AMERICAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. BERNARD L. SALAS and DEMOCRITO MENDOZA, respondents
G.R No. 116044-45. March 9, 2000
Facts:
Private respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila conjunction tickets from Manila-Singapore-Athens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-New York. In Geneva, he decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and go straight to New York. In the absence of a direct flight under his conjunction tickets from Geneva to New York, he exchanged the unused portion of the conjunction ticket for a one way ticket from Geneva to New York from American Airlines, which issued its own ticket to respondent in Geneva and claimed the value of the unused portion of the conjunction ticket from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) clearing house in Geneva. In September, 1989, respondent filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva Airport when American Airline’s security officers prevented him from boarding the plane.
Issue:
Whether or not the issuance of American Airlines of a new ticket in exchange of the conjunction ticket the respondent purchased in Manila bar him from seeking recourse in Philippine courts.
Ruling:
The petitioner contends that under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention, action for damages may only be brought upon the following courst:
a.) Domicile of the carrier
b.) Carrier’s principal place of business
c.) Place where carrier has a place of business
d.) Place of destination
Since neither of these elements is present in the case, the petitioner contends that plaintiff cannot file the case in the Philippines. He further posits that the second contract cannot be deemed as an extension of the first as the petitioner airline is not a participating airline in any of the destinations under the first contract.
Respondent on the other hand contends that the second contract she entered into at Geneva is part and parcel of the first contract, thus the third option under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention would apply to him. He further pointed out that petitioner cannot deny the contract of agency with Singapore Airlines after it honored the conjunction tickets issued by the latter.
The court ruled that petitioner’s argument is void of merit with reference to Article 1(3) of the Warsaw Convention. According to the said article, transportation to be performed by several carriers shall be deemed as one and undivided. The number of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of the contract of carriage. Hence, the third option of the plaintiff under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention is clothed with jurisdiction.
