You are on page 1of 2

CHINA AIRLINES V CHIOK journey, and quoted KLM v CA in support of the same (regarding Art.

30, Warsaw
30 July 2003 | Panganiban, J. | Contract of Adhesion Convention on transportation to be performed by various successive carriers).
PETITIONER: China Airlines
RESPONDENT Daniel Chiok ISSUE: WoN the CA erroneously held CAL liable based on KLM v CA – NO
SUMMARY: Chiok purchased a ticket from CAL for a Manila-Taipei-HK-Manila HELD: Petition denied.
trip, exclusively endorsable to PAL. When he sought to take his HK-Manila flight,
PAL failed to accommodate him on his previously confirmed flight and lost several RATIO:
items of his property in the process. Chiok sued both CAL and PAL. CAL argued 1. The CA did commit a lapse when it relied merely on the SC’s unofficial syllabus
that it had merely acted as an issuing agent for the HK-Manila leg of the trip and of its ruling in KLM v CA*, as lawyers and litigants are mandated to quote decisions
claimed that the CA had erroneously held it liable on a misquotation of the KLM v of the SC accurately. But as the case is not administrative in nature, the SC did not
CA ruling. The SC ruled against CAL. rule on the SC’s administrative liability, if any. Notwithstanding the CA’s errant
quotation, the assailed decision was supported in substance by KLM v CA.
DOCTRINE: Transportation to be performed by single air carriers has been treated 2. The contract of air transportation was between CAL and Chiok, with the former
in this jurisdiction as a single operation, as supported by the Warsaw Convention and endorsing to PAL the HK-to-Manila segment. Such contract of carriage has always
the IATA’s Recommended Practices. been treated in this jurisdiction as a single operation. This jurisprudential rule is
FACTS: supported by the Warsaw Convention, to which the Philippines is a party, and by the
1. Chiok purchased an airline passenger ticket from China Airlines Ltd. (CAL) for existing practices of the International Air Transportation Association (IATA).
air transportation from Manila-Taipei-HK-Manila, exclusively endorsable to PAL. 3. Art 1, Sec 3, Warsaw Convention: “Transportation to be performed by several
He took the trip on 21 Nov 1981 from Manila to Taipei, after pre-scheduling and successive air carriers shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be
confirming the trips covered. When he arrived in Taipei, he went to the CAL office one undivided transportation, if it has been regarded by the parties as a single
and confirmed his HK to Manila trip on board a PAL flight, and the CAL office operation, whether it has been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a
attached a yellow sticker appropriately indicating that his flight status was OK. series of contracts, and it shall not lose its international character merely because one
2. When Chiong reached HK, he went to the PAL office and sought to reconfirm his contract or a series of contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory subject
flight to Manila. The PAL office confirmed his return trip on board a flight and to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting
attached its own sticker. On 24 Nov 1981, Chiok went to HK International Airport Party.” ; Art 15, IATA-Recommended Practice: “Carriage to be performed by
for his return trip to Manila. But on reaching the PAL counter, he saw a poster several successive carriers under one ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction
stating that the flight was cancelled because of a typhoon in Manila. He was told that ticket issued therewith, is regarded as a single operation.”
all the confirmed ticket holders of the flight were automatically booked for its next 4. Under a general pool partnership agreement, the ticket-issuing airline is the
flight, which was to leave the next day. He informed PAL personnel that, being the principal in a contract of carriage, while the endorsee-airline is the agent. This
founding director of the Phil Polysterene Paper Corp., he had to reach Manila on the relationship was discussed by the SC in multiple cases. In American Airlines v CA,
25th because of a business option he had to execute on said date. the SC noted that IATA members are under a general pool partnership agreement
3. On the 25th, Chiok was told he could not be accommodated on his intended flight wherein they act as each other’s agents in ticket issuances to contracted passengers,
as his name was not on the computer list of passengers. He was forced to take and thus, the airline which constitutes itself as an agent of the principal carrier should
another flight even though the officer who had previously confirmed his reservation be taken as a part of a single operation under the contract of carriage executed by the
told him his name was in fact on the list and pointed his computer number was listed principal and the respondent; and in British Airways v CA, the principal in a contract
on the confirmation sticker on his ticket. In the process, he lost a piece of luggage of carriage was held liable even when the breach of contract had occurred, not on its
containing cosmetics worth about HK$14k; and a clutch bag which contained the ff: own flight, but on that of another airline. In Lufthansa v CA, the SC held that the
(1) $2k; (2) HK $2k; (3) Taipei $8k; (4) P2k; (5) a 3-piece set of 18 carat gold cross obligation of the ticket-issuing airline remained and did not cease, regardless of the
pens worth P1.8k; (6) a P7.5k Cartier watch; (7) a P1.8k tie pin with a garnet fact that another airline had undertaken to carry the passengers to one of their
birthstone and diamond; and (8) a pair of Christian Dior reading glasses. destinations. Here, PAL acted as CAL’s carrying agent. CAL cannot evade liability
6. Chiok filed a complaint against PAL and CAL for damages, alleging that despite to Chiok, even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the HK-Manila
several confirmations, PAL refused to accommodate him on his original flight, for sector.
which reason he lost his business option; and that PAL’s personnel, specifically one
Carmen, ridiculed and humiliated him in the presence of many people. The RTC held * “By the very nature of their contract, defendant-appellant CAL is clearly liable under the contract of
carriage with [respondent] and remains to be so, regardless of those instances when actual carriage was to
CAL and PAL jointly and severally liable. The CA affirmed, debunking CAL’s be performed by another carrier. The issuance of a confirmed CAL ticket in favor of [respondent]
claim that it had merely acted as an issuing agent for the HK-Manila leg of the covering his entire trip abroad concretely attests to this. This also serves as proof that defendant-appellant

” .CAL. in effect guaranteed that the carrier. such as defendant-appellant PAL would honor his ticket. assure him of a space therein and transport him on a particular segment of his trip.