UNITED AIRLINES, INC VS.

CA
G.R. No. 124110; April 20, 2001

FACTS:
Aniceto Fontanilla bought from United Airlines,through the Philippine Travel Bureau in Manila,
three “Visit the U.S.A.” tickets from himself, his wife and his minors on, Mychal, to visit
the cities of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles.All flights had been confirmed
previously by United Airlines.
Having used the first coupon to DC and while at the Washington Dulles Airport, Anice to
changed their itinerary, paid the penalty for rewriting their tickets and was issued tickets
with corresponding boarding passes with the words: “Check-in-required.” They were
then set to leave but were denied boarding because the flight was overbooked. The CA
ruled that private respondents’ failure to comply with the check-in requirement will not defeat his claim as
the denied boarding rules were not complied with applying the laws of the USA, relying on the Code of
Federal Regulation Part on Oversales of  the USA

ISSUE:
WON the CA is correct in applying the laws of USA.

HELD:
No. According to the doctrine of “lex loci contractus”, the law of the place where a contract is made or
entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation shall govern. This
has been said to be the rule even though the place where the contract was made is different from the place
where it is to be performed. Hence, the court should apply the law of the place where the airline ticket was
issued, where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such
State by the defendant airline. Therefore, although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the
United States, the tickets were purchased through petitioner’s agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were
"rewritten" in D.C.,however, such fact did not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered
Into by the parties in Manila.

Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation v. NLRC

Gr. No. L- 66006

Facts:
The shipboard employment contract was executed in this country between Pancho
andBagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation, the local agent of Golden Star Shipping. It
wasapproved by the defunct National Seamen Board. Pancho was hired as an oiler in
the M/V Olivine for 12 months with a gross monthly wage of US $195.

He had a cerebral stroke. He was rushed to the hospital while the vessel was docked at

Gothenberg, Sweden. He was repatriated to the Philippines and confined at the
SanJuan de Dios Hospital and thereafter died. The National Seamen Board awarded
his widow, Proserfina, P20,000 as disability compensation benefits pursuant to the
above-mentioned employment contract plus P2,000 as attorney's fees. Proserfina
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission which awarded her $621 times
36 months or its equivalent in Philippine currency plus 10% of the benefits as attorney's
fees. Golden Star Shipping assailed that decision by
certiorari 
.
Issue
Whether or not the shipboard employment contract or Hongkong law should govern the
amount of death compensation due to the wife of Guillermo Pancho who was employed
by Golden Star Shipping, Ltd., a Hongkong based firm.

Held:
We hold that the shipboard employment contract is controlling in this case. The contract
provides that the beneficiaries of the seaman are entitled to P20,000 "over and above
the benefits" for which the Philippine Government is liable under Philippine law.
Hongkong law on workmen's compensation is not the applicable law. The case of
Norse Management Co. vs. National Seamen Board , G. R. No. 54204, September 30, 1982,
117SCRA 486 cannot be a precedent because it was expressly stipulated in the
employment contract in that case that the workmen's compensation payable to the
employee should be in accordance with Philippine Law or the Workmen's Insurance
Law of the country where the vessel is registered "whichever is greater". The Solicitor
General opines that the employment contract should be applied. For that reason, he
refused to uphold the decision of the NLRC.