ALITALIA v.

IAC
G.R. 71929 – December 4, 1990
J. Narvasa

Topic: Liabilities under the convention

Doctrine: The Convention’s provisions do not “regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier” or
misconduct of its officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage

Petitioner: Alitalia Airlines

Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Felipa E. Pablo

Case Summary: Dr. Pablo was scheduled to speak at a conference in Ispra, Italy. Upon arriving in Milan, her baggage was
nowhere to be found. In her luggage, she had her personal items, scientific research, and other papers she needed for the
conference. Due to her inability to get the baggage, and Alitalia’s inability to clearly help her out, she felt so discouraged
and embarrassed that she decided to go back to the Philippines without attending the conference. 7 months upon return to
the Philippines, she filed a complaint for damages against Alitalia. From the lower courts up until the Supreme Court, they
all ruled in favor of Dr. Pablo. The SC ruled that given the circumstances of what happened to Dr. Pablo, it cannot be
posited that the limitations of liability provided by the Warsaw Convention shall be applicable to her case. The
Convention’s provisions do not “regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier” or misconduct of
its officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage

Facts:
 Dr. Felipa Pablo was an associate professor in UP, and a research grantee of the Philippine Atomic Energy Agency
o She was invited to take part at a meeting at the Department of Research and Isotopes by the UN in Ispra
Italy; she was scheduled to read her paper on “The Fate of Radioactive Fusion Products Contaminating
Vegetable Crops”
o She then booked a ticket via Alitalia
 She arrived in Milan the day before her meeting, in accordance with the flight itinerary
o Told by Alitalia personnel that her baggage was delayed, and that it was on a flight to Milan from Rome
 Said bags had her clothing, personal items, and her scientific papers and research material
o Because she was already feeling desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate her bags herself
 She looked and inquired about her suitcases in the domestic and international airports, and even
filled out the forms prescribed by Alitalia for people in her predicament  her baggage could not
be found
 Because of this ordeal, she was so distraught that she ended up booking a flight back to Manila
without attending the meeting
 Once back in Manila, she demanded that Alitalia make reparation for the damages she suffered
o They offered her free airline tickets  she rejected
 As it turned out, Prof. Pablo’s suitcases were located and forwarded to Ispra, but only on the day after her scheduled
appearance
o Because she was no longer there to accept the delivery, it was sent back to the Philippines. For some
unknown reason, the suitcases were not actually restored to her until 11 months later, and 4 months after
the institution of her action
 CFI: In favor of Dr. Pablo
o 20,000 in nominal damages, 5,000 in attorney’s fees
 IAC: affirmed the CFI decision + increased award of nominal damages to 40,000

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Alitalia is exempted from liability according to the Warsaw Convention – NO
 Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made liable for damages for:
1) the death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger if the accident causing it took place on board the
aircraft or in the course of its operations of embarking or disembarking;
2) the destruction or loss of, or damage to, any registered luggage or goods, if the occurrence causing it took place
during the carriage by air, and;
3) delay in the transportation by air of passengers, luggage or goods
o In these cases, the Convention provides that the “action for damages, however, founded, can only be
brought subject to conditions and limits set out”
  The convention also purports to limit the liability of the carriers in the following manner:
1) In carriage of passengers, liability of carrier for each passenger is limited to 250,000 francs… nevertheless, by
special contract, the parties may agree to a higher limit of liability
2) a. in the carriage of registered baggage and cargo, the liability of carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per
kg, unless passenger or consignor has made a special declaration and has paid a supplementary sum if the case
so requires. In this case, carrier liable to pay sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that sum is
greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery
b. in the case of loss, damage or delay of part of registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained
therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier’s liability is
limited shall be only the total weight of the package/s concerned. When the loss, damage or delay of a part of
the registered baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered
by the same baggage check or the same air way bill, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be
taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
3) As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to 5000
francs per passenger.
4) The limits prescribe… shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, the whole or
part of the court costs and of the other expenses of litigation incurred by plaintiff…
 The Warsaw Convention, however, denies that the carrier may avail of such limit to liability if the damage is caused
by his willful misconduct or by such default on his part or if the damage is caused by any agent of the carrier acting
within the scope of his employment
 The Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of an airline’s liability, or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability
o There should be deemed a limit of liability only in cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or
destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or attended by any
willful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or
employee for which the carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of
resulting injury
 The Convention’s provisions do not “regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the
carrier” or misconduct of its officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage
o In the case at bar, there was no bad faith or “improper conduct” ascribed to the employees of petitioner;
and the luggage was eventually returned to her although belatedly, without damage
o The fact is, though, some special injury was caused to her because the baggage was misplaced by the
airline, a breach of its contract of carriage, and that she had to experience all the troubles she did in Ispra,
thousands of miles away from home – this caused her great embarrassment, and led the organizers to be
annoyed at her
o Certainly, after undergoing profound distress and anxiety, which gradually turned to panic and despair, the
compensation for her injury cannot under the circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the
Convention for delay in transportation of baggage
 She is not entitled to be compensated for loss or damage to her luggage  since it was found and was in good
condition (although returned late)
o But the Court agrees that she must be given 40,000 in nominal damages and 5,000 in attorney’s fees

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals decision is AFFIRMED.