PAL v.

Savillo
G.R. 149547 – July 4, 2008
J. Chico-Nazario

Topic: Conditions on imposition of liability

Doctrine: The Warsaw Convention does not “exclusively regulate” the relationship between passenger and carrier on an
international flight. The Court distinguished between (1) (for example) delays or damage to passenger’s baggage and (2)
humiliation suffered at the hands of the airline’s employees. The first COA is covered by the Warsaw Convention which
prescribes in 2 years, while the 2nd is covered by the Civil Code on torts (prescribes in 4 years).

Petitioner: Philippine Airlines Inc.

Respondents: Hon. Adriano Savillo, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 30, Iloilo City, and Simplicio Griño

Case Summary: Griño and his companions had a scheduled flight to Jakarta. Their tickets were from MNL-SG-SG-Jakarta.
Upon arrival in SG, they would board a Singapore Airlines flight to make their way to Indonesia. SG Airlines refused them
and said that they were never endorsed by PAL, and so they could not get on the flight using the tickets they had purchased.
After so much drama and humiliation ensued, the group finally purchased tickets from Garuda airlines. However, in
addition to their ordeal in SG, they arrived in Jakarta so late, that some of the team members got sick and were unable to
participate in the event they had gone there for. Upon returning to the Philippines, Griño sent a demand letter to both
airlines, but only filed a complaint years after. PAL contends that the Warsaw Convention should apply and so the statute of
limitations bars the present action. The Court negated this and said that due to the nature of the case, it is not the Warsaw
Convention that applies, but the Civil Code provisions on torts.

Facts:
 Simplicio Griño was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Seniors Annual Golf Tournament held in Jakarta,
Indonesia
o He and several companions purchased tickets from PAL  Manla – Singapore – Jakarta – Singapore –
Manila
o Griño and his companions were told that PAL would take them from MNL – SG, then Singapore Airlines
would take them from SG to Jakarta
 October 3, 1993: private respondent and companions took the PAL flight to SG and arrived at about 6pm
o They then tried to check in with Singapore Airlines, but they were rejected  they were not endorsed by
PAL
 SG Airlines explained that if they were to honor the passengers without PAL’s endorsement, then
PAL would not pay the former for their passage
 Group tried to contact PAL’s office, but they were closed
o Stranded at the SG airport with no recourse, the group was in a panic and at a loss where to go  subjected
to humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, serious anxiety, fear and distress
o Eventually the group boarded a flight on Garuda airlines bound for Jakarta
 Because this flight was later than their scheduled SG airlines flight, the party who was supposed
to fetch them already left
 Because of all that happened, private respondent became ill and was unable to participate in the
tournament
 Upon return to Philippines, Griño brought the matter to the attention of PAL
o Sent a demand letter to both PAL and SG  both disowned liability and blamed each other
o Filed a complaint for damages with the RTC
 Instead of filing an Answer, PAL filed a Motion to Dismiss  on the ground that the complaint
was barred on ground of prescription under Section 1 (f) of the Rules of Court
 PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, particularly Article 29, governed this case 
law provides that any claim for damages in connection with the international
transportation of persons is subject to the prescription period of 2 years (complaint was
filed August 15, 1997, more than 3 years after PAL received the demand letter on
January 25, 1994)
 RTC: Denied MTD  ruled in favor of Griño; that the provisions of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws of the
Philippines were applicable
 CA: Affirmed Order of the RTC
Issues + Held:
1. W/N the provisions of the Warsaw Convention apply in this case – NO
 The Warsaw Convention applies to “all international transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by any
aircraft for hire”
o This law seeks to accommodate or balance the interests of passengers seeking recovery for personal
injuries and the interests of air carriers seeking to limit potential liability
 Employs a scheme of strict liability favoring passengers and imposing damage caps to benefit
air carriers
 Cardinal purpose of convention: provide uniformity of rules governing claims arising from
international air travel; thus, it precludes a passenger from maintaining an action for personal
injury damages under local law when his or her claim does not satisfy the conditions of liability
under the Convention
o Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention provides for liability on the part of a carrier for “damages occasioned
by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods”
o Article 24 excludes other remedies by providing that “(1) in the cases covered by Articles 18 and 19, any
action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in
this convention”
 This means that, a claim covered by the Warsaw Convention can no longer be recovered under
local law if the statute of limitations of two years has already lapsed
o Nevertheless, the Court notes that jurisprudence in the Philippines and the US also recognizes that
the Warsaw Convention does not “exclusively regulate” the relationship between passenger and
carrier on an international flight
 The case at bar is similar to other cases in which the damages sought were considered to be
outside the coverage of the Convention
 United Airlines v. Uy – Court distinguished between (1) damage to passenger’s baggage and
(2) humiliation suffered at the hands of the airline’s employees  first COA covered by the
Warsaw Convention which prescribes in 2 years, while the 2nd was covered by the Civil Code
on torts (prescribes in 4 years)
 Mahaney v. Air France – a passenger was denied access to a flight between NY and Mexico
despite having a confirmed reservation  Court ruled that if passenger was to claim damages
solely on delay experienced – for instance, costs of renting a van or lodging – complaint
would be barred by the 2-year statute of limitations. However, the plaintiff alleged that the
airline subjected her to unjust discrimination, an act punishable under the US laws, then
plaintiff may claim purely nominal compensatory damages for humiliation and hurt feelings
 not provided for by the Warsaw Convention
 In the case at bar, Griño’s complaint alleged that both PAL and SG Airlines were guilty of gross negligence which
resulted in his being subjected to “humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, etc.”
o The emotional harm he suffered from the treatment of PAL and SG Airlines should be distinguished from
the actual damages which resulted from the same incident
 Under the Civil Code provisions on tort, such emotional harm gives rise to compensation where
gross negligence or malice is proven
o SG claims that they merely barred private respondents from boarding the flight because of PAL’s failure to
endorse the tickets despite PAL’s assurance that the respondents were already confirmed and endorsed
 While this needs to be heard and established by adequate proof before the RTC, the action in the
case at bar are based on allegations that do not fall under the Warsaw Convention, since the
purported negligence of PAL did not occur during the performance of the contract of carriage, but
days before scheduled flight  thus, not covered by Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention
 Had case merely consisted of claims incidental to airline delays, it would have been time-barred
 The claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort
o Article 1146 of the Civil Code provides that the following actions must be instituted within four years: (1)
Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict
 The demand happened on January 25, 1995, and the case was filed on August 15, 1997  less than 4 years

Ruling: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED.