[197] LHUILLIER v.
BRITISH AIRWAYS
G.R. No. 171092 | March 15, 2010 | J. Del Castillo
TOPIC: Air Transportation; The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air (The Warsaw Convention); Conditions on
Imposition of Liability
SUMMARY: Lhuillier filed a case for damages against BA with RTC Makati for the
alleged negative treatment of the flight stewards toward her. BA filed a Motion to
Dismiss, arguing that, under the Warsaw Convention, only courts of London, UK
(BA’s domicile and principal place of business) or Rome, Italy (where contract was
established and place of destination) have jurisdiction over the case and the person.
RTC ruled in BA’s favor, and SC affirmed RTC’s decision.
DOCTRINE: Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that action for
damages may be brought before: (1) the court where the carrier is domiciled; (2) the
court where the carrier has its principal place of business; (3) the court where the
carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made; or (4) the court of
the place of destination.
FACTS:
 February 28, 2005: Edna Diago Lhuillier took British Airways flight 548 from
London to Rome, where she alleged that:
o she requested flight attendant Julian Halliday to assist her in
placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin;
o Halliday refused to help, sarcastically remarking, “if I were to help
all 300 passengers in this flight, I would have a broken back!”;
o Another flight attendant, Nickolas Kerrigan, singled her out from all
passengers in the business class section to lecture on plane safety,
which made her appear to be ignorant, uneducated and stupid; and
o Upon arrival, she asked for an apology from the ground manager,
but was old that the flight stewards were just doing their jobs.
 April 28, 2005: Edna Diago Lhuillier filed for damages against British
Airways: P5M as moral damages, P2M as nominal damages, P1M as
exemplary damages, P300K as attorney’s fees, and P200K as litigation
expenses.
 May 16: Summons and a copy of the complaint was served on BA through
General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airlines Services Violata Echevarria.
 May 30: BA filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over
the case and person of BA, alleging that only London, UK or Rome, Italy
courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention:
o “An action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, either
before the court of domicile of the carrier or his principal place of business,
or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been
made, or before the court of the place of destination.”
 October 14: RTC issued an Order granting BA’s Motion to Dismiss, holding
that, though it sympathizes with the alleged ill-treatment, it must apply the
principles of international law and bound by treaty stipulations entered into
PH.
 January 4, 2006: RTC denied reconsideration; hence, this appeal.
o Petitioner’s Argument: her cause of action arose not from the
contract of carriage, but from the tortious conduct committed by
airline personnel of respondent in violation of the provisions of the
Civil Code on Human Relations. Since her cause of action was not
predicated on the contract of carriage, she has the option to pursue
this case in this jurisdiction pursuant to PH laws.
o Respondent’s Arguments: claim for damages fall within the ambit of
Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention, so it can only be filed
before the courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy.
ISSUES/HOLDING/RATIONALE:
The Warsaw Convention is a treaty commitment voluntary assumed by PH
government and has the force and effect of law in this country.
 Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines: RP is a party to the Warsaw
Convention, took effect and ratified by the Senate, signed by President
Elpidio Quirino and became applicable to PH. President Magsaysay also
issued a proclamation declaring our formal adherence.
The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the alleged
tortious conduct occurred, was between the United Kingdom and Italy, which
are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.
 According to Article 1 of WC, when the place of departure and the place of
destination in a contract of carriage are situated within the territories of two
High Contracting Parties, said carriage is deemed an "international carriage".
The High Contracting Parties referred to herein were the signatories to the
Warsaw Convention and those which subsequently adhered to it.
 ITC, petitioner’s place of departure was London, UK and her place of
destination was Rome, Italy, and both signed and ratified the WC.
o As such, the transport of the petitioner is deemed to be an
"international carriage" within the contemplation of the WC.
Since the Warsaw Convention applies, then the jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action is governed by the provisions of the WC.
 Article 28 (1) of WC provides that action for damages may be brought
before:
o (1) the court where the carrier is domiciled;
o (2) the court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
o (3) the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the
contract has been made; or
o (4) the court of the place of destination.
 ITC, BA is a British corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom with
London as its principal place of business, so under the 1 st and 2nd
jurisdictional rules, she may bring her case before London courts.
 In the passenger ticket and baggage check, it seemed to be issued in Rome,
and the destination is also rule, so under the 3 rd and 4th jurisdictional rule,
she may also bring it before the courts of Rome.
 As such, RTC correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case.
Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines applies in the case.
 WC is jurisdictional in character.
 o Where the matter is governed by the Warsaw Convention,
jurisdiction takes on a dual concept. Jurisdiction in the international RULING: Petition is denied. RTC decision is affirmed.
sense must be established in accordance with Article 28(1) of the
Warsaw Convention, following which the jurisdiction of a particular
court must be established pursuant to the applicable domestic law.
o Only after the question of which court has jurisdiction is determined
will the issue of venue be taken up.
 Santos III is analogous to the instant case because: (1) the domicile of
respondent is London, UK; (2) the principal office of respondent airline is
likewise in London, United Kingdom; (3) the ticket was purchased in Rome,
Italy; and (4) the place of destination is Rome, Italy.
 In addition, petitioner based her complaint on Article 2176, CC on quasi-
delict and Articles 19 and 21, CC on Human Relations.
o In Santos III, petitioner similarly posited that Article 28 (1) of the
Warsaw Convention did not apply if the action is based on tort.
o Hence, contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the factual
setting of Santos III and the instant case are parallel on the material
points.

Tortious conduct as ground for the complaint is within the purview of the WC.
 Lhuillier argues that the cause of action in Santos III was based on a breach
of contract while her cause of action arose from the tortious conduct of the
airline personnel and violation of the CC provisions on Human Relations.
o She also claims that the pronouncement in Santos III that "the
allegation of willful misconduct resulting in a tort is insufficient to
exclude the case from the comprehension of the WC, "is more of an
obiter dictum rather than the ratio decidendi.
 The Court disagrees. Black defines obiter dictum as "an opinion entirely
unnecessary for the decision of the case [not] binding as precedent."
o However, Santos III categorically put in issue the applicability of
Article 28 (1) of WC if the action is based on tort.
 ITC, the allegation of willful misconduct resulting in a tort is insufficient to
exclude the case from the realm of the WC.
o Carey v. US: the "passenger's action against the airline carrier
arising from alleged confrontational incident between passenger
and flight attendant on international flight was governed exclusively
by the Warsaw Convention, even though the incident allegedly
involved intentional misconduct by the flight attendant.”
o Bloom v. Alaska Airlines: WC "created no exception for an injury
suffered as a result of intentional conduct" which in that case
involved a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In seeking remedies from RTC through special appearance of counsel, BA is

not deemed to have voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial
court.
 La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA: a special appearance before the court –
challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even
if the movant invokes other grounds – is not tantamount to estoppel or a
waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and
such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.