You are on page 1of 2

Santos v Northwest Orient Airlines

GR 101538; June 23, 1992
Ponente: J. Cruz

Francisco. The contract between the parties indicates that NOA was
bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from Manila.
Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed stopping
place and not the destination.

FACTS: The petitioner Augusto Santos III is a minor and a resident
of the Philippines. Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign
corporation with principal office in Minnesota, U.S.A. and licensed to
do business in the Philippines. Petitioner purchased from NOA a
round-trip ticket in San Francisco for his flight from San Francisco to
Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from
Tokyo was December 20, 1986 but no date was specified for his
return to San Francisco.

Article 1(2) also draws a distinction between a "destination" and an "agreed
stopping place." It is the "destination" and not an "agreed stopping place" that
controls for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under the Convention.

On December 19, 1986, the petitioner checked in at the NOA
counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to
Manila. Despite a previous confirmation, he was informed that he
had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore
had to be wait-listed.
Hence, the petitioner sued NOA for damages. NOA contended that
the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the
High Contracting Parties based on Article 28(1) of the Warsaw
Convention.

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
case
HELD: No. The case at hand does not fall within those territories
enumerated by Article 28(1). The place of destination, is determined
by the terms of the contract of carriage. Examination of the
petitioner's ticket shows that his ultimate destination is San

CHINA AIRLINES vs. DANIEL CHIOK
G.R. No. 152122; July 30, 2003
Ponente: J. Panganiban

Facts:
Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL) airline passenger
ticket for transportation covering Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila. Said ticket
was exclusively endorseable to Philippine Airlines, Ltd. (PAL). When he
arrived in Taipei, he went to the CAL office and confirmed his Hongkong to
Manila trip. The CAL office attached a yellow sticker appropriately indicating
that his flight status was OK. When Chiok reached Hongkong, he went to the
PAL office and sought to reconfirm his flight back to Manila. The PAL office
confirmed his return trip and attached its own sticker.
At the airport, PAL’s employee named Carmen did not allow Chiok to board
because his name was not listed in the list of passengers, despite
confirmations. Chiok the proceeded to PAL office to have his ticket confirmed.
When he went back to the airport, he was allowed to board after waiting for
some time. While in the insuing commotion, Chiok lost his clutch bag with his
valuables in there. He then filed for damages against CAL.
Issue: Whether or not CAL is liable for the actions of PAL.
Held: Yes. It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was
between CAL and respondent, with the former endorsing to PAL the trip. Such
contract of carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a single

. CAL cannot evade liability to respondent. even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.operation. Thus. to which the Philippines is a party. This jurisprudential rule is supported by the Warsaw Convention. It is also a generally accepted rule that the ticket issuing airline is considered as the principal of a contract of carriage. while the endorsee is the agent. PAL acted as the carrying agent of CAL.