Fontanar Facts: Roberto Juntilla was a passenger of a jeepney driven by Berfol Camoro, which was registered under the franchise of Clemente Fontanar and owned by Fernando Banzon. The right rear tire exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Juntilla was seatedin the front and he was thrown out of the vehicle and lost consciousness. When he came to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on his right palm, injuries on his left arm, right thigh and back, and his Omega wristwatch was lost. He filed a case with the City Court of Cebu where judgment was rendered in favor of Juntilla, ordering defendants to pay him damages and reimbursement. The CFI reversed the decision, finding the accident a fortuitous incident and pronouncing them without liability. Issue: W/N the Court committed GAD in failing to take cognizance of the fact that defendants failed to exercise utmost and/or extraordinary diligence required of common carriers contemplated under Art. 1755. Held: There are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respondents. The passenger jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch immediately after its rear tire exploded which shows that the jeepney was running at a very fast speed. It was also overloaded at the time of the accident. The sudden blow-up of the tire could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that it was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident. The accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of the mechanical defects of the tire. The rationale of the carrier‟s liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. The source of a common carrier‟s legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with a due regard for all circumstances. A caso fortuito: (1)The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. (2)It must be impossible to foresee the event constituting the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (3)The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. (4)The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. Necessito, et al. v. Paras, et al. Facts: In the morning of January 28, 1964, Severina Garces and her one-year old son, Precillano Necesito, carrying vegetables, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines at Agno, Pangasinan. The passenger truck, driven by Francisco Bandonell, then proceeded on its regular run from Agno to Manila. After passing Mangatarem, Pangasinan truck No. 199 entered a wooden bridge, but the front wheels swerved to the right; the driver lost control, and after wrecking the bridge's wooden rails, the truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep. The mother, Severina Garces, was drowned; the son, Precillano Necesito, was injured, suffering abrasions and fracture of the left femur. He was brought to the Provincial Hospital at Dagupan, where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of line. The money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables were lost. Two actions for damages and attorney's fees having been filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against the carrier, the latter pleaded that the accident was due to "engine or mechanical trouble" independent or beyond the control of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell. After joint trial, the Court of First Instance found that the bus was proceeding slowly due to the bad condition of the road; that the accident was caused by the fracture of the right steering knuckle, which was defective in that its center or core was not compact but "bubbled and cellulous", a condition that could not be known or ascertained by the carrier despite the fact that regular thirty-day inspections were made of the steering knuckle, since the steel
Ltd. While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers. the trial court. In GR 71478. Eastern Shipping filed a petition for review on certiorari. Eastern Shipping took an appeal to the then Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court. having been subrogated unto the rights of the two insured companies. 5. dismissed both actions. Inc. the rights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws.. the Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appealed directly to this Court in view of the amount in controversy. The respective Insurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values to the consignees concerned and were thus subrogated unto the rights of the latter as the insured. and was due to be inspected again on February 5th..75. destruction or deterioration. consigned to Central Textile Mills. the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code. resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. sometime in or prior to June 1977. [GR 69044] Development Insurance. Japan. he has no remedy against him. holding that the accident was exclusively due to fortuitous event. the manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier. the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. while the carrier has. 199 that broke on January 28. The rationale of the carrier‟s liability is the fact that the passengers has no privity with the manufacturer of the defective equipment.00 consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co. As the cargoes in question were transported from Japan to the Philippines. and 7 cases of spare parts valued at P92.039. the M/S ASIATICA.00.583. as subrogees of the insured. On appeal by Eastern Shipping. usual inspection of the steering knuckle did not measure up to the “utmost diligence of a very cautious person” as “far as human care and foresight can provide” and therefore the knuckle‟s failure cannot be considered a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from responsibility. Enroute for Kobe.385. for US$46. the same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories. and Dowa. and whether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier exercised the diligence required by law (Art. and two cases of surveying instruments consigned to Aman Enterprises and General Merchandise. Thus.. Inc. We find that the defect could be detected. new Civil Code) Held: Yes. Eastern Shipping denied liability mainly on the ground that the loss was due to an extraordinary fortuitous event. Hence. 1954. and that when the loss of fire is established. The 128 cartons were insured for their stated value by Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co. filed suit against Eastern Shipping for the recovery of the insured value of the cargo lost with the then Court of First Instance of Manila. The periodical. Hence. Japan for transportation to Manila. Issues: (1) Law applicable and (2) Burden of Proof Held: (1) The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss. imputing unseaworthiness of the ship and non-observance of extraordinary diligence by Eastern Shipping.00. the vessel caught fire and sank. (GR L-71478) Facts: In GR 69044. is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code. that the knuckle of bus No. IAC (GR L-69044. filed suit against Eastern Shipping for the recovery of the amounts it had paid to the insured before the then Court of First Instance of Manila. consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corporation. Nisshin Fire and Marine Insurance Co.. the petition for review on certiorari by Eastern Shipping. and the 2 cases by Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Issue: Whether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle. during the same period. to Manila. and the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability.exterior was smooth and shiny to the depth of 3/16 of an inch all around. However. Eastern Shipping denied liability on the principal grounds that the fire which caused the sinking of the ship is an exempting circumstance under Section 4(2) (b) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). 1755.000. hence. was last inspected on January 5. 1954.
