A).(( .$( 1ilos @ 6SX$A.)(/.
6pon receipt o #our advise, we s!all !ave
pa#ment remitted in #our avor.; .pp. $G:$',
Record on %ppeal/
w!ic! seems to be at least a ailure to object to, i
not an admission o, t!e personalit# o private
respondent to initiate t!e suit below. -!e
assurance made b# petitioner t!at it will
compensate private respondent3s loss is a
suOcient admission t!at indeed, private
respondent !as t!e ri"!t to avail !imsel o t!e
suit or t!e sum o mone#.
It ollows, t!ereore, t!at w!atever testimon# ma#
!ave been e@tracted t!rou"! cross:e@amination
rom C!ua 0in, is o no le"al bearin" to w!at was
e@pressl# conceded previousl# b# petitioner.
Ot!erwise, ?e will in e>ect ta1e t!e cud"els or
petitioner and in t!e process, permit it to e@tricate
itsel rom t!e atal atermat! o an admission as a
tenet under substantive law. O course, t!e plea o
avoidance raised b# petitioner alon" t!is line is
a1in to lac1 o cause o action w!ic! ma# be
utiliHed even or t!e +rst time on appeal .Section
$ ."/, Rule $AE Section &, Rule J, Revised Rules o
Court/, but t!e adjective norm permittin" suc! a
belated deense under Section &, Rule J o t!e
Revised Rules o Court does not totall# rule out
t!e application o ot!er le"al doctrines under
substantive law, li1e estoppel, to t!e elastic
undertones o petitioner.
Now, as to w!et!er petitioner ma# utiliHe t!e
provision under %rticle &&.&/ o t!e ?arsaw
Convention w!ic! limits t!e liabilit# o a common
carrier or loss o ba""a"e, ?e !ave to consider
ot!er salient eatures t!ereo suc! as %rticle 5,
para"rap! $ t!at readsDcralawnad
;2or t!e transportation o ba""a"e, ot!er t!an
small personal objects o w!ic! t!e passen"er
ta1es c!ar"e !imsel, t!e carrier must deliver a
ba""a"e c!ec1.;cralaw virtua$aw librar#
and t!e e@plicit wordin"s o %rticle 5, para"rap! 5
o t!e same Convention
;-!e absence, irre"ularit#, or loss o t!e ba""a"e
c!ec1s s!all not a>ect t!e e@istence or t!e
validit# o t!e contract o transportation w!ic!
s!all nonet!eless be subject to t!e rules o t!is
Convention. Nevert!eless, i t!e carrier accepts
ba""a"e wit!out a ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been
delivered, or i t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 does not
contain t!e particulars set out at .d/, ./, and .!/
above, t!e carrier s!all not be entitled to avail
!imsel o t!ose provisions o t!e Convention
w!ic! e@clude or limit !is liabilit#.;cralaw
virtua$aw librar#
because t!ese a@ioms will spell t!e di>erence
between success and ailure o t!e petition at bar.
It ma# be recalled t!at petitioner made a
cate"orical distinction between a passen"er tic1et
and a ba""a"e c!ec1 w!en petitioner responded
to t!e complaint or a sum o mone# .para"rap!s
G and ', %nswersE pp. A:', Record on %ppealE p. &,
supra/. In its motion or reconsideration beore t!e
court a 8uo, petitioner !ad a sudden c!an"e o
!eart b# assertin" t!at t!e passen"er tic1et and
t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 are one and t!e same t!in" .p.
'$, Record on appeal/. On a later occasion, it
stressed t!at t!e Wba""a"e ta"s3 were erroneousl#
labeled as Wba""a"e c!ec1s3 under para"rap! G o
its %nswer to t!e Complaint .p. <, Repl# ,rie or
t!e PetitionerE p. JG, Rollo/. ,ut t!e 8uestion o
semantics on w!et!er t!e passen"er tic1et, t!e
ba""a"e c!ec1, and t!e ta" reer to t!e same
object is undoubtedl# wit!out le"al si"ni+cance
and will not obliterate t!e act t!at t!e ba""a"e
c!ec1 was not presented b# petitioner in t!e trial
court inasmuc! as it merel# relied on, and
adopted private respondent3s e@!ibits, none o
w!ic! was o>ered or t!e purpose o provin" t!e
missin" lin1, so to spea1 .pp. )G:)', Record on
%ppeal/. -o recti# t!ese lapses, petitioner ar"ued
t!at it is not in a position to introduce t!e
ba""a"e c!ec1 in evidence since private
respondent as passen"er, is t!e one w!o retains
possession t!ereo. Met, suc! pretense does not sit
well wit! w!at is e@pected o petitioner as an air
carrier under %rticle 5 .&/, Section II o t!e ?arsaw
Convention t!atDj"cDc!!
;-!e ba""a"e c!ec1 s!all be made out in
duplicate, one part or t!e passen"er and t!e
ot!er part or t!e carrier.;cralaw virtua$aw librar#
Conse8uentl#, petitioner can not capitaliHe on t!e
limited liabilit# clause under %rticle && .&/ o t!e
?arsaw Convention because o t!e une8uivocal
condition set ort! under t!e second sentence o
%rticle 5, para"rap! 5
;. . . i t!e carrier accepts ba""a"e wit!out a
ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been delivered, a i t!e
ba""a"e c!ec1 does not contain t!e particulars
set out at .d/, ./, and .!/ above, t!e carrier s!all
not be entitled to avail !imsel o t!ose provisions
o t!e Convention w!ic! e@clude or limit !is
liabilit#.;cralaw virtua$aw librar#
Petitioner contends t!at it is covered b# t!e +rst
and not b# t!e second sentence o %rticle 5,
para"rap! 5 .pa"e ', supra/. ,ut t!e ar"ument as
proerred, re8uires 6s to read somet!in" w!ic! is
not so stated between t!e lines or t!e +rst
sentence spea1s onl# o t!e ;e@istence; or t!e
;validit#; o t!e contract o transportation w!ile
t!e 8uer# on ;liabilit#; is particularl# and directl#
resolved b# t!e second sentence. -o be sure, and
even assumin" in "ratia ar"umenti t!at an
inconsistenc# e@ists, t!e +rst sentence must be
construed as t!e "eneral proposition "overnin"
t!e e@istence or validit# o t!e contract o
transportation w!ic! must #ield to t!e particular
rule under t!e second sentence re"ardin" liabilit#.
2urt!ermore, even i ?e consider t!e two
sentences as particular in nature, t!e rule !as
been laid down t!at t!e clause w!ic! comes later
s!all be "iven e>ect upon t!e presumption t!at it
e@presses t!e dominant purpose o t!e instrument
.Cra!am Paper Co. v. National Newspapers %sso.
.0o. %pp./ $J< S.?. $((<E ,arnett v. 0erc!ants3 *.
Ins. Co., 'G O1l. 5&/.
?9ERE2ORE, t!e petition or review is !ereb#
DIS0ISSED or lac1 o merit.