You are on page 1of 1

British Airways v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121824
On April 6, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relative in Bombay, India. In anticipation of
his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr. Gemar to prepare his travel plan. Since british
Airways had no ticket flights from Manila to Bombay, Maktani had to take a connecting flight to
Bombay on board British Airways. Prior to his departure, Maktani checked in the PAL counter in
Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothing and personal effects, confident that upon
reaching Hong Kong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay,
Unfortunately, when Maktani arrived in Bombay, he discovered that his luggage was missing and
that upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been diverted
to London. After plaintiff waiting for his luggage for one week, BA finally advised him to file a
claim accomplishing the property.
Whether or not defendant BA is liable for compulsory damages and attorneys fee, as well
as the dismissal of its third party complaint against PAL
The contract of transportation was exclusively between Maktani and BA. The latter merely
endorsing the Manila to Hong Kong log of the formers journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or
agent. Conditions of contacts was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay.
The Court of Appeals should have been cognizant of the well-settled rule that an agent is also
responsible for any negligence in the performance of its function and is liable for damages which
the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act. Since the instant petition was based on
breach of contract of carriage, Maktani can only sue BA and not PAL, since the latter was not a
party in the contract.