. that the knuckles are designed and manufactured for heavy duty and may last up to ten years.. a special law. Both sets of goods were insured against marine risk for their stated value with Development Insurance and Surety Corporation. it is not liable under the law. hence. in all matters not regulated by said Code. Eastern Shipping Lines vs.361. the burden of proving negligence of the vessel is shifted to the cargo shipper. [GR 71478] Nisshin. a vessel operated by Eastern Shipping Lines loaded at Kobe.00 because of $500 per package limitation of liability under the COGSA. affirmed with modification the Trial Court‟s judgment by decreasing the amount recoverable by Dowa to US$1. in 2 containers. for US$11. 29 May 1987) Eastern Shipping Lines vs.000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages valued at P256. The Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Development Insurance. The Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Nisshin and Dowa.
the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier. Consequently. lightning or other natural disaster or calamity. Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. or to the person who has a right to receive them. CA Facts: On November 28. Before Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron. Ganzon v.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The appellee failed to establish this. Mayor Jose Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing who sustained injuries. By the said act of delivery. accompanied by three policemen. destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. Common carriers are responsible for the loss. Neither has it been shown that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles. Mauro B. Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza. the petitioner-carrier's extraordinary responsibility for the loss. The burden then is upon Petitioner Carrier to prove that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. The fact remains that the order given by the
. ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked. the court is of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity since it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation. destruction. the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier. Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron. actual or constructive. respondent Court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court and ordering Ganzon to pay damages. The trial court dismissed the case but on appeal. no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. or that it was lawful. Pursuant to Art. It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by lightning or by other natural disaster or calamity. the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. or deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to “flood. Indeed. captain of the lighter. 1956. such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded. according to all the circumstances of each case. The respective Insurers. it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order. for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain's supervision. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles. The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO. 1736.000. Petitioner Carrier cannot escape liability for the loss of the cargo. common carriers. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. Bataan. have proven that the transported goods have been lost. Acting Mayor Basilio Rub. It may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. to the port of Manila on board the lighter LCT “Batman”.” Petitioner Carrier claims that the loss of the vessel by fire exempts it from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity. Bataan. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention in Article 1734. as subrogees of the cargo shippers. storm. Petitioner Carrier has also proved that the loss was caused by fire. The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them. earthquake.(2) Under the Civil Code. Pursuant to that agreement. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods. albeit still unloaded. Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles. Ganzon sent his lighter “Batman” to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water. As the peril of the fire is not comprehended within the exception in Article 1734. by the carrier to the consignee. or that it was issued under legal process of authority. the latter alleged that the goods have not been unconditionally placed under his custody and control to make him liable. Tumabing sued Ganzon. What the court had in the record is the stipulation of the parties that the cargo of scrap iron was accumulated by the appellant through separate purchases here and there from private individuals. Issue: Whether or not a contract of carriage has been perfected Held: Yes. 1956. arrived and demanded P5. unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary deligence required by law. But on December 4. After sometime." However.
