Cadiz

Transportation Law – Aviation Laws and Warsaw Convention

41.  Cathay Pacific Airways v. Reyes, G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013

Problem: Wilfredo Reyes made a travel reservation with Sampaguita for his family’s trip to
Adelaide, Australia. He was issued 4 Cathay Pacific round trip tickets for Manila-Hong Kong-
Adelaide-Hong Kong-Manila. A week before they were scheduled to fly back to Manila, Wilfredo
reconfirmed his family’s return flight with Cathay Pacific office in Adelaide and was advised that
the reservation was “still okay as scheduled.” The day of their departure came and while at the
airport check-in, a Cathay staff advised Wilfredo that his family did not have confirmed
reservations. Nevertheless, they were allowed to board the flight to Hong Kong. Upon arrival in
Hong Kong, the family was not allowed to board the connecting flight to Manila because iit was
fully booked. They were able to travel only on the next day.
Wilfredo filed a complaint against Cathay and Sampaguita Travel for actual, moral and
exemplary damages arising from breach of contract of carriage.
Cathay claimed that no valid ticket number was inputted by Sampaguita Travel within a
prescribed period which means there was no ticket sold, therefore, it had the right to cancel the
booking. Sampaguita Travel denied responsibility maintaining that it only issued tickets after
Cathay confirmed the booking, and it also alleged that it was not a party to the contract of
carriage.
Question: Is Cathay Pacific liable to Wilfredo?
Yes. Cathay is liable for breach of contract of carriage.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are "persons, corporations, firms,
or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.”
Here, Wilfredo was holding valid and confirmed airplane tickets which in itself is a valid written
contract of carriage whereby for a consideration, Cathay Pacific undertook to carry respondents
in its airplane for a round-trip flight from Manila to Adelaide, Australia and then back to Manila.
In fact, Wilfredo was even assured by a staff of Cathay Pacific a week before his flight that he
does not need to reconfirm his booking. Cathay breached its contract of carriage when it
disallowed them to board the plane in Hong Kong to Manila on the date reflected on their
tickets.
Question: Is Sampaguita Travel liable as a common carrier since it was the one that
issued the tickets?
No, it is not liable as a common carrier. Jurisprudence provides that a travel agency is not a
common carrier as it is not engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods. It’s
covenant with its customers is merely to make travel arrangements on their behalf.
Here, the contract between Sampaguita and Wilfredo is clearly a contract for service. It cannot
be held liable as a common carrier even if it issued the ticket because the only purpose of the
contract is to arrange and facilitate the Wilfredo’s booking and ticketing. However, it is liable for
its failure to exercise due diligence in performing its obligations since it failed to input the correct
ticket number for Wilfredo’s ticket.
Question: What is the liability of Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travels?
They are severally liable for nominal damages only.
Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where
there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever
have been or can be shown.
Here, Wilfredo’s family was denied boarding their return flight from Hong Kong to Manila and
they had to wait in the airport overnight for their return flight, and thus they are deemed to have
technically suffered injury because of the last minute cancellation.