PAL vs. Hon. Adriano Savillo, et. al. G.R. No. 149547 July 04, 00! 00! "H#"$%NA&AR#$, "H#"$%NA&AR#$, J.' ($P#" #N S )LLA*+S' The Warsaw Convention Applicability Applicability S+AR) ' Grino, wanting to participate in a golf tournament to be held in Jakarta, booked tickets with PA for !anila"#ingapore"Jakarta"#ingapore"!anila, with PA to take charge of the !anila" #ingapore #ingapore leg and #ingapore Airlines to take charge of the #ingapore"Jakarta #ingapore"Jakarta leg$ %owever, upon arrival at #ingapore, Grino was informed by #ingapore Airlines that it could not honor the tickets presented because PA had not endorsed them$ While Grino and his companions were able to secure a &ight with another airline, the ordeal caused Grino to fall ill and he was unable to participate in the golf tournament$ ' years later, Grino (led a complaint praying for the award of moral damages against PA, for the emotional harm allegedly su)ered by him as a result of having been unreasonably and un*ustly prevented from boarding the plane$ PA (led a !t+, arguing that the Warsaw Convention was applicable and under that Convention, the complaint had had alread already y presc prescrib ribed ed,, having having been been (led (led beyond beyond the the - year year presc prescrip riptiv tive e period period provi provided ded therein$ The .TC denied the !t+, holding that the /CC not the Warsaw Convention was appli applicab cable, le, thus, thus, the the compla complain intt had had not not yet presc prescri ribed bed$$ The CA dis dismis missed sed the petiti petition on for Certiorari (led by PA$
0+121/A3 Article 45 of the Warsaw Convention provides for the liability on the part of a carrier for 6damages occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods$7 Article -8 e9cludes other remedies by further providing that 6:4; in the other cases covered by Articles 4< and 45, any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought brought sub*ect to the conditions and limits set out in the convention$7 Therefore, a claim covered by the Warsaw Convention can no longer be recovered under local law, if the statute of limitations of two years has already lapsed$ /evertheless, the Court notes that *urisprudence in the Philippines and the =nited #tates also recogni>es that the Warsaw Convention does not 6e9clusively regulate7 the relationship between passenger and carrier on an international &ight$ The Court (nds that the present case is substantially similar to cases in which the damages sought were considered to be outside the coverage of the Warsaw Convention$ 0+121/ 0+121/A3 A3 1n =nite =nited d Airli Airlines nes v$ =y, the Court Court +istin +istingu guish ished ed betwee between n the the :4; damag damage e to the the passenger?s passenger?s baggage and :-; the humiliation he su)ered at the hands of the airline?s employees$ The (rst cause of action was covered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribes in two years, while the second was covered by the provisions of the Civil Code on torts, which prescribes in four years$ %ad the present case merely constituted of claims incidental to the airline?s delay in transporting their passengers, Grino?s Complaint would have been time"barred under Article -5 of the Warsaw Convention$
-A"(S' Grino, who was about to participate in a golf tournament tournament in Jakarta, purchased purchased tickets from PA with the following points of passage@ !anila"#ingapore"Jakarta"#ingapore"!anila$ o PA@ !anila to #ingapore o #ingapore Airlines@ #ingapore to Jakarta ' ctober 455'@ 1n #ingapore, however, #ingapore Airlines re*ected the tickets of Grino and his group because they were /T endorsed by PA Grino tried to contact PA?s airport oBce, but it was closed$ o ventually, Grino, et al had to purchase tickets from another airline$ Decause of the ordeal, Grino got sick and was unable to participate in the golf tournament$ 4E August 455F@ When PA and #ingapore Airlines both disowned liability and instead blam blamed ed the the othe otherr Grin Grino o (led (led a comp compla lain intt for for dama damage ges s agai agains nstt PA A,, seek seekin ing g compensation for moral damages$ o PA A@@ (led (led a !oti !otion on to +ism +ismis iss s argu arguin ing g that that the the comp compla lain intt was was barr barred ed by prescription under the Warsaw Convention$ :Art$ -5@ - year prescriptive period; •
•
• •
DODOT
CASE #663
PA had received the demand letter on -E January 4558 more than ' years prior to the (ling of the complaint$ .TC@ +/1+ the !t+ /CC and other pertinent laws of the Philippines /T the Warsaw Convention was applicable$ CA@ +1#!1##+ the petition for certiorari (led by PA held that Art$ 4488 of the /CC :4 year prescriptive period; was applicable$ o
•
•
#SS+S' 1. /as te o23laint arred HL6' Petition 6N#68 1. N$. (e year 3resri3tive 3eriod under te /arsa "onvention does N$( a33ly : instead, at a33lies is te 4 year 3resri3tive 3eriod under te N"" ;or ations ased on torts8. The Warsaw Convention applies to Hall international transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by any aircraft for hireH its cardinal purpose is to provide uniformity of rules governing claims arising from international air travel, thus, it precludes a passenger from maintaining an action for personal in*ury damages under local law when his or her claim does not satisfy the conditions of liability under the Convention$ #@ #ummary Case at bar@ Grino?s complaint alleged that both PA and #ingapore Airlines were guilty of gross negligence, which resulted in his being sub*ected to Hhumiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, serious an9iety, fear and distress$H o The emotional harm su)ered by the private respondent as a result of having been unreasonably and un*ustly prevented from boarding the plane #%=+ D +1#T1/G=1#%+ I.! the actual damages which resulted from the same incident$ =nder /CC :Torts;@ emotional harm gives rise to compensation where gross negligence or malice is proven$ o #ingapore Airlines allegedly barred Grino from boarding the #ingapore Airlines &ight because PA allegedly failed to endorse the tickets of private respondent and his companions, despite PAs assurances to respondent that #ingapore Airlines had already con(rmed their passage$ An ation ased on tese alle
delay in trans3ortin< teir 3assens "o23laint ould ave een ti2e%arred under Artile 9 o; te /arsa "onvention. •
•
•
DODOT
CASE #663