and the weight of outraged world opinion may have minimized hijackings but all these have proved ineffective against truly determined hijackers. cash and a wallet in the total amount of P1. World experience shows that if a group of armed hijackers want to take over a plane in flight. „Zaldy‟ and his companion likewise went back to their respective seats in front. told the pilot of the danger of commission of violent acts on board the plane by the notorious „Zaldy and his three companions. results in the death and injury of innocent passengers and crew members.00 out of which recoveries were made amounting to P4. Villarin also came to know from the stewardess that „Zaldy had three companions on board the plane. Capt. the CFI rendered judgment dismissing Quisumbing‟s and Loeffler‟s complaint with costs against them. it is illusive to assume that had these precautions been taken. „Zaldy‟ and one of his companions walked to the rear and stood behind them.. however. came out of the cockpit and sat beside Villarin at the rear portion of the plane and explained that he could not send the message because it would be heard by all ground aircraft stations. The Court affirmed the trial court‟s judgment. Issue: Is PAL liable for damages? Held: No.‟ one of his aliases known to Villarin. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for Ganzon and his representatives to carry out. Soon thereafter an exchange of gunshots ensued between Villarin and „Zaldy‟ and the latter‟s companions. the development of screening procedures. Luis Bonnevie. sensing danger. Quisumbing and Loeffler appealed to the Court of Appeals. the pilot of the plane.550. because a gun had been pointed at him by one of the hold-uppers. After trial. Villarin. a Senior NBI Agent who was also a passenger of the said plane. seated at the front seat near the door leading to the cockpit of the plane. the use of force to overcome hijackers. Bonnevie then stood up and went back to the cockpit. the compilation of hijacker behavioral profiles. CA (GR 50076. suffered shock. to recover the value of the property lost by them to the robbers as well as moral and exemplary damages. Quisumbing vs. the hijacking or the robbery would not have succeeded.acting mayor to dump the scrap iron into the sea was part of the pressure applied by Mayor Jose Advincula to shakedown Tumambing for P5.00. „Zaldy‟ and his companions returned to their seats. Quisumbing. As a result of the incident. The said note was handed by Villarin to the stewardess who in turn gave the same in the pilot. but PAL refused averring that it is not liable to them in law or in fact. Specifically. they can elude the latest combined government and airline industry measures. who was seated at the last seat right row revealed that „Zaldy‟ had used the name „Cardente. stood up and went back to his original seat across the aisle on the second to the last seat near the window. Sr. Capt. Sr. Villarin then scribbled a note addressed to the pilot of the plane requesting the latter to contact NBI duty agents in Manila for the said agents to ask the Director of the NBI to send about 6 NBI agents to meet the plane because the suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez was on board. The mandatory use of the most sophisticated electronic detection devices and magnetometers. 1968 which left Mactan City at about 7:30 in the evening with Manila for its destination. was divested of jewelries and cash in the total amount of P18. Sr.” Quisumbing and Loeffler have come up to the Supreme Court praying that the judgments of the trial Court and the Court of Appeals be reversed and another rendered in their favor. „Zaldy‟ announced to the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit that it was hold-up and ordered the pilot not to send any SOS.00. Upon landing at the Manila International Airport. Zaldy and his three companions succeeded in escaping. attorney‟s fees and expenses of litigation.00. Norberto Quisumbing. Insisting that the evidence demonstrates negligence on the part of the PAL crew “occurring before and exposing them to hijacking. And as the case in Zamboanga City illustrates. While the pilot and Villarin were talking. Florencio O. Quisumbing and Loeffler brought suit against PAL in the CFI of Rizal. Villarin. The Court is not in the least bit suggesting that the Philippine Airlines should not do everything humanly possible to protect passengers from
. A check by Villarin with the passenger‟s ticket in the possession of flight Stewardess Annie Bontigao. Demands were thereafter made on PAL by Quisumbing and Loeffler to indemnify them on their loss.000.700. Gunther Loeffler was divested of a wrist watch. but after a few minutes they moved back to the rear throwing ugly looks at Villarin who.650. which was about 15 minutes after take off. the imposition of severe penalties. noticed a certain „Zaldy. The hold-uppers divested the passengers of their belongings. After the plane had taken off. Jr. 14 September 1990) Facts: Norberto Quisumbing. After receiving the note. and Gunther Loeffler were among the passengers of PAL‟s Fokker „Friendship‟ PIC-536 plane in its flight of November 6.‟ a suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez. the assignment of sky marshals.
PanAm World Airways vs.000. For fear that he would miss the plane if he insisted and argued on personally taking the valise with him. (Article 4. the baggage check is combined with the passenger ticket in one document of carriage. PanAm exerted efforts to locate the luggage through the Pan American World Airways-Manila International Airport (PAN AM-MIA) Baggage Service. Rapadas claimed and was given all his checked-in baggages except the attache case. the acts of the airline and its crew cannot be faulted as negligence. He also sent letters demanding and reminding the petitioner of his claim. Rapadas (GR 60673. Cooperation with the hijackers until they released their hostages at the runway end near the South Superhighway was dictated by the circumstances. 19 May 1992) Facts: On 16 January 1975. Rapadas protested pointing to the fact that other co-passengers were permitted to handcarry bulkier baggages. Rapadas was ordered by PanAm‟s handcarry control agent to check-in his Samsonite attache case. One passenger was in fact killed and another survived gunshot wounds. 1(c) which provides: “(1) In respect of the carriage of passengers a ticket shall be delivered containing: xxx (c) a notice to the effect that.403. Refusing to accept this kind of settlement. He also alleged that PanAm neglected its duty in the handling and safekeeping of his attache case from the point of embarkation in Guam to his destination in Manila. Panuelos. Jose K. its failure to take certain steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been taken is not the negligence or misconduct which mingles with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause. The trial court ordered PanAm to pay Rapadas by way of actual damages the equivalent peso value of the amount of $5.228. Upon arriving in Manila on the same date.00. Under the circumstance of the instant case.90. he called up Mr. The court rejected the claim of PanAm that its liability under the terms of the passenger ticket is only up to $160. the same man in charge of handcarry control did not fail to notice him and ordered him again to register his baggage. the petition for review. He placed the value of the lost attache case and its contents at US$42. nominal damages in the amount of P20. it scrutinized all the claims of Rapadas. if the passenger‟s journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a country other than the country of departure.90 and 100 paengs (Tongan money). Rapadas filed the instant action for damages alleging that PanAm discriminated or singled him o ut in ordering that his luggage be checked in. However. Issue: Should PanAm be liable for the loss of the attaché case? Held: The Warsaw Convention governs the availment of the liability limitations where the baggage check is combined with or incorporated in the passenger ticket which complies with the provisions of Article 3. The lower court ruled in favor of complainant Rapadas after finding no stipulation giving notice to the baggage liability limitation. While standing in line to board the flight at the Guam airport. Rapadas received a letter from PanAm‟s counsel offering to settle the claim for the sum of $160. However. The Court merely states that where the defendant has faithfully complied with the requirements of government agencies and adhered to the established procedures and precautions of the airline industry at any particular time. Hence. He then gave his attache case to his brother who happened to be around and who checked it in for him.‟s (PanAm) Flight 841 with the route from Guam to Manila. The passenger ticket complies with Article 3. It discredited insufficient evidence to show discriminatory acts or bad faith on the part of PanAm. par.00. but without declaring its contents or the value of its contents.000. The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew were more important than their properties. Rapadas personally followed up his claim. the Warsaw Convention may be applicable and that the Convention governs and in most cases limits the liability of carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to baggage. They required Rapadas to put the request in writing. On appeal. Rapadas rode Pan American World Airways Inc. par. the head of the Baggage Section of PAN AM. Thereafter. 1(c). par. 2) Herein.hijackers' acts. He stepped out of the line only to go back again at the end of it to try if he can get through without having to register his attache case.”
. and the costs of the suit.00 and attorney‟s fees of P5. The hijackers had already shown their willingness to kill. The trial court also dismissed PanAm‟s counterclaim. he acceded to checking it in. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. For several times.00 representing PanAm‟s alleged limit of liability for loss or damage to a passenger‟s personal property under the contract of carriage between Rapadas and PANAM.
In Hong Kong. China Airlines v. It may be noted that out of a claim for US$42. the alleged lack of enough time for him to make a declaration of a higher value and to pay the corresponding supplementary charges cannot justify his failure to comply with the requirement that will exclude the application of limited liability.
. that an amount of $400. with the former endorsing to PAL the Hong Kong-to-Manila segment of the journey. In Taipei.403. The fair liability under PanAm‟s own printed terms is $400. it will always be the word of a passenger against that of the airline.00 as a higher value was not declared in advance and additional charges were not paid. In attempting to avoid registering the luggage by going back to the line. or printed elsewhere but referred to in handouts or forms. The Court notes. Teves. Chiok went to PAL office to confirm his Manila flight. It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was between petitioner and respondent. Since the checking-in was against the will of Rapadas. This jurisprudential rule is supported by the Warsaw Convention. Had he not wavered in his decision to register his luggage. indicating that flight was OK. affirmed by Court of Appeals. the Court will not hesitate to disregard the fine print in a contract of adhesion.228. PAL confirmed and attached its own sticker. he could have had enough time to disclose the true worth of the articles in it and to pay the extra charges or remove them from the checked-in-luggage. the Court treats the lost bag as partaking of involuntarily and hurriedly checked-in luggage and continuing its earlier status as unchecked luggage. Chiok (GR 152122 30 July 2003) Facts: Daniel Chiok purchased a ticket from China Airlines Ltd. upon contracting with the airline and receiving the plane ticket. If the passenger fails to adduce evidence to overcome the stipulations. however. was expected to be vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. The conclusion of the trial court does not arise from the facts. if not impossibility. Rapadas actually refused to register the attache case and chose to take it with him despite having been ordered by the PanAm agent to check it in. he cannot avoid the application of the liability limitations.750. Issue: Whether or not China Airline is liable as a principal carrier? Held: Yes. The Regional Trial Court held that CAL and PAL jointly and severely liable to correspondent. The lost luggage was declared as weighing around 18 pounds or approximately 8 kilograms.The provisions in the plane ticket sufficient to govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline for loss of luggage.00 in cash could have been placed inside. Herein. Chiok filed a complaint for damages. That the attache case was originally handcarried does not beg the conclusion that the amount of $4. The court had doubts as to the total claim. Rapadas manifested a disregard of airline rules on allowable handcarried baggages. At $20. an airplane will not depart meantime that its own employee is asking a passenger to comply with a safety regulation. the trial court found for only US$5. to which the Philippines is a party. Unless the contents are declared. Moreover.00 per passenger is allowed for unchecked luggage. PR 307. By no means is it suggested that passengers are always bound to the stipulated amounts printed on a ticket.00 per kilogram. CAL attached a yellow sticker. it was cancelled due to a typhoon. found in a contract of adhesion. a PAL employee informed Chiok that his name did not appear in PAL‟s computer list of passengers and therefore could not be permitted to board PAL flight no. (See Sweet Lines Inc.90 as the amount lost.90 and 100 paengs. and by the existing practices of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Philippine Airlines. If the loss of life or property is caused by the gross negligence or arbitrary acts of the airline or the contents of the lost luggage are proved by satisfactory evidence other than the self-serving declarations of one party. the Court is constrained to rule that it has to enforce the contract as it is the only reasonable basis to arrive at a just award. Moreover. Prudence of a reasonably careful person also dictates that cash and jewelry should be removed from checked-in-luggage and placed in one‟s pockets or in a hand-carried Manila-paper or plastic envelope. All confirmed ticket holders were booked automatically for it‟s next flight (next day). The trips covered by the ticket were pre-scheduled and confirmed.00. During the scheduled flight bound to Manila. However on the following day. Such contract of carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a single operation. Pan Am offered to pay $160. supra) Otherwise. Chiok went to CAL office to confirm his Hong Kong-Manila flight. of establishing with a clear preponderance of evidence the contents of a lost valise or suitcase. The Court simply recognize that the reasons behind stipulations on liability limitations arise from the difficulty. v. The passenger. Covering Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-Manila.
even when the breach of contract had occurred.In American Airlines v. the petitioner in British Airways v. as the principal in the contract of carriage. not on its own flight. in which we had held that the obligation of the ticket-issuing airline remained and did not cease. we also rule that CAL cannot evade liability to respondent. following the jurisprudence cited above. In the same way that we ruled against British Airways and Lufthansa in the aforementioned cases. PAL acted as the carrying agent of CAL. Court of Appeals was held liable. the Court has noted that under a general pool partnership agreement.
. even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector. Likewise. the ticket-issuing airline is the principal in a contract of carriage. regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to carry the passengers to one of their destinations. but on that of another airline. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. The Decision followed our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines v. while the endorsee-airline is the agent. In the instant case